HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:59:10 GMT

In article <9301052017.35@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>>>What was her reason for getting a license for the protection of life and
>>>property.  Business?  A substantiated attack?
>>
>>She shouldn't need a reason.  That she feels a need for resonable means of 
>>self defense should be enough.
>
>And the police are paid from the taxpayers money to protect her.

Ah ha!  A blatantly wrong statement.  The Supreme Court has determined
that police have *no* obligation to protect *anyone*.

>>playing by them,"  you should abide by them and work to change them.  Not 
>>accept them because the "state makes the rules."  The state is the servant 
>>of the people, not the master of them.
>
>Why doesn't any press the Supreme Court on the issue?

Gotta get there first.  If things are squashed down so they can never
reach that level then it's obviously not going to happen eh?  

>>Keep a national database of convicted felons.  Have the purchaser present a 
>>driver's liscence.  Dial up the database.  If there is not a "denied" 
>>response, make the sale.  No wait, no elaborate research.
>
>So you take the responsibility away from the police, and put it on 
>the poor bastard who owns a gun store.

This is false logic as well.  How is this different from making the
person wait a time period so a "background check" can be made?  It
isn't, it merely automates the process.  No shift in responsibility
from what exists today.
>
>There is a guy on trial right now, Kenneth Seguin, who comes from the
>next town.  He strangled his kids, and chopped up his wife with an
>axe.  He was a "seemingly" mild mannered vice president at a local
>high tech firm.

He was such a quiet boy.  

>Cases like this have been happening all during 1992 in Mass.

Pardon me for being blunt Rick, but whates the HELL is your point?  SO
far, you've successfully avoided answering most questions presented
you by changing subjects slightly, and going on a different tack.
What opinion are you trying to present?  Or are you playing devils
advocate?  What's the deal?

-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #Space For Rent
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kato@leland.Stanford.EDU (Daniel William Roth)
Subject: Carrying in San Francisco and in general 
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 20:09:33 GMT

A friend of mine, who is a police officer in San Francisco, told
me that it is legal for a citizen to carry an unconcealed firearm in
San Francisco.  It is illegal, however, to carry bullets.

Now, I know this guy to exaggerate a lot, so does anyone else on
the net know if this is true?  Also, how would I go about learning
the gun laws of any particular state (California at the moment) and
locality?

Another subject:  The wife of this same police officer always carries
concealed in San Francisco even though she does not have a permit to
do so.  This police officer (I'll call him "Dave") says that it's crazy
for a woman to walk around San Francisco unarmed (permit or no permit).
Of course his wife handles a pistol excellently and has a cool head on
her shoulders.

But if so many police officers know how crazy it is on the streets, and
they themselves go armed when off-duty (maybe because it's a requirement,
but also for personal protection), why are most police officers against
the idea of civilians carrying weapons?  I understand that some humans act
irrationaly in stressful situations, so nobody would want just any old 
Joe carrying his favorite handgun, but why oppose a proposition which
would allow an eligible citizen who has passed a comprehensive written
test and demonstrated proficiency with a firearm to carry a concealed
weapon?  It would be easy enough to design an objective testing system
which could weed out those more likely to whip out their gun and shoot
someone that ran a stop sign.  You could even have a law which would
give police powers to temporarily revoke a person's permit for recklessly
handling a weapon.  But to ask the citizenry to go unarmed where the
police themselves wouldn't consider going unarmed off-duty seems terrible.
Police Officers surely aren't superior to the general population, as
they come from the general population.  Most cops have much less 
education than I and probably many on this net have.  And some cops
I've talked to are just plain stupid--and they're quite capable of
responsibly carrying a gun.

Now I don't want to carry a gun with me all the time.  But I'd surely
like to do so when I go to San Francisco or San Jose.  And I don't
see why I shouldn't be able to.

Daniel Roth
kato@leland.stanford.edu


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:37:43 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <pa142548.602.726243954@utkvm1.utk.edu> pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <9301021331.43@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>So there seems to be little information on what would happen if everyone
>>in California over the age of 18 was issued a gun.
>>
>>I believe that it would be a catastrophe.
>
>First, no one is talking about issuing call adult Californians a firearm.
>
>Second, you believe wrongly.  The only change would be a dramatic increase 
>in good manners and a decrease in police harassment.


I wonder how this would be treated in the workplace.  I suspect that
companies would be able to ban guns from the premises.  So you leave
your gun out in your car for the crooks.


-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Twilight Zone
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 04:13:43 GMT

Personally, I ALWAYS dress for rape.  Sadly, none of the women folk seem
inclined to want to rape me :((((((((

Thank you very much.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: What Problem Is Supposed To Be Solved, Here? (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:30:25 GMT

In article <9301061300.09@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>I'm unsure about the second question.  Is it saying that people are all
>born with the genetic ability to handle firearms like a pro, or is it

No.  People are all born with the basic natural right to defend themselves, 
and with the basic constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  Further, 
they are all born with the basic native intelligence to follow the 
instruction "don't point this end toward anything you don't want a hole in."

>saying that the people who have flatly said here that everyone should
>have the right to buy arms assumed that buyers would get training, but
>just didn't bother to mention it?

Not at all.  What is stated is that the state has no business to impose 
precondiditons on obtaining means of self-defense.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<9301091923.58@rmkhome.UUCP> <C0p4Fu.ED7@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:18:26 GMT

In article <C0p4Fu.ED7@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:

   Wrong.  If you kill someone in self defense with an illegal gun,
   then you are only guilty of possessing an illegal gun.

This varies a LOT from state to state.  Most states with which I am
familiar have a law that says that any death that occurs in the
comission of a felony is murder; thus, if possessing an illegal gun is
a felony in your jurisdiction, defending yourself with that gun is
almost certainly murder.

Misdemenors vary a lot more.  There is usually a classification scheme
for misdemenors (and for felonies, for that matter), and a death in
the commission of some classes of misdemenor (assault, for example)
may be homicide of some sort, or murder, depending upon your
jurisdiction.

Of course, you may be charged with murder whether the law supports
this or not.  You may also be convicted whether the law supports this
or not.

Your milage may vary.  Disclaimers all over the place.  One thing is
sure; if you use a gun, even justifiably, then in many areas of the
country the system will do its level best to screw you to the wall.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: TIME is on the ropes, asks for forgive
Date: 7 Jan 1993 22:49:15 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan6.162050.20633@amex-trs.com>, skimmel@amex-trs.com (Steve Kimmel) writes:
> I think that no small part of the problem is,
> to use the words of someone several weeks ago, the culture of violence
> that is a big part of American culture.  The first choice for confilict
> resolution has not always been to kill the other person. Where is this
> comming from?  Could Dan Quayle been aiming at the right industry after
> all?  If we say that in all but the most life threatening situation that
> killing is bad, where is this being drummed into little heads?  In church?
> In civics class?  In terminator II and die hard,harder,hardest?

I don't know who else here is a Peaks Freak, but in one of the 
climactic episodes of Twin Peaks, the killer, possessed by super-
natural evil, kills his niece by grabbing her hair, throttling her, 
and slamming her head twice into a wall.  The scene was maybe 40 
seconds long, and David Lynch did NOT film it like they do on 
"Columbo" -- you felt this girl DIE.

The next day, the papers reported that the switchboards lit up with 
offended viewers asking how the network could even CONSIDER showing 
such a disturbing scene.  

My immediate reaction was to want to shake all these people by their 
lapels and shout: "You fucking idiots.  Death SHOULD be 'disturbing.'  
It SHOULD be 'offensive.'  It SHOULD make you feel BAD for the victim.
ALL TV murders should make you feel the way you felt then."

After 30 years of watching Freddy Krueger and Jason carve up mobile meat, 
people may still sometimes feel fear during cinematic murders, but they 
never feel empathy or pity anymore.  Is it any wonder that kids blow
people away today without a second thought?
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:43:47 GMT

In article <9301101355.53@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com
	(Rick Kelly)
>If I set out today to buy an illegal gun, I bet it would take me weeks
>to find someone who would sell to me.

Thank you for playing.

James D. Wright writes in "Kids, Guns, and Killing Fields" that
90% of interviewed incarcerated juveniles reported they had at
least some friends and associates who owned or carried guns.  Don't
you think some of those friends and associates would be willing
to sell a firearm to their friend or associate ?

Get the article and read it; it shows how easy it is for juveniles
to obtain an illegal firearm.

>In Framingham?  It would be extremely difficult to get an illegal gun.

Do you have any proof ?

>In Boston.  Probably fairly easy if you moved in the right circles.

Now you're catching on.  It's easy anywhere.

-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Guns and  Boston Crack Dealers (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:58:46 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee

In article <9301101332.00@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Subject: Re: Guns and  Boston Crack Dealers (Was: Dressed for Rape)
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!agate!linus!alliant!merk!rmkhome!rmk
>From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
>Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
>Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 18:31:37 GMT
>Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)
>Message-ID: <9301101332.00@rmkhome.UUCP>
>References: <ATAYLOR.93Jan7135421@gauss.nmsu.edu> <9301100014.02@rmkhome.UUCP> <16B523162.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>
>Lines: 61
>In article <16B523162.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>In article <9301100014.02@rmkhome.UUCP>
>>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>
>>>In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan7135421@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes
>>>><In article <9301061155.03@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>><   In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan5134603@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) wites:
>>>>
>>>><   ><   I believe there is some benefit in determining if a person is
>>>><   >,   psychologically able to take on the responsibility of owning
>>>>,   ><   a handgun.
>>>><   >
>>>>,   >	Then why isn't Kelly also demanding licensing for cars;
>>>><   >	automobiles are used to cause more deaths than firearms
>>>><   >	every year.<
>>>>
>>>><   I don't know about the laws where you live but cars and drivers here are
>>>><   licensed/registered, and cars get a title search before the registration
>>>><   is granted.
>>>>
>>>>	And do they also determine if a person is "psychologically
>>>>	able to take on the responsibility of owning a car"?
>>>>
>>>>	If not, why not?
>>>
>>>Probably because the primary purpose od automobiles is transportation, not
>>>defense.
>>
>>       I don't get it.  Are you suggesting that guns availability should
>>be controlled because the purpose is for *defense*, not becuase the thing
>>can be a dangerous weapon?
>>
>>       Exactly what other defense items should be so regulated?
>>
>>       Locks?  Mace?  Stun guns?  Maglites?
>>
>>       Enquiring minds wanna know.
>
>Under Mass law:
>
>Mace - requires a FID card
>
>Pepper gas - requires a FID card
>
>Stun guns - even the police can't have them
>
>Saps - requires a pistol permit
>
>nightstick - requires a pistol permit
>
>Double edged weapons longer than 1.5 inches - banned
>
>Switch blade knives - banned
>
>nunchuks - they fall in some gray area
>
>brass knuckles - banned
>
Had a big impact on violent crime, too, didn't it?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Firearms article in Jan '93_The Atlantic_
Date: 10 Jan 93 17:09:46 GMT
Organization: The Courts of Chaos * 501-985-0059 * Public Access Usenet


-> This is a substantial (19 page) story about the Cobray M-11/9.  The
...
-> "In writing this article I deliberately avoided including the
-> predictably angry voices of traditional pro- and anti-gun forces,
-> such as the National

 He obviously hasn't SHOT an M-11/9.  The semiauto is only slightly more
accurate than shooting spitwads with a straw, particularly in rapid
fire.  The early open bolts were even worse, with the big heavy bolt
trundling along in the receiver before slam-firing the cartridge with a
knob on the end of the bolt.  Firing pin?  What firing pin?  And it has
a six POUND trigger pull.

 Some were converted to full auto.  Unless you're quite skilled (which
means burning a LOT of ammo for practice) it's basically a three or four
shot weapon - you can swing it fairly rapidly from side to side while
pulling the trigger, and still put half a magazine in the paper in a
string of nearly-touching holes.  It ain't like Hollywood.

 Of course, the standard 32-round magazine makes the wundernines look
shortchanged, but the M-11/9 isn't in the same league as far as
controllability or accuracy.


-> as those involved in getting a driver's license.  As the laws are now
-> written, a blind man can buy a gun."

 And why not?  As long as they're not mentally incompetent or a
convicted felon, any American adult can own a firearm, subject to local
laws.  A blind person might not be able to shoot at targets, but there's
no reason they can't buy or sell, collect, or just have one because they
want to.


-> This posting is for informational purposes only

 I know you didn't write it, but I think that guy is so full of it it's
running out his ears.
                             

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:17:00 GMT

In article <9301092234.38@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <ARCHER.650.726425410@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>
>>Your gun maybe.  Mine would be concealed, and unless my employer cares to 
>>search me on a daily basis, and get sued, mine would not.
>
>One of the amusing rules of the Massachusetts carry permit for the Protection
>of Life and Property requires that it MUST be concealed.  A friend of mine
>had a hard time with this, as you tend to have to overdress in the summer.
>
>It's pretty hard to conceal an average size handgun unless you wear a
>sportcoat all the time or baggy pants.

Not really.  I'm only 5'8", 160#.  I can conceal a full size, double
stacked 9mm on my person while wearing shorts and a *light* t-shirt.
I'd even be willing to bet you that you couldn't tell if I was armed
or not.
A 1911 .45 is much easier because it's slimmer.  A lady friend of mine
who is 5'1" and about 100# bought a Star Firestar in 9mm, and conceals
it on her person no problem at all.  Now, I will grant you, if you
wear a leotard, or spandex, the outline can give you away...


-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #Space For Rent
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Kennesaw, 1986: Burglary Still Down 85%
Organization: none
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 11:28:51 GMT

>>>>> On Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:19:24 GMT, oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary) said:

> The residential burglary rate in Kennesaw, Georgia dropped sharply
> after a city ordinance requiring heads of household to keep at least one
> firearm in their homes was passed.  The law passed early in 1982.
> In 1986 the rate was still down 85% compared to 1981. (1)

This statistic is essentially meaningless.  If the crime rate
fluctuates, then by picking the right two years to compare, you can
get any result you want.  To make a credible case, you need to provide
data for at least the ten years 77-86.  I haven't seen Kleck's book,
but in his "Social Problems" paper, he uses figures for residential
burglary that are contradicted by the official UCR data.

> What about that study that shows no drop in burglary in Kennesaw?
> Well strangely, the authors used the total burglary rate not the
> more relevant residential burglary rate.

Does the UCR data break burglaries down into residential and
non-residential ones?  If not, then in the absence of reliable data on
residential burglaries, it is best to use total burglaries.  Since
this includes residential burglaries, it would be suprising if a
reduction in the residential rate did not appear as a reduction in the
total rate.

>   In another strange error(*), the authors did not account for
> Kennesaw's seventy percent population increase over the period. (2)

The population would have to increased by over 500% between 81 and 85
for there to be an 85% drop in the population adjusted rate, and no
reduction in the actual number of burglaries.

The population increase would occur gradually over the period and
could not mask an abrupt change in the burglary rate, so dividing the
number of burglaries by the population will not change the result of
the interrupted time series analysis: Here are the burglary rates
76-86, assuming a population growth of 70%, normalized to the 76
population value.  Each * represents 5 burglaries.


**	       **	      **
**       ** *  ** *  *        **
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86
                  ^
                  Law        
The rate does not appear to be lower after the law.
Average 76-81 is 29
Average 82-86 is 26
The average after is a little lower.  To test the significance of
this, I use Student's t-test.  I compute t=-0.13 with 9 df, p=0.51,
that is, 51% of the time chance will produce a change this large.
This obviously not significant.

In any case, a population increase of 70% weakens any evidence for a
deterrent effect.  Such rapid growth means Kennesaw changed
significantly during the period in question, so even if there was a
significant reduction in burglaries, we don't know whether one of the
other changes in Kennesaw caused it.

Tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 18:40:46 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <1993Jan10.040214.959@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>> >rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>> >>There is slightly more to it than that.
>> >
>> >What?  I've been handling firearms for over two decades and I have 
>> >yet to put a hole in anything that the barrel wasn't pointed at.
>> 
>> I can say the same thing, myself, but I've seen other people who 
>> weren't quite so lucky.
>
>please explain to us how the bullet exited from the side of the gun.
>or was it the rear? regardless, i'm sure a lot of people would be
>interested in this little feat of marksmanship.

So your saying that from the moment that they first pick up a gun, people
have the control to always put a bullet exactly where they want it to
go?  That they would have enough control to fire off a whole clip of 9 mm
as fast as they can, and they would be in control of the barrel the whole
time?

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
From: post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:38:47 GMT
Subject: Re: The homophobia question comes to a stopping point
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

David Veal writes about an anonymous persons perceptions of the NRA and
homophobia:

 >       You won't ever *have* a capacity to investigate something if
 >you refuse to make an effort.  (Sounds like a cheap cop-out excuse,
 >to me.)

If anonymous person is really interested, why don't they pop over to
soc.motss and ask if anyone had been refused membership or thrown out of the
NRA solely because they were gay?

Or for $25 they can join the NRA and send a letter to the president
explaining that they are gay, does it make a difference.  And wait for a
response.

David Post  davep@hpfcpp.fc.hp.com  hplabs!hpfcla!post