HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Waiting periods and rights
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:24:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology

In article <1992Jul21.125305.2020@tc.fluke.COM> ness@tc.fluke.COM (Jerry Ness)
writes:
>I just picked up on this waiting period thread so...
>
>I have never ever needed to buy a gun of any kind RIGHT NOW!!
>
>A lengthy waiting period to do a background check or just for 
>a 'cooling off' period would certainly not infringe on my rights
>or the rights of anyone I know. 
>
>Plan ahead.

Not always easy.  Someone who happens to witness a gang killing
tonight may want to have a gun tomorrow.

A friend of mine awoke one morning to the sound of breaking glass.  He
grabbed his gun and went downstairs to see what had happened.  He
encountered a man with a knife and promptly shot him once in the
chest, dropping him right away (shattered breastbone---he lived).  The
police came and investigated.  They pronounced it a self-defense
shooting and didn't hassle my friend.  But they took the gun.  Soon
thereafter, my friend started receiving threatening phone calls,
warning him against testifying at the intruder's trial.  If he hadn't
already had a second gun, he probably would have wanted to buy one.
Despite the fact that he had already had a gun, he still would have
had to wait 3 days under Illinois' law.

Waiting periods harm the gun show industry.

I'll admit that these examples are either fairly rare or else not very
important in the grand scheme of things.  However, how important are
waiting periods?  Do they really do any good?  Lots of us don't think
they accomplish much.  It sounds like gun-owner harassment to us.  If
there is no justification for it, then we shouldn't have to do it, no
matter how harmless it is.

>Washington state seems to be missing something in their 'waiting'
>period gun laws. A couple of years ago I decided to purchase a
>new black powder revolver. The revolver I chose is a Ruger Old
>Army .44 cal. There is NO waiting period for a black powder firearm
>in Washington. I bought the revolver, powder, bullets and primers
>and just took them home with me. This does not make any sense.
>Does the law think a revolver of this type can't hurt anybody??

Many gun control laws---existing and proposed---are poorly written.
Your waiting period law arbitrarily affects only some guns.  The Brady
Bill specifies a waiting period but not a background check, and the
waiting period can be extended indefinitely by the local police
because of a loophole in the wording of the law.  (Much of the Brady
Bill opposition arises from this fact.)  The "plastic guns" ban, as
proposed, would have outlawed a ridiculous number of guns, and the
"cop killer bullets" ban would have outlawed all bullets capable of
penetrating a light-weight police vest, including nearly all hunting
ammunition.
-- 

Mark Draughn    | <draughn@iitmax.iit.edu> or <SYSMARK@IITVAX> on BITNET
----------------+ Academic Computing Center, Illinois Institute of Technology
+1 312 567 5962 | 10 W. 31st Street, Chicago, Illinois  60616
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:33:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.033007.17091@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:

>> [forcible, unwelcomed "outing" deleted] would not be

That's YOU?  You, THE RIFLEMAN, are GREG MCLAREN of MIT?  Thanks for
telling me; I didn't know who he was referring to!  Neither did most
other people, I'm sure.  Surprisingly sporting of you.

Welcome to the land of the living, Greg.

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: "Demo Gun Control" (Was: democratic platform)
Followup-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Organization: Rice University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 23:12:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.042911.18398@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>|> Then please explain why Canada has much lower crime rates than the
>|> US?  By your reasoning, all those bad US guns ought to be as available 
>|> to the Canadians as they are to the Mexicans.
>
>The Canadians have a competent and well resourced police force to
>enforce their gun control laws which have the support of their
>population.

	Spoken to many Canadians lately?  (My brother and my 
   mother are Canadian nationals living in the states.  The
   maternal side of my family lives in Canada - mainly Halifax 
   and the Toronto metro area.  Where did you get your info?)  

	Regardless, if a police force is truly "competent and 
   well resourced" then they should be able to prevent violent 
   crime without disarming the citizens.  After all, they seem 
   to be able to prevent stabbings without confiscating kitchen 
   knives.  Nicht Wahr?  


-- 
 Jordan M Kossack  |  "Don't dial 911;    
 kossack@rice.edu  |   Dial M1911A and let it ring seven times." 
  +1 713 240 2073  |         -- sybok@m37-332-1.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Ethics of Using Laboratory Animals
Date: 28 Jul 92 01:55:52 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Jul24.161746@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A 
Ashlock) writes:
>    Yes, and it's already in place.  Here at Iowa State University 
> any experiment using vertebrates has to be approved by a 
> comittee that checks for cruelty, funding for care etc.  I thought
> this was the case most places.
> 
>    What on earth made you think experimentation is unregulated?
> 
 
The efforts of these animal care committees are, at best mixed. In many cases 
they act as rubber stamps that rarely, if ever, reject a protocol. Some 
contributing factors:

1. The committees are typically dominated by people with very strong pro-
experimentation leanings.
 
2. Due to the volume of protocols to be reviewed, often only a few minutes 
can be spent by the committee on any one protocol.

3. Oversight of the committees is minimal. Appointment to them is typically 
done by the same institution that benefits (financially) whenever a protocol 
is passed.
 
4. Much of the material discussed by the committees is labelled confidential, 
making it illegal for committee members to disclose it. This also makes it 
difficult for outside parties to monitor the process. Several lawsuits are 
pending nationwide seeking to gain access (i.e. silent attendance) at these 
meetings.

5. I believe that these committees only are required when federal funding is 
used (NIH) and hence aren't necessary for privately funded experiments (e.g. 
pharmaceutical firms). Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.
 
One committee that I know of has rejected 0 (!) protocols and modified 2 over 
the last couple of years. To be fair, a few months ago a researcher described 
a committee that he had served on that seemed to be much more functional.
 
 
These committees are required, by law, to have one member to represent the 
"interests of the public". This member is often drawn from the animal welfare 
community. Being in a minority of one, this member is often a lone, 
dissenting vote, and many have gotten frustrated with the system. When the 
law was first passed, many animal rights people were concerned that the 
committees would serve little function other than to provide political cover. 
Many people believe that this is indeed what has come to pass. 

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Texas AR Conference
Originator: jjohnson@muse.convex.com
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 20:15:42 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.


Kenneth Whitehead writes:


>jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson) flames back:

you betcha.  what did you expect?  


>I mean, they've gone out of their way to make this thing sound like an open 
>   	    	 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and unbiased forum

the information i originally posted was directly from a flier
sent in the mail to past attendees of this conference.  there 
was no attempt, and certainly no going out of the way, to make
this sound like an unbiased forum.  this debate is part of
an animal rights conference, not a public forum.

>Maybe some of the thousands of hunters in the area would like to actually
>make it into a REAL open forum.  

anyone who pays his registration fee can attend the conference.
again, this is _not_ advertised as an open,  public, forum.

>It would really be a pity if the only folks 
>there to see this "debate" were ARFs; the pro-hunters wouldn't get anything 
>but abuse. 

i would imagine that at a meeting of the Texas Bowhunters Association,
an "ARF" would also be subject to abuse.  however, if the ARF thought
he/she might, through sound reasoning, convince hunters
that their "sport" is both unnecessary and cruel, the benefits would
outweigh the abuse.  any hunter who believes his opinions are soundly
based shouldn't be afraid of testing them against even the most ardent
opponent.


-- 
Jennifer L. Johnson | "If beef is your idea of `real food for real people,'
		    |  you'd better live real close to a real good hospital."
jjohnson@convex.com |			-Neal D. Barnard, President, PCRM
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: HUNT: Omaha's Fontenelle Forest
Date: 27 Jul 92 11:38:16 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <ed.712106363@cwis>, ed@cwis.unomaha.edu (Ed Stastny) writes:
> The deer population has gotten too big for Fontenelle Forest, the
> officials there say they will allow hunting in the forest/preserve only
> as a last resort.  See, Fontenelle borders another forest...Gifford
> Point.  They allow bow-hunting in Gifford (as opposed to the "NO
> HUNTING" rule at Fontenelle).  Gifford is contemplating allowing
> musket-loaders to hunt this year, to bring down the herd count.  I read
> this all in Friday's OMAHA WORLD HERALD.
>  
> I called the director at Fontenelle and asked about alternatives to
> hunting.  He said that they could move the deer to another forest, but
> it would cost a couple thousand dollars (that they don't have to spare)
> and the mortality rate is high for such moves.  He said that the herd
> had a disproportionate amount of does.  Does this mean that there are
> too many does?  I assumed that's what he meant, but when I talked to my
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Yes.

> sister later...she said that too many does is not a problem (but then

Depends on how you define a problem?  Breeding in any species is a complex 
thing.  Generally, once a deer herd is at or near its peak, its a good idea to 
harvest both does and bucks.

> again, she acts like an expert in things she really doesn't know much
> about).  At any rate, I thought I'd just pass this along, given the
> "hunting" threads prevelant.

I hope they do open it to hunting, and I applaud your having the initiative 
to place a phone call and get some answers from the source.

>  
> ....e 
> --
> | Ed Stastny                   | SOUND Now available via: email (from me), |
> | ed@odin.unomaha.edu          | gopher (odin.unomaha.edu), and snailmail. |
> | Staff: SOUND NEWS AND ARTS   |===========================================|
> |        Newspaper and netzine | Death has far too short a fuse, live!
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: BUNCHERS; ANIMAL DEALERS
Date: 25 Jul 92 01:58:54 GMT


 BUNCHERS; ANIMAL DEALERS
 
 
     In Lebanon, Oregon, meanwhile, Class B animal dealers David
and Tracy Stephens and Brenda Linville were to be tried under a new
Oregon anti-pet theft law on April 23 for allegedly obtaining dogs
and cats via fraudulent response to free-to-good-home ads. The trio
also face USDA action, and Linville faces related charges of
illegally obtaining and using other people's driving permit
numbers.  The charges were brought as result of an ongoing probe by
Bobbi Michaels and Dana Entler of the local group Committed to
Animal Protection, Education and Rescue.
 
     Michaels and Entler, along with Julie Grizzel of the Assn. for
Animal Rights, earlier helped secure the charges that put notorious
Class B dealer James Hickey out of business, then put his son
Joseph out of business when Joseph took over the enterprise.  David
Stephens is a former Hickey employee, while Linville purportedly
obtained animals for the Hickeys prior to her association with
Stephens.  Four cats and 25 dogs, seized from the Stephens'
facility, were placed in custody of the Oregon Humane Society.
 
     According to Michaels, David and Tracy Stephens had provided
742 animals to laboratories in the preceding 19 months--many of
them to the Cedars-Sinai teaching hospital in southern California,
which was also the recipient of animals obtained via fraud by
convicted animal thief Barbara Ruggiero.  Convicted through the
efforts of Last Chance for Animals, Ruggiero is now serving a six-
year sentence, while two partners are doing shorter terms.
 
 From: Animals Agenda
 456 Monroe Turnpike
 Monroe, CT 06468
 Issue: 6/92
 
 *  AmNet News Service * BBS 303/223-1297  *
 * P.O. Box 9517 * Ft. Collins, CO * 80525 *
 * N.Y.C. Node 212/724-6826 FIDO 1:278/716 *
 * Denver Node 303/364-2257 FIDO 1:104/536 *
--  
Internet: Amnet.News.Service@f12.n306.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re; Texas AR Conference
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:10:27 GMT

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Perhaps you could volunteer to present the pro-hunting side of 
>the debate so the undecided attendees would have a chance to 
>appreciate the fact that all pro-hunters aren't "yahoos". 

Like I said before, Russ;  I think the people who set up this
conference selected the pro-hunting contingent pretty carefully;
I imagine that they WANT to see hunters represented by the
"Whackmaster", as Nugent calls himself, not somebody who would
portray hunters in a responsible fashion. But aside from that,
I don't have the time, nor am I sufficently articulate for such
a responsibility.

  
>I wonder if the audience will be impressed when you refer to your 
>opponents as "Nutburger", "Pretty Boy", and "running dogs".

Probably about as much as the hunters on this net were impressed by
Caruso calling us scum that should be eliminated.  Hey, let's face
it;  we don't like each other.  Your ideas are diametrically opposed 
to mine (not talking about you personally, but hunters vs. AR people)
and we sometimes engage in rhetoric.  And as I've indicated before, 
I treat Ingrid and Wayne with disrespect because I really, truly
disrespect them.  And I can pretty much do that with impunity, since
they're "public persons".


kw> Oh well, thanks for letting us all know about this, Jennifer.  
kw>
kw> Hope all you Lone Start hunters take a special interest in this 
kw> conference;  maybe you need to pay them a visit and give these 
kw> people a taste of the kind of "opening day antics" they've been 
kw> subjecting hunters to for years. 

>Another interesting idea.  Do you think such a demonstration would
>give Ted Nugent a chance to see how hunters who aren't "yahoos"
>can present the issues in a rational manner?


Well, gosh, all I'm talking about is peaceful protest, nothing else.
You guys do it to us, and I love seeing it done back to you, because
turnabout is certainly fair play.  What's the matter, don't you believe
in the First Amendment?  You certainly fall back on it enough when it
serves your purposes (once again, talking about the AR movement in 
general, not you specifically).  If you don't want hunters showing
up to protest your AR conference, then tell your cohorts not to bother
us at the NRA Whitetail Clinic, etc., and out in the woods.  What goes 
around comes around.


Ken


>>>>-------->  "One shot, quick and clean"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: kbrown@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (J. Keith Brown)
Subject: Re: Hunter's legitimate concern
Summary: DU funds and banquet
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:11:57 GMT




I'm not going to jump too deep into this discussion, but let me clear up a
few points that have been raised concerning DU.  First and foremost, the
purpose of DU is wetlands preservation.  Yes, it is mainly composed of
hunters and hunting is something that you will see described in the
DU magazine, but hunting is not the purpose of the organization.  If you
read the DU magazine you will see numerous articles on conservation and
the health of our wetlands.

Second, DU money is not spent on banquets.  Quite the contrary, the annual
DU banquets that most DU chapters run are fundraising events for DU.  I am
speaking from my experience and involvement with DU as a committee member
and someone who has been involved in the development of banquets.

Attendees pay to attend the banquet.  The cost around here (NC) will range
from $40.00 to $100.00 depending on what the banquet is offering.  At the
banquet there are raffles and auctions....some items have been 
purchased with money donated by area businesses, but most items have been
donated.  At our typical chapter banquet, which is rather small (maybe
130 people) we generally are able to raise at least $3500, all of which
goes to DU.  Again, money that you might donate to DU does not go to
fund banquets...it does go into wetlands preservation which benefits hunters
and non-hunters alike.

Lastly, someone stated that they had never seen a banquet advertised at
an AR activity.  I believe if the individual will refer to a previous
post on a scheduled AR activity, a banquet (including meat on the menu)
and a dance were listed.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:24:55 GMT

From article <RIGG.92Jul24101228@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
> Many hunters, including myself, will not kill anything they are not
> going to eat.  I approve of the killing of varmints such as prairie
> dogs but I won't do.  I generally don't approve of the killing of
> predator animals like wolves and lions.

Would you mind defining the word "varmint"?   Why is it morally ok 
to kill "varmints", but not ok to kill "non-varmints"?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: DOGS; CATS; PETS; NEWS
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:46:03 GMT


DOGS; CATS; PETS; NEWS
 
+ The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, the pet store trade association,
lost 10% of its membership during 1991. Of the 186 stores who dropped out, 160
went out of business, while the other 26 said they couldn't afford the PIJAC
dues.
 
+ Connecticut has begun requiring doctors to report cases of "cat scratch
fever" to the state health department, to help facilitate an investigation of
the previously rare and rarely serious illness being conducted by the Centers
for Disease Control.  Over 100 cases have surfaced since two students at the
same elementary school in Windsor Locks went into brief comas because of the
disease in late 1991. 
 
+ Iditarod sled race veterinarians cleared driver Raymie Redington of wrong-
doing in the sudden death of one of his dogs from heart failure on March 2, as
Redington sprinted to victory in the "Dodge Dash," a segment of the race in
which contestants try to win a  $25,000 pickup truck.  Overall Iditarod winner
Martin Buser, known for singing to his dogs, finished the 1,159-mile journey on
March 11 in a record 10 days, 19 hours, and 17 minutes, six hours ahead of
runner-up Susan Butcher, a four-time winner.  Both Buser and Butcher are
leaders of a movement among top contestants to halt dog abuse, pointing out
through their own examples that breeding and culling huge numbers of dogs and
driving dogs to collapse is not the way to win the big prizes.
 
 From: Animals Agenda
 456 Monroe Turnpike
 Monroe, CT 06468
 Issue: 5/92
 
 *  AmNet News Service * BBS 303/223-1297  *
 * P.O. Box 9517 * Ft. Collins, CO * 80525 *
 * N.Y.C. Node 212/724-6826 FIDO 1:278/716 *
 * Denver Node 303/364-2257 FIDO 1:104/536 *
--  
Internet: Amnet.News.Service@f12.n306.z1.fidonet.org

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Skill as defined by Caruso II
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:26:29 CDT
Distribution: world
Organization: <><><><><><><><><><><>

Mike Linan writes:
> I guess scoring high on an IQ test doesn't really have anything to do with a
> God given gift in your view then. If that is the case, you obviously have lit-
> tle skill in this department.

	Skill is, obviously, often spawned from legitimate talent.  And your 
conclusion that I lack the skill to score high on an IQ test is thoughtless.

	 
DC2>	Hunting seems simply a matter of ...
>
> All this wonderful insight from one who has never engaged the sport of hunt-
> ing.  Everyone should stop what they are doing and listen to this person of
> such vast knowledge.  It must be obvious that he is gifted to be able to make
> such commentary without ever actually "experiencing" what he is talking about.

	Well, please tell me, am I wrong?  What am I missing, Mike?  Is it 
really so much more complex than it sounds?  Please, enlighten me ...


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Caruso II			      "Great minds are the most misunderstood."
dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu						-- DAC2
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: ANIMAL RESEARCH; ALTERNATIVES
Date: 25 Jul 92 01:55:46 GMT


 
 
     * Research scientist Michelle Mullen of the Canadian Royal
Commission on Reproductive Technology warned March 15 that the
arrival of more effective birth control methods and increasingly
early abortions could disrupt the supply of fetal tissue available
to researchers, who might then pay women to become pregnant and
have abortions at the appropriate time to provide the tissue. 
Fetal tissue research has been advanced by some as an alternative
to animal research.
 
     * Research and testing of skin and eye care products is a $400
million industry, worldwide, according to Advanced Tissue Sciences
Inc., a leader in developing non-animal tests (many of which use
circumcised foreskins in place of animal tissue).  ATS believes
non-animal tests now account for anywhere from 4% to 25% of the
total, but because technical secrets in the field are closely
guarded, there's no way to be sure.
 
     * Neutrogena Corp. announced Feb. 27 that it had ended all
animal-based product testing.
 
 
     * Due to state budget cuts, the Univ. of Pennsylvania
veterinary school is to be phased out of existence over the next
three years.
 
 From: Animals Agenda
 456 Monroe Turnpike
 Monroe, CT 06468
 Issue: 6/92
 
 *  AmNet News Service * BBS 303/223-1297  *
 * P.O. Box 9517 * Ft. Collins, CO * 80525 *
 * N.Y.C. Node 212/724-6826 FIDO 1:278/716 *
 * Denver Node 303/364-2257 FIDO 1:104/536 *
--  
Internet: Amnet.News.Service@f12.n306.z1.fidonet.org