HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: malloy@NPRDC.NAVY.MIL (Sean Malloy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:04:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: skinner.9204081804.AA04894
Organization: Navy Personnel R&D Center, San Diego

In article <1992Apr8.005718.15174@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au writes:
>Well in Australia, the police recognise that private gun ownership
>does not help minimise crime, and that it has the opposite
>effect. That is why the Police Associations plus the Chief
>Commissioners are right behind our gun laws, specifically
>the new ones which prohibit the ownership of guns for
>"self defence".

From the information Brian collected showing that Australian police,
while they are obligated to _respond_ to crimes, have no obligation
to _protect_ an individual from criminals. In point of fact, there's
no practical way for a police force to provide _protection_ to every
individual. From the statement above, we see that the Police
Association and the Chief Commissioners are strongly opposed to
letting individuals protect _themselves_. The police can't protect
you, and they won't let you protect yourself -- what protection does
the individual _get_?


-- 
random sig #118:
Sean Malloy                                  | We're tired of third-rate
Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | incompetents in public office --
San Diego, CA 92152-6800                     | we want first-rate incompetents.
malloy@nprdc.navy.mil                        | 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: wayne john warf <wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 11:13:17 -0500

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:
>>>
>>>No. I suggest you do something about the services your
>>>country provides.
>
>>
>>I recently saw a fire safety film in which an entire room was involved 
>>in a fire about 90 SECONDS after initial ignition.
>>
>>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.

By the same logic, you don't *need* a kitchen stove either. People
ate raw meat before cooking was invented.

>>Violent attacks can happen just as fast (or faster).  Self-defense
>>is up to the individual (by definition).
>>
>So?
>
So, it helps if one can respond quickly instead of having to just
stand around and think happy thoughts. Did that really have to be 
spelled out for you?


-- 
 *  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
From: sybok@m4-035-17.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
Subject: LIFE AS SEEN BY THE TERMINATOR
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:10:43 GMT

Looking for articles to kill...

/From: brian@coombs\.anu\.edu\.au/h:j
32377   Junked
32378   Junked
/From: susan@coombs\.anu\.edu\.au/h:j
32379   Junked
32380   Junked
32381   Junked
32382   Junked
32383   Junked
32384   Junked
/From: db@matilda\.vut\.edu\.au/h:j
32398   Junked
32399   Junked
32400   Junked
32401   Junked
32402   Junked
32403   Junked

[Type space to continue]

Automation at work!  Ain't it great?

                       "Let every man be armed!"



Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: Mike Tighe <tighe@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Originator: tighe@convex1.convex.com
Reply-To: tighe@convex.com
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:56:48 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:

>NRA doesn't tell us, it's membership, anything when it comes to making
>deals that many members would consider utterly dispicable.
>Like:

<deleted>

You forgot the BIG one. The 1986 Machine-gun ban! Snuck in at the last
minute as part of a compromise to get the Firearm Owners Protection Act
passed. I remember it well, I dumped my NRA membership shortly thereafter.
With "pro-gun" friends like them, who needs HCI?
-- 
Mike Tighe, (214) 497-4206
tighe@convex.com
From: earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:21:04 GMT
Organization: Dewey, Screwum & Howe, Inc.

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 does "non-licensee" mean?  Does this mean anything to me if I go down to
the store, buy a hand/long/shot gun, fill out the paperwork, wait 2 weeks,
pick up the gun, load it and place it in my dresser draw (unlocked)?  Or
does this law apply only to people carrying the gun outside their home on
their person or car?

I guess the phrase "possess a gun" is what caught my eye...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: wayne john warf <wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: 1000 feet
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 10:52:54 -0500

In article <1992Apr9.035027.16182@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> wayne john warf <wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>In article <RkDwiB1w164w@upchrch.UUCP> joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  ) writes:
>>ejohnson@cs.washington.edu (Eric Johnson) writes:
>>
>
>>It is illegal in Florida to carry a firearm into any college or
>>university facility (790.06(12)). I'm a little curious about what
>>facility means. Does it mean I would be in violation of the law
>>as soon as I stepped on campus or only when I entered a building?
>
>I went and read 790.06(12) and though ambiguous, I think it
>probably means campus especially as it uses facility in the
>same way in the clause relating to "elementary or secondary 
>school" as it does in the clause relating to "college or
>university." At least it exempts college or university students,
>employees and faculty from the prohibition. 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Went back and read it again this morning, looks like the exemption is only
for nonlethal weapons...damn...I thought they were being progressive...oh,
well.






-- 
 *  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: guillory@cls.com (George Guillory)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Murder rates for Washington D.C.
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 07:08:20 CDT
Organization: C & L Software, Houston, TX

Could someone e-mail me the murder rates for the Washington D.C MSA for
the years 1986-1976.  My library does not have the FBI UCRs prior to
1974 and they do not break out the figures for Washington D.C. 
prior to 1976.  
Please e-mail so we can save some bandwidth.

George Guillory

guillory@cls.com   or   ...!uunet!cls!guillory   (George Guillory)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Ohio House Bill 709
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:41:23 GMT
Keywords: ohio, hb 709, parents criminally liable for childs actions

In article <1992Apr9.223723.9561@ee.rochester.edu> vanremme@ee.rochester.edu (Bill VanRemmen) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.042001.1004@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>>The Ohio House Judiciary and Criminal Justice Subcommittee meeting
>>of April 8th discussed H.B. 709.  This bill would make PARENTS or
>>guardians criminally liable [jail time!], if their CHILD takes a gun
>>belonging to his or her parents to school!
>
>I'm risking a serious flaming here...
>
>I am strongly pro-RKBA, and a member of both NRA-ILA and SCOPE.
>
>It seems to me that owning a gun, while most certainly a RIGHT, entails
>a certain personal responsibility to see that the gun is not misused.  If
>you have minor children, that responsibility extends to them as well.
>
>>Just the way for a child to stick it to his parents that he doesn't
>>get along with.
>
>If you have a child that you don't get along with (major problem as opposed
>to a minor child 8-), you probably should take extra precautions to see
>that that child can't get your gun!
>
>If the parent takes said precautions and the kid STILL gets the gun,
>the parent should not be held liable.

The only flaming I'm going to give you is for not reading what I wrote.

The bill makes no exceptions [as I understand it] for any precaustions
a parent or guardian may have made.  That's the troubling thing about
this law.  It doesn't matter if you have a trigger lock, or if you don't
have any ammo in the house, or even if you bought a $1000 Fort Knox safe.
You are screwed if your kid takes your gun to school.  Period.  Got it ?!?

One argument is that parents should always be responsible for the actions
of their children.  This is okay to an extent but children have minds of
their own and can get into trouble no matter what their parents do to
raise them right.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
"Fight fire with fire, I always say." -- Bugs Bunny
From: la049137@zach.fit.edu (David Rackmales (HCX Lab/SU90))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Ross Perrot *for* gun control
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:36:55 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne USA

I saw HRP (hmmm, what can we do with that acronym...) on a 
panel discussion before the ASNE (American Society of Newspaper
Editors).  And I saw him on Evans and Novak.

1.  Evans and Novak.  First of all, I was driving home and a soundbite
came on the radio.  It was HrP saying,"If I say I want to keep guns
out of the hands of violent people, the NRA won't support me". 
Then, later I got to hear the ENTIRE interview on the actual
show.  Well, here's what he really said:
	"We have to get guns out of the hands of violent people.
Registration will NOT do it.  Do [Evans] you think that a drug dealer
cares about gun registration?  He can get a gun easier than anybody."
I must confess that I forgot the rest, but the NRA comment was not an
anti-NRA.  He was expressing a sense of frustration over a perceived 
notion that the NRA want's to keep guns in the hands of crazies.  Wait,
Perot, did not say that the NRA DOES want guns in the hands of crazies!
He made sense to me on the violent people issue.  And, the NRA, much
like Perot, <I suspect, is frustrated with a judicial system that makes
it easy for violent people (i.e., felons, etc) to get guns.  He did
not make any comments about assualt rifles on the show.

2.  the ASNE discussion.  Regarding the "war on drugs"..  He said
that he'd pole the American people and get a concensouS regarding the
drug problem.  Now the newspeople, being stupid useless eaters, kept
wanting "it" in 30 seconds.  Perot said he'd need "...at least an hour..."
to explain the details.  I, like most Americans who can think, 
understood right away what he was talking about:
	What are you (i.e., the American people) willing to put up with
in order to rid our Nation of drugs?  

Perot makes sense when he talks!  He said, "...go to any elite high
school.  You'll find the kids doing cocaine!  Drugs are not just an
urban problem.  They're everywhere..."  

I, myself, am pretty much a violent pro-gunner.  For example, I think that if
a person has served his sentence in jail then all of his rights (including
2nd amandment>) should be restored.  But, I don't think that Perot wants
to ban guns.  He sees crime as a problem.  He doesn't want to punish
or restrict honest citizens.  BUT, he is ready to do SOMETHING.

Well, are we going to vote in a doer?  Will he be like Polk?

What are we, the people, willing to put up with in order to restore order?


--
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: And they called it a "Police Riot!"
Keywords: rodney king / chicago '68 convention
Date: 13 Apr 92 13:16:25 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.

In article <1992Apr13.010213.5102@athena.mit.edu> sybok@m4-035-17.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>Everyone in favor of gun control raise your right hand.  (Picture of
>Hitler appears without his right arm locked in the Nazi salute.  Behind
>him, three huge flags bearing swastikas hang in a row.)


And if thing keep on going the way they have been in the VA
legislature, 

I am going to buy ads like this out of my own pocket.

I'm getting more than a little tired of being treated like a sheep by
these bums.

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-P  NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time
with the blood of patriots......and tyrants.
           - Thomas Jefferson
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-239-8993  or  703-764-0527  To log in for trial and account info.
From: rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Manhood, talking tough, posting in t.p.g., life, universe and
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:09:47 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <susan.702534881@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:

>	As for your example, it is indeed a relavent example for a different
>situation.  I wonder though, just how useful a gun is in such a situation?
>Are you proposing that wymmin should shoot their husbands?  Don't you find
>it interesting that the majority of victims in Australia who are killed with
>guns are in fact wives?

Do men ever kill their wives by other methods, such as stabbing, beating
or strangulation?  If so, I think you would be better off changing their
behavior, instead of spending all this time telling us how terrible things
are here in the US, and how evil guns are.  What?  You can't change their
behavior?  Funny, I keep seeing Australian posters telling us that we
should change *our* criminals into decent human beings...

>the majority of victims of gun homocides are wymmin in Australia Geoff.
>They are the victims of these "equalisers", not the men, which is one
>reason why so many feminists in Australia are in favour of gun control
>as they see it as one more way in which the security of wymmin can be
>assurred.

Perhaps they should wake up and take responsibility for their own lives.
Whether that means leaving an abusive husband, pressing legal charges
against him, or having the means to protect her life against him (or
anyone else who would kill her).  Gun control will not do a thing to
keep abusive husbands from punching, strangling or stabbing their wives.
Most likely what you'll find is that those who are determined to use a
gun in a criminal act will not turn it in when it's outlawed or will
get one on the black market.  Even in Utopia, a criminal is still a
criminal.  All you'll do is deprive yourselves of one means of self
defense, which, no matter how distasteful you find it, could be necessary
as a last resort.  But, hey, if you want to remain oppressed, that's
your business.

---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@            *
                                                    _ _ /|      *  *  *
                                Ack Pffft Thwerrp!  \'o.O'       * * *
                                                    =(___)=  * * * O * * *
Roberta Taylor  KB2OOA        | rlt@gummo.att.com      U         * * *
AT&T Bell Labs, Whippany, NJ  |                                 *  *  *
                              | Member, Unorganized Militia of     *
 NRA/CCRKBA/SAF - Life Member |    The People's Republic of        |
   GOA - Annual Member        |          New Jersey              \ |
                                                                  \| /
Would the last American to leave New Jersey please bring the flag? |/
                                                                   |/ 
@----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}   ______|______
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: UK court approves use of shotgun
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:38:29 GMT
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University

In article <1992Apr9.064732.947@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
> ...
>No Australian or American has posted anything along
>the lines of blaming the victim. I don't know why you keep saying it.

  Perhaps because it is true?  At least two Australians have taken
the position that if an innocent person (victim) is attacked and
uses force in a defense that the victim is to be blamed, and that
the attacker is not to be blamed.  It was also stated that the
attacker is not to be blamed (or harmed by defensive measures, or
even potentially harmed by defensive measures) because crime is 
the fault of society, not of the criminal.

>Maybe you think if you say it often enough, someone will believe
>it.

  I hope so.

--henry schaffer
From: rushing_tw@lrc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Guns on school property
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:01:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC

> There is nothing in Washington State law prohibiting carry on college campuses
> (with an easy-to-get concealed weapon permit). You cannot carry into a 
> place where the liquor board restricts access to those 21 years of age and 
> older. Now the UW police seem to think there is something in law against 
> carrying, but I have copies of all the state laws and there is nothing. 
> The UW police can never quite seem to find which law it is. 
> 
> In any event, better to be judged by 12...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Must be nice to be able too...

Here in NC, it is a FELONY to carry an gun *OR* ammunition on school property.
We have a small group of us that enjoy target shooting every weekend in a on 
private property that a buddy owns.  It got to the point that since I lived off
campus I was the unofficial 'armorer' of our clique.  At one point I had the
following in my closet: 

Taurus PT99AF 9mm
S&W 4516-1 .45 cal
S&W 629 .44 magnum
S&W Model 39 
Ruger 10/22 
Ruger MkII .22LR
Colt Delta Elite 10mm
Mossberg 500 12ga.
US M1 carbine
Norinco SKS Carbine
Norinco SKS Carbine w/ folding stock
FIE snub-nose .38 spl
1917 US Enfield .30-06

God help the person that broke into my apartment!  ;9
===============================================================================
Travis Rushing..."Trigger"  |  
LR College		    |  If it shoots, runs on gunpowder, shoots a big
Hickory, NC                 |  bullet, and makes LOTS of noise, thus producing
                            |  recoil - it's cool.
e-mail: RUSHING_TW@LRC.EDU  |  
                            |  
===============================================================================
From: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Salmon Rushdie's insight into America
Date: 6 Apr 92 12:08:40 GMT
Organization: UEA, Norwich, UK

In <1992Apr6.053750.22925@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:

>Who said that everyone in England has a bodyguard?

Well, you seem to think that Rushdie's police protection implies
that citizens don't need forearms.  Perhaps you could explain
your reasoning more fully, or explain what other relevance you
think Rushdie's position has to this discussion?

>Do you think
>that the police should just ignore the threats against SR? Or
>do you think he should be left to defend himself?

I believe that:
	- the police should not ignore the threats against SR
*and*
	- SR and everyone else should be allowed to defend themselves

--
Richard Kennaway          SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.
Internet:  jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk		uucp:  ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: UK court approves use of shotgun
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:47:41 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Apr9.072614.1767@matilda.vut.edu.au>, db@matilda.vut.edu.au 
(David Bowman ) writes:
> >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!

Under this reasoning, how many does it take to rape?  To steal?

Sure is a great formula for cutting your criminal caseload significantly.

In article <1992Apr9.064732.947@matilda.vut.edu.au>, db@matilda.vut.edu.au 
(David Bowman ) writes:

> No Australian or American has posted anything along
> the lines of blaming the victim. I don't know why you keep saying it.
> Maybe you think if you say it often enough, someone will believe
> it.

Uh huh.  It takes two to fight, sez you?
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: ID Numbers
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:58:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: NCoast.1992Apr16.135834.6117
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH



Brian:

Perhaps you don't have ID numbers because the sheep know their names, and come
when called....


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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Now it's what if car tyres catch fire! What next????
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:14:35 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Apr8.010419.15361@matilda.vut.edu.au>, db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
> I have a spare in the boot. It is the law here. 

Thank heavens someone in Oz had the foresight to make it mandatory for
you to carry one -- otherwise it would be forbidden, eh?
-- 

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