HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:18:16 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.221609.5414@athena.mit.edu> sybok@m4-035-8.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>In article <53161@mimsy.umd.edu> andy@sail.stanford.edu (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>Under the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990 (part of the Crime Control
>>Act of 1990, HR 3757, signed by Bush on Jan 29,1991 and unopposed by
>>the ILA), it "shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor", punishable by 5
>>years and/or $5k*, for non-licensees to possess a gun within 1000 ft
>>of a school.  Unloaded guns in locked containers or in locked racks
>>are okay, but none of those non-locking long gun cases qualify.  It
>>will be expensive to figure out whether or not a locked trunk or glove
>>compartment qualifies.
>
>What's a "school"--does it include a college?

Yes.  It includes private schools as well.  The interesting question
is whether or not it includes home schools, except that the zones
associated with other schools alone are sufficient to pretty much
cover urban and suburban US.  They certainly cover all of the major
roads.

>What happens to people who *live* within 1000 feet of a school.  Do they
>have to give up their guns?

They're okay as long as they stay on private property.  If they leave,
they must comply or face the consequences.

"Licensee" apparently is a reference to concealed carry permit
holders.

>Why didn't the NRA tell us about this?

Possibly because they weren't having any luck getting you to do
anything about the other stuff going through.  Given that, why bother?

I'm not a fan of the NRA, but it does give you plenty of opportunities
to make a difference.  If you don't take advantage of them, it's
rather silly to complain that you didn't have others.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: Leroy.Pyle@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Leroy Pyle)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: NRA excludes Libertarian
Date: 9 Apr 92 05:18:55 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:143/223 - The Paul Revere Net, San Jose CA

-> From: cavasin@convex.com (Vince Cavasin)
-> Date: 8 Apr 92 16:13:31 GMT
-> Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., US
-> Message-ID: <cavasin.702749611@muse>
-> Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
->
-> This sort of policy is EXACTLY what keeps Joe Average American ignora
-> the
-> LP and its views.  And Joe Average American includes a hell of a lot
-> owners who have never heard of the LP and would probably be quite
-> enthusiastic
-> about our cause if they were exposed to it.
->
-> O'Grady to give the current ILA policy a second thought.  If you have
-> interest in seeing the LP get some exposure and/or seeing your second
-> amendment rights respected, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE join me in protest
-> this
-> policy of the NRA.  Even if you aren't a Libertarian, even if you're
-> pro-gun-control, this policy stinks.
->
Why do you think it is the NRA's responsibility to publicize the LP and
its views? You think the policy stinks because NRA membership monies
are not used to promote the LP? You blame the NRA and its policy for
the LP's lack of exposure?
I do not mean to demean your enthusiasm for shared ideals, but you
cannot blame the NRA for your organizations current level of
acceptance. It reminds me of the enthusiast who sits at his computer
and comes up with the WORLDS GREATEST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
THAT WILL SAVE THE WORLD FROM ALL EVIL and then blames the NRA because
it is not readily accepted.
The LP has come a long way and is contributing a great deal to shared
philosophies. You do a disservice with your agitation.
         Leroy Pyle
         NRA BOD


3
--  
Leroy Pyle
UUCP: uts.amdahl.com!kennel!223!Leroy.Pyle
INTERNET: Leroy.Pyle@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG
"The views expressed above are those of Leroy Pyle only."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: using guns to stop rapes
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<1992Apr2.214353.15425@athena.mit.edu>
	<LAMBERT.92Apr6025720@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Apr5.211207.5973@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:10:33 GMT

>>>>> On 5 Apr 92 21:12:07 GMT, ejohnson@cs.washington.edu (Eric Johnson) said:
> (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>Eric Johnson had assumed that the reduction in the rape completion
>>would apply to armed women, whereas the original statistic was women
>>who used a gun in self defense.  His statement would be true only if
>>armed women always were able to use a gun for self defense.

> Well, I apologize for mixing up 'armed women' with 'those who can
> use a gun in self defense'. I guess I made the wrong assumption that
> an armed women would automatically use the gun for self defense if
> attacked, but apparently you don't see it that way. I don't much see
> the point of the woman being armed then, 

(Boy, if I were Terminator I could really have fun taking the last
sentence out of context :-)  You still haven't got the point I was
trying to make.  Can you not think of cases when, in spite of carrying
a gun or having one handy at home, you are not given a chance to use
it?

Since guns would appear to be used in self defence in less than 1% of
rape attempts, it would seem that unless armed women comprise a
similar percentage of women, it would seem that cases where an armed
women is unable to use a gun for self defence are reasonably common.

I tried to find some more data on weapon use in defence against
rapists and turned up "Rape victimization in 26 American Cities".  In
this survey, guns or knives were used in defence in 2% of rapes and
attepeted rapes, and the completion rate was 3% when these weapons
were used.

Tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx21.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Stop Handguns Postcards
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:23:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
X-Bytes: 

(paraphrasing from memory)

Mike Beard of the National Coalition Against Gun Violence has put out an  
activist book for people wishing to support the movement to ban handguns  
in the U.S.  This book is a collection of pre-addressed post cards for you  
to sign, stamp, and mail to various politicians, civic leaders, and media  
people.  Each card has a brief anti-gun statement like:  "Last year 22,000  
Americans died as a result of handgun violence.  In England in 1988 only 9  
people were murdered with handguns." and a call to support "the regulation  
of and eventual banning of handgun sales."

One of the more interesting cards is meant for the head of the American  
Medical Association.  This card states something like:  handguns are more  
deadly than heart disease, cancer, and influenza and that unlike these  
disease all handguns are inevitably fatal.  

The cards lie, exagerrate, contradict, omit, etc. (of course)
They are also two-faced in the sense that a card to the NRA says the group  
just supports a waiting period so that "law abiding citizens may preserve  
their right to own firearms..." while almost every other card calls for a  
handgun ban and/or trashes the RKBA.

-----
This litte collection of drivel is on sale in bookstores for around $4.95

Which gave me an idea.  If you find one, buy it and annotate the "facts"  
on each card with your own pro-RKBA comments, statistics, facts, etc.   
Then buy the stamps and send in your "special edition" cards to the  
designated recipients (if you are concerned about the legality of altering  
the cards which are copyrighted, then you could put your comments on a 3 x  
5 stapled to the original...)  sending to every designated person would  
proabably be too expensive, but you could send to 10 for only a few  
dollars.

RIK
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,fido.rtkba
From: sybok@m11-113-5.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
Subject: Re: Article "TURN 'EM IN"
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:48:04 GMT

>	However, do be aware that the dispatcher may have your name, 
>   address and phone number if you call 911, so ... use a payphone.   

BATF has a toll free number for reporting your neighbor--(800) 876 GUNS.
Now, I'm not responsible if any of you misuse this information and post
it as an erotica site bbs number to alt.sex, of course.  I also won't
be held responsible for exchanges like the following:

"Hello.  BATF?"
"Yes?"
"EAT ME!!! (Slam down phone.)"
From: vanremme@ee.rochester.edu (Bill VanRemmen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:00:43 GMT
Organization: Univ of Rochester, College of Engineering and Applied Science

In article <1992Apr9.070114.1408@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.000921.995@ee.rochester.edu> vanremme@ee.rochester.edu (Bill VanRemmen) writes:
>>>


>>I doubt that even the great Australian Public-Safety gods could get there 
>>in THAT amount of time!!!
>>
>>But someone living there might have enough time to smell the smoke
>>and react.
>>
>Sure. But you don't need a fire extinguisher. People put
>out fires before fire extinguishers were invented.
>

WHAT ?!?!?!

Yeah, and people recovered from illness before antibiotics...

And people traveled before the internal combustion engine...

And people wrote before the word-processor...

You may be the first computer-literate Luddite I have ever met!



>>Violent attacks can happen just as fast (or faster).  Self-defense
>>is up to the individual (by definition).
>>
>So?


So, if it is up to the individual to defend himself, then it is up to
the individual to be *prepared* to do so!  Only that individual can
make the determination as to whether to use words or weapons (baseball
bats included) to effect that defense!



>
>-- 
>   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
>    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
>    was swatting at flies.




-Bill VanRemmen
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: UK court approves use of shotgun
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:28:53 GMT

David Bowman writes:
> Robert Osborne writes:
[note that all context has been removed by David]
> >
> >David Bowman:
> >> I can think of loads of scenarios where running away is not
> >> possible. I could not equal the champion of whatifs though!
> >> But this thread was about people who were in a position
> >> when they *could* run away.
> >
> >Awww-right! I'm now "Champion of Whatifs" and a "Ratbag"!
> 
> No. You are not the Whatif champion. You have a long way to
> go before you beat him! 

Well you post implies that it was me you were talking about.
Just who is the Champion then?

> Further, I didn't call you a ratbag, but you can claim the title if you like.

David you are lying.  I'm the penny killer remember?
How can we carry on a conversation when you LIE!

> >Sorry David, this thread was about fighting.  What you are talking
> >about is a "duel" (commonly called a "step outside" where I'm from).
> >In a "duel" either of the participants can decline or run away.  A
> >fight isn't quite so civilized and often isn't so voluntary.
> >
> It takes two to fight!

You are right;  when the victim doesn't fight back it is called a
'beating'.   You now have two new words for your vocabulary.
A few more years of this David and you might be able to write
as well as you lie.

If you hadn't removed the context before posting David,  you might
realize that what we were talking about had nothing to do with
the number of participants. We were talking about their willingness
to be involved in the fight.

Of course it is difficult to lie when you include proof that you
are lying.

> >In the Canadian form of english, duel and fight are not interchangeable.
> >But then you Australians can redefine your language at will,  now
> >can't you.
> 
> Well at least we speak English!

No,  you speak Australian.  Don't you remember, that's why we don't
understand half of what you, Brian, and Susan are saying.  Or were
you lying about that as well.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@m4-035-17.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
Subject: Re: Guns and Rape
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:41:30 GMT

>I think the reason that the "deterrence theory" seems so plausible, is
>that we assume criminals think like ourselves.  If I were a criminal,
>I would be deterred by the thought of encountering an armed victim,
>but I'm not a criminal, so my though tprocesses do not give much
>insight into the way criminals think.

Note this last sentence.

>Unfortunately, criminals do not
>think of the future, are just the sort of people who will not be
>deterred by the potential consequences of their actions.

You just said you don't have much insight into the criminal intellect,
and then you go on to tell us "just the sort of people" criminals really are.
That's sleight of hand, not logic.
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Susan is still only thinking about herself
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:20:08 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <2252@sys.uea.ac.uk> jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) writes:
>In <1992Apr3.232344.8722@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David
>Bowman) writes:
>>Would you shoot someone who tried to steal your water-skis in the middle
>>of the Sahara Desert?
>
>One of the truly deep philosophical conundrums, ranking with "How many
>angels can dance on the point of a pin?", "Did Adam have a navel?", and
>"What's the difference between a duck?"

Sorry Richard, I should have put smilies there. I was alluding
to a certain poster who loves raising hypotheticals.


-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:13:22 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr9.110207.29427@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (wayne john warf) writes:

>Neighorhood Watch, crime avoidance programs and martial arts: Lord,
>they could teach us so much if we only listened! We don't we have
>any of these things HERE, now do we?
>
>Of course, if you don't have the same problems, why do you keep
>proposing the same solutions? Leave us to our own ignornant devices.

Because (listen carefully), the reason we don't have the same
problems is that we don't think violence is the way to go.
-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: CBS  *LIES*  vs.  Kileen motives
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:19:59 GMT

I also wonder if CBS mentioned that several patrons regularly carried
before the law was changed to make carry illegal and could have
stopped the killing except that they were obeying this stupid law.
Thus everyone was defenseless. I didn't watch the show mentioned but
I bet there was no mention of Dr. Gratia for example. Does anyone remeber?

				mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:46:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.205735.13360@ms.uky.edu> uk09365@nx03.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten) writes:
>A question:  Now evidence is coming out that Mr. Perot is NOT so ANTI-RKBA  
>as we had thought (and maybe is not too bad at all) EXCEPT, WHY is the  
>media still reporting Perot as being "in favor of gun control"...

Perot has said "If the gun lobby wants crazies to have machine guns,
then they'll vote against me."  Since the media thinks that "the gun
lobby wants crazies to have machine guns" ....  Of course, the
interesting question is whether or not Perot thinks that.

While I don't think that we have any evidence to support the "Perot is
anti-RKBA", we don't have any real evidence about his actual positions
either.  We don't even know if he knows the meaning of what he's
actually said.  (For example, does he know that "I don't have any
problem with law abiding citizens owning guns" rejects the HCI
position?  Does he know that his stated positions are pretty much
straight-line NRA?)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: 1,talk.politics.guns,fido.rtkba
From: kossack@rice.edu (Jordan M Kossack)
Subject: Re: Article "TURN 'EM IN"
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 06:51:09 GMT

 (Excerpted from article "TURN 'EM IN" from March 1992 PROponent)
 (posted as article <0BmsiB1w164w@bluemoon.rn.com> by Dennis Carney)

                           [ ... ]   
-      The "tears" program has two parts:  One is to ask the public
- to call 911 to report persons seen with weapons "especially on
- street corners."  The other is a hot line (645-GUNS) that residents
- can call if they want to turn in their guns to police.  The police
- will then supposedly see that they are destroyed.


	I suggest that residents of Columbus (and cities with similar 
   programs) do their civic duty and report armed people, especially 	
   if said person is wearing a police or security guard uniform.  If 
   an Anglo cop pulls over some Latino teens, report it as "an armed
   redneck harassing minorities" or if an African-American officer is
   directing traffic, report "a black man with a gun in the middle of 
   the street."  Remember - it is your civic _duty_ to report this.  

	However, do be aware that the dispatcher may have your name, 
   address and phone number if you call 911, so ... use a payphone.   


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
 kossack@rice.edu  |   abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
  (713) 270-9056   |   of the United States."     -- 14th Amendment
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Salmon (sic) Rushdie's insight into America
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:31:13 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr13.140300.7626@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>>> ...
>>>  Will everyone who is in danger of being attacked be provided with
>>>armed bodyguards?  If that service is available to all then I see
>>>no inconsistency in Rushdie being provided these services.  However
>>>if bodyguards are not provided to all, and the government prevents
>>>people from effectively defending themselves, then inconsistencies
>>>abound. 
>>
>>Henry, I am astounded! I thought you would have some understanding of 
>>this case. Rushdie is under a death sentence. There is a price on his
>>head. He is in known danger because some people find a novel he wrote,
>>offensive. He is in a different category that the rest of us.
>>If you can't see this, I pity you.
>
>  Oh, now I see - Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than
>others.  Rushdie is clearly in a different category than others
>who are "in danger of being attacked" because, um, er, well, it
>is clear anyhow, and I can see it.  You can cease your pity.
>> ...
So you think that you for example are under the same death threat
as Rushdie! My pity for you increases.

>



-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: asbestos@nwu.edu (Michael A. Atkinson)
Subject: H. Ross Perot
Organization: Chaos
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 15:03:39 GMT


H. Ross Perot:

*	Anti-RKBA
*	Anti-legalization of drugs (and even if you think drugs are a Bad
	Thing<tm>, you must see that the WoSD doesn't work)
*	Fired one of his employees for having an extra-marital affair (no
	reference available, but I understand that it was just because he
	thought the extra-marital affair is immoral).
*	Basically an authoritarian big-business SOB.

I have a new sign on my dorm-room door: H. Ross Perot is the Anti-Christ!

Now, I know he's probably not the Anti-Christ :-), but he seems to be an
even worse choice than George Herbert "Read my lips" Walker "Let's see
someone call me a wimp after the Gulf War" Bush.
-- 
Michael A. Atkinson | "Why do bad things happen to good people?" I hear you 
asbestos@nwu.edu    |  cry, to which I say, "SHUT THE HELL UP!" - D.S. Cahr

      A Libertarian, an NRA member, and a firearms owner.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Perot quote heard on the radio.
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:26:40 GMT

In article <966@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>"I can't believe the gun lobby wants the crazies to have machine guns.  If
>they do they'll vote against me."
>	- H. Ross Perot on Evans & Novak
>
>Either he is uninformed, or he is dishonest.

I don't see that as an objectionable position.  The NRA doesn't want
crazies to have machine guns, so ....

Note that Perot said in that same interview that he thinks that
registration is a joke.  He also said that the only reason he'd
consider gun control is to disarm violent people; he rejected the
"disarm everyone" assumption of the gun control groups.

The interesting question is whether or not Perot knows what a machine
gun is and what he knows about the relevant laws.  Oh, and then
there's always "Is he lying?"

-andy




--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald)
Subject: Re: Manhood, talking tough, posting in t.p.g., life, universe and
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 12 Apr 92 23:54:15 GMT

cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>> Tell me, when you purchase your gun, do they hand
>> out an extra ration of maturity? 

>I suggest you purchase a gun; in your case it couldn't hurt.

	Rather obvious that in your case it failed dismally.  Could it be
that the transplant failed?


--
|  *   |We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men, and if we were free... |
|*    *|as under natural conditions, our motherhood would be our glory. That |
|    ' |function gives women such wisdom and power as no male ever can       |
|   *  |possess. - Elizabeth Cady Stantoni___________________________________|
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:59:00 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr7.234221.31548@iitmax.iit.edu> draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.232219.8647@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au
>(David Bowman ) writes:
>[...]
>>Instead of watching these gun-slinging movies, I suggest you watch
>>a few Australian films, in order to see life in its fullest, and
>>to get a more balanced perspective on the human experience.
>
>You got it man!  I LOVED those MAD MAX films!  But if that's an
>Austrailian balanced perspective, you people are really sick...
>-- 
You need to see some more recent films, not golden oldies. BTW
I understand _Mad_Max_ was dubbed in America. Can you well
me if this is true?
-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns