HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: LA LAW FAIR TO GUN OWNERS?  NOT!
Date: 13 Apr 92 04:46:09 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: na
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR.

In article <1992Apr10.032749.720@athena.mit.edu> sybok@m4-035-8.MIT.EDU
(The Terminator) writes:
|Just in case you missed it, we pro-gunners have been raped again by
|the anti-gun nazis controlling the media.  Tune in LA Law.  (NOT!)  There's
|a case brought by a black man who's been denied the RKBA by the "housing
|authority." The rich boy lawyer working for the LA LAW firm makes cracks about
|how the black man has received free defense from a "white"--the representative
|of "Americans for Firearms."  (He insinuates that this organization is 
|exploiting the man.)  He spews out the HCI propaganda about how a gun
|is "42 times as likely to kill someone in the house than someone you don't
|know" and all that load of shit--and the pro-gun attorneys don't object
|and counter with their own evidence.  (Yeah, right!)  The script writers
|then have the black man get shot by gang members when reaching for his
|pistol.  Like gangs would be affected by gun control in the first place!!
|The black guy is also accused of shooting at random shadows assuming they're
|burglars--a smear on all gun owners.  This really takes the cake, and not

This was a re-run and was discussed before.  The irony is that an episode or
two later, the same lawyer who was spouting the HCI nonsense uses a handgun
to defend his ex-wife from a homicidal nut-case (kills him in fact).  Later
his conscience bothers him (which if you followed all that went on, it
should have).

|a week after a "redneck" wearing an "NRA-type" cap walks into a restaurant
|on "Beverley Hills 90210" and threatens some lead bitch on the show with
|his shotgun.  At one point she said, "All I saw was a monster with a gun."
|Sarah Brady must be wet with pleasure.

Oh grow up!  I saw this, and if it bothers you, your problem isn't with the
show's bias, but with reality.  The criminal portrayed here wasn't a
"redneck" or a "NRA-type", but a (drug) addle brained punk, who appeared to
be on drugs while he committed the crime.  He was a "monster with a gun".
Are you trying to say there is no such thing?  I saw nothing anti-gun at
all.  No one over reacted.  It appeared to be a fairly accurate portrayal of
an armed robbery and people's reaction to it.  The promotions even suggested
this was a rare or unlikely event.  Lighten up.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef		I am the NRA		  Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef	   . . .  	The only fair tax is no tax!
From: arpajian@mailbox.syr.edu (Dean Arpajian)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: need info quick
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:20:36 GMT
Organization: Institute for Sensory Research

HI... I'm looking for info on pending/ proposed federal & NY state
legislation regarding "gun-control"... As it turns out, I will be
manning (as a volunteer) the NRA booth at the "Central NY Gun Show"
(at the NY State Fairgrounds in syracuse) this weekend... and info
and/or copies of proposed legislation would be good fuel to wake
people up... yes I know this is short notice... I didn't know that
I was going to be in the booth until this morning...

thanks....

also any stats on gun-controll vs. crimerates from foriegn contries
might be helpfull....

please email...
--
Dean Arpajian  /*  aka ---> dean_arpajian@isr.syr.edu   */
               /*           arpajian@rodan.acs.syr.edu  */
std. disclaimer: if I expressed an opinion, remember this:
                 it's simply my opinion. period.
From: jalden@coos.dartmouth.edu (Joshua M. Alden)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Guns and Rape
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:58:17 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In <LAMBERT.92Apr6023501@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:

>The actual number trained represented 5% of the female population of
>Orlando city and 1.5% of metro Orlando.  This is a small number by
>your definition below.  The publicity would have applied to the whole
>metropolitan area, yet there was no reduction in other parts of
>Orlando.

    I don't tend to get into discussions (/arguments) on tpg much
anymore, because I've made up my mind and there are many who are far
more energetic than I who do the job pretty well (though less politely
than I would).

    That having been said (for explanation to those of you who ask me
why I don't contribute much anymore), I should point this out:  It is
true that the publicity in Orlando would have covered the entire
metropolitan area, but that seems a poor reason to contend that the
reaction should have been less focussed.  What would be the reaction
among criminals in neighboring towns when they were informed via the
news media that lots of women in Orlando were trained and carrying?
They would tend to avoid Orlando, I think.

    In fact, it seems to me that widespread publicity would tend to make
the effect more pronounced, rather than more attenuated.

    This is all, of course, theory, but I know of no evidence which
would address the issue of publicity focus one way or another, though
such evidence may well exist.

-Josh.

--
Josh Alden:  Joshua.Alden@dartmouth.edu
EMT Instructor, DMS Health Education And Rescue Training
Ownership of a weapon is a victimless crime.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Article "APRIL 21, 1935 (New World Order?)"
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 01:01:35 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Distribution: usa

The real threat to democracy in America is that President Bush will
use the emrgency powers executive order to take over the country on
the pretext of some national emergency - like losing the next
election, for exampl.
-- 
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
= Candidate Bush wouldn't recognize principle if he were standing upon it =
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Lies, damned lies, and David Bowman
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:53:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: NCoast.1992Apr16.135301.6017
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH



For several days, Little Davey has been claiming that Susan never exhorted
Blacks, gays and other minorities to "pity" skinheads and others who try to
kill them, rather than resist.  Now as anyone who's followed this discussion
knows, that is the biggest of big lies.  To whit:


> >2) If somebody just wants to beat you up, "not getting into a fight" is kind
> >of moot advice.  Or do you think that homosexuals and minorities who are 
> >attacked somehow bring it on themselves?  Is a homosexual unnecessarily
> >provoking his assailant by BEING homosexual?  Am I inciting violence by being
> >Black?  Should I stop being Black to avoid violence...?
> 
> 	Stop bring in unnecessary complications Chris.  We are talking about
> a brawl, you know a "fight" where it takes two or more people to tango?
> Even so, in most of the cases you cite, the person who is being picked on
> usually has, at a very early stage of the altercation a chance to walk away.
> Such bigots should be pitied and ignored, not physically fought against.
> All that will do will inflame the situation even worse.

I knew I had this bouncing around the system somewhere, and got around to
finding it today.  There are few things so satisfying as slapping a liar in 
the face with the proof of his or her own lie.

Choke on it Dave.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
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
	<1992Apr5.211207.5973@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<LAMBERT.92Apr10021033@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Apr10.164524.13829@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:57:49 GMT

>>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 92 16:45:24 GMT, ejohnson@cs.washington.edu (Eric Johnson) said:

> (Tim Lambert) writes:

>> 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?

> Well, I wouldn't consider them armed then. A lot of probably has to do
> with however a given study defines "used gun to defend" whether it means
> shot the attacker, let the attacker know she was armed, etc.

The definition from the 1979 study where the 3% staistic comes from is
"Used/brandished gun or knife".

> I don't consider anyone without their gun (or other weapon) handy to
> be 'armed', so a woman attacked on the street while her gun is at
> home I would consider unarmed.

I would too.  Would you consider someone coshed from behind while
carrying a gun "unarmed".  How about someone with a gun in a draw
beside the bed who wakes up to find a knife at his/her throat?

>>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.

> This is not necessarily true. I believe, and perhaps some of the
> women here on the net can give their input, the following: An woman
> who is concerned enough about her safety to be armed is typically
> more aware of her surroundings, and more likely to avoid high-risk
> situations.

On the other hand, she may have armed herself because she didn't want
to "cower afraid at home"  and goes out more on her own than her
unarmed sisters.  Or she may have armed herself in response to the
high rape rate in her neighbourhood.

Tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Subject: Re: Salmon (sic) Rushdie's insight into America
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 06:09:11 GMT

cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter) writes:


>In article <1992Apr8.224635.22994@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:

[...Background about Rushdie deleted...]

>>>As for my compassion or lack thereof, I didn't say
>>>that Salman Rushdie shouldn't have protection, only that he should provide
>>>for it himself. (of course, he can't in England, as armed bodyguards are
>>
>>Why should he? 

>Because he is a private citizen, and not connected with the British
>government in any way, shape, or form. Therefore, despite his notoriety, I
>do not believe that the government should be charged with his protection.
>Let him hire his own gunsels (oh dear, it's England, so he can't. Tough.)
>or use his government connections to get a CCP.
>>>only available for government officials except by special assignment by the
>>>government, as in his case. So the poor English taxpayers foot the bill for
>>>protecting a millionaire. Piffle.) 
>>
>>Is he a millionaire???? I doubt it. In any case, millionaires
>>have rights too.

The amusing thing in the entire Rushdie episode is he spent a good deal
of his time his prior to the Iranian threat expounding on how the
British government was fascist.  I suspect 1) he hasn't endeared himself
with his full-time bodyguards and 2) his perspective has changed.  Maybe
not...self proclaimed intellectuals are often fairly stupid.

--
Larry                                   |   Thunder makes all the noise;
                                        |   lightning gets the job done.
larryd@milton.washington.edu
I have my opinion; the university has its own.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: wayne john warf <wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Salmon Rushdie's insight into America
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 06:42:10 -0500

In article <1992Apr6.053750.22925@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.015331.11844@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (wayne john warf) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr2.054917.17911@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>>In article <1992Mar29.162702.4993@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>>>>As quoted from <1992Mar28.074238.9344@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):
>>>>
>>>Re Salmon Rushdie,
>>>
>>>>
>>>>And when that Hezbollahi comes walking through the door, in the seconds before
>>>>Rushdie gets his brains blown out, I'm sure that he'll reflect on how fortunate
>>>>he is to live in a country where he didn't have the means to defend himself.
>>>>
>>>You are a bit behind the times, aren't you. Salmon Rushdie is guarded
>>>24 hours a day by experts. His country pays for this service.
>>>He is indeed fortunate to live in England.
>>
>>Well, fantastic, everyone in England has their own bodyguard. Why didn't
>>we think of that?
>>
>Who said that everyone in England has a bodyguard? Do you think
>that the police should just ignore the threats against SR? Or
>do you think he should be left to defend himself?
>
Nooooo, I just can't understand why he simply doesn't run away when
someone threatens him instead of relying on men with *gasp* GUNS.
He could rely on non-violence, you know, but I guess he just doesn't
want to reason instead of force. I can't see how a situation like his
could come about in an enlightened, civilized country like England
where guns bans are more ardent than even OZ. It's an island nation
with easily controlled ports, isn't it? How could any guns get in?
I guess he just likes to have guys with guns around, makes him feel
important. I bet he *wants* to see someone get shot. Couldn't he just
shame any potential attackers into backing down? Maybe if he kept a
load of people on hand to boo loadly, hmmmm.....

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


-- 
 *  WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu**I speak for me,OK?**sic semper tyrannis    *
 *   NRA LIFE* *NRA Certified Instructor* *Penna. R&PA* *Ind. SR&PA   *
 * Department of Decision & Information Systems, Indiana University   *
 * Bloomington, IN 47405 USA* *Pennsylvania CCW Lic.*Indiana CCW Lic. *
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: wayne john warf <wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Brown on Guns (short)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:45:13 -0500

In article <22083@goofy.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
>In article <qmjc2INNhhm@agate.berkeley.edu>, fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank
>Crary) writes:
>> 
>> In article <21768@goofy.Apple.COM> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
>> 
>> >> 	To judge by his actions, Brown is willing to
>> >> 	tear at least one Amendment out of the Constitution
>> >> 	just for starters.
>> 
>> >Or at least, interpret it the way the courts have overwhelmingly
>> >interpreted it for many years.  What a baddy!
>> 
>> Which courts are those? The United States Supreme Court, at least, has on 
>> five occasions handed down rulings that either said or implied that the
>> Second Amendment protected a private citizen's right to freely own firearms.
>> They have made any ruling to imply the reverse.
>
>Well, what I was implying was that Brown seems to feel the Constitution allows
>government to exercise some control over gun ownership.  That, after all is the
>only Constitutional issue raised by his positions.  Are you saying that the
>Court has ruled five times that government may NOT control guns?  If so, how
>come we still have all these gun control laws?
>
>By the way, before any of you gun fanatics go off half-cocked, or half-brained
>as the case may be (sometimes it's hard to tell), I am NOT advocating gun
>control, only responding to an exaggerated attack on Brown.
>
>--
>
>David Casseres
>Exclaimer: Wow!

I see, if you agree with him you're reasonable; if not, you're a fanatic.
No point in discussing it then, eh?
-- 
 *  WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu**I speak for me,OK?**sic semper tyrannis    *
 *   NRA LIFE* *NRA Certified Instructor* *Penna. R&PA* *Ind. SR&PA   *
 * Department of Decision & Information Systems, Indiana University   *
 * Bloomington, IN 47405 USA* *Pennsylvania CCW Lic.*Indiana CCW Lic. *
From: joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:52:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: upchrch.aiF9iB4w164w
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL

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.

Do I understand this correctly? I have a CCW for Florida. Am I commiting
a federal crime every time I drive past a school? It would be hard to
drive any distance in my part of town without driving past a school.
Both the major cross streets in my sub-division have schools on them.
My house can't be more than 2000 ft from the nearest school as the crow
flies.

(If your mail bounces use the address below. My map entry is new.)
Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809
joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 13:35:39 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

As quoted from <1992Apr14.042237.16312@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):

> In article <1992Apr13.215814.19107@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
> >As quoted from <1992Apr11.014355.18095@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):
> >
> >> >Bullshit, Suzy!  If you would listen to what's being said, instead of
> >> >looking for things to justify your accusations of sexism, you would know
> >> >that the use of lethal force is *always* considered an extreme measure,
> >> >to be used only as an absolutely last resort.  Most, if not all, of the
> >> 
> >> Oh sure Roberta.... like in the case of the guy that said he
> >> would kill for a penny; like in the case of the Terminator
> >> saying OZ should be nuked; like in the case of the guy who said he
> >> would attack the guy who tipped beer on me. There are none so blind...
> >
> >Like in the case of Susan who said that gay bashers should be pitied rather
> >than resisted.  Funny how you two don't mind telling other people to die for
> >YOUR sordid "morals".  There are none so blind as David and Susan... other 
> >than their victims of course.
> >
> Susan said no such thing. Why do you have to make things up, instead
> of arguing to the point? Could it be you have no point to make?

She said it and you damned well know she said it.  Your only point appears to
be to demonstrate how clumsily you can lie.

> >> >gunowners here have had enough firearms training to know that.  This is
> >> >talk.politics.guns, not talk.fight.alternatives.  By the time we reach
> >> >the stage of discussing guns, we have dismissed the other alternatives
> >> >as inadequate for the particular situation.  BTW, why do you make sexist
> >> 
> >> Yes.... always the non-violent ways are dismissed. You live
> >> in a violent society. You know no better.
> >
> >Yes.... always non-violent ways are the ONLY ways put forward or recognized.
> >You live in a sheep society.  You know no better.
> >
> Find out about a society before you critisize it. You
> have no idea what you are talking about.

I have a GREAT idea of how it is, based on your posts.  It certainly doesn't
differ from what I stated above... unless you and your accomplices are a tiny
minority of bitter, delusional misfits, who shelter together to avoide the 
contempt of your fellow countrymen/women... on second thought....

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
To: uk09365@nx21.mik.uky.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:40:25 GMT

>> 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 does this mean?

It means that it is a federal crime to transport a gun though a
school zone, except under certain circumstances.

>Is this federal law applicable to all states?  Where  
>in the USC (Section and Chapter) is it listed?

Yes and ask your congress critter.

>What does it mean by non-licensees?  Does this imply that a license is
>available?

It means that they have a transportation problem.  (No FFL can help
you here; you need a state/local carry permit that allows carry in
these situations.)  No license availability is implied and none is
available in many/most states.

>I live in a state which requires no license or permit to own or
>transport firearms.  Please explain.

Tough.  Bend over.

I don't blame the NRA.  It isn't the NRA's fault that gun owners would
rather fight among themselves than fight gun control.  (Given the
difficulty that the NRA had with the more important issues that it did
win that year, any whining about "why didn't they tell us" is stupid.)

HCI has an huge advantage; the gun banners are clever enough to
understand that they can get there one step at a time while many
pro-gun folks reject "two steps forward, one step back".  That's why
their zealots are pushing ours out of the middle and into the fringe,
where they'll be crushed like bugs; they'll still be pure, but they'll
be crushed pure bugs.

Hint: "compromise" has two meanings.  ONe is "give up something for
nothing" while the other is "trade to your benefit".  If pro-gun folks
don't trade with the middle, they'll lose.  (Note that HCI aims its
campaign at the middle, who can be convinced, and ignores us, because
2-1 wins.  Meanwhile, the pro-gun zealots work on HCI, which won't
ever agree.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu