HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Saturday, 9 Jan 1993 12:35:58 MST
From: Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
 <1ihqdrINNh9j@transfer.stratus.com> <VEAL.612.726430958@utkvm1.utk.edu>

<1ihqdrINNh9j@transfer.stratus.com>
In article <1ihqdrINNh9j@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D.
Tavares) writes:

>In article <93006.235430GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>, Shooting Club at ASU
<GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes:
>>
>> Arizona Constitution:  Article II, Section 26
>>
>> "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of
>> himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this
>> section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or
>> corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of
>> men."
>
>This is phrased in an interesting manner.  It implies that you can't
>hire bodyguard(s) to defend you -- you have to do it yourself!

       I think what this means is that you don't have the same *right* to
hire bodyguard like you have the RKBA.  That is, it may be legal, but not
a right.

     Both C.D.Tavares "Defend yourself!" and
        David  Veal's "*Right*" distinction interpretation are interes-
                      ting.

     This latter clause was added to protect mine workers from the union-
     supression actions taken by the mine owners; which resulted in
     cracked heads, etc.

     The importance in this Section will probably regain relevance once
     again.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Fight the bastards (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:40:09 GMT

In article <9301092025.17@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>If you are a vocal, voting member of the community, then you are mistaken
>>in your assumption.
>
>At least here, police chiefs are hired, not elected, on the basis of
>civil service exams and an interview by the town government.

In MA, police chiefs are hired by elected officials with considerable
discretion.  Only a fool thinks that politics don't enter into it.

>Felons are barred from purchasing or owning guns only if the seller of
>guns has a way of determining that they are barred.

Nope.  If the seller doesn't care, all of the knowledge in the world
won't bar the sale.  There are also transfers that don't involve
"sellers", let alone willing ones.

-andy
--
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 11 Jan 1993 19:52:58 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301101310.47@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

> >>>What's your point?  The police, by nature, will have records on
> >>>criminals.  They should *not* be keeping records on law abiding
> >>>citizenry!
> >>
> >>In the state of Massachusetts, everyone who has a drivers license
> >>has a record on the police computers.
> >
> >       Can you truly not differentiate between "is" and "ought?"
> >
> >       The police *do* maintain these records.  They *shouldn't*.
> 
> If records weren't kept on drivers or car registrations, how would you
> deal with a hit and run driver?

Note well, there is a difference between keeping records of DRIVERS
and keeping records of CARS.  In a hit and run, you identify the CAR
from witness' descriptions (presuming somebody saw it) and then figure 
out who was driving it.  The plate on a car, like the serial number on 
a gun, has no DIRECT connection with its user (who may not be its owner).

There is no good analogy in the gun case of finding a "hit and run
shooter" through witness descriptions.  Any descriptions are likely to
be of the shooter, not the gun.  And licenses are next to useless in the
process, since (unlike hit & run accidents) gun crimes are almost never
accidents, and therefore are typically committed by "unlicensed operators."

> >       I have all kinds of insurance on my car, but I've never needed
> >to make a claim on it.  That doesn't mean, though, that I can do without
> >it.
> 
> And I live in a state that mandates just what insurance you will have to
> have on your car.

All this indicates is that the anal retentiveness of the Massachusetts
government is evenly distributed, like head lice in a Victorian orphanage.
-- 

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: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Guns and The Common People (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<9212311212.23@rmkhome.UUCP> <1992Dec31.194342.14590@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
	<9301021331.43@rmkhome.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:51:17 GMT

<In article <9301021331.43@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
<   In article <1992Dec31.194342.14590@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
<   >rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
<   >
<   >>In Arizona, I believe, there is now a move to restrict the current laws
<   >>that allow children to carry concealed weapons, as many parents are
<   >>concerned that it has become fashionable for junior high students to
<   >>carry concealed weapons.
<   >
<   >	Nonsense.  In AZ it illegal for _adults_ to carry concealed
<   >weapons.   Either you got the state wrong or the whole story is 
<   >simply wrong.   

<   You're right.  In AZ adults and children can carry, but not concealed.

	And not on school property, nor to a place that serves
	alcoholic beverages, nor into a business that has signs
	saying "no guns allowed"...there are restrictions, even
	though Kelly doesn't want to admit them.


	One might ask why it is that Phoenix has a lower murder
	rate than Boston...

<   >>What percentage of California residents over 18 carry legally licensed
<   >>handguns?  You're speculating.
<   >
<   >	Close to zero.  You almost have to be a cop in that state, 
<   >if I understand correctly.

<   So there seems to be little information on what would happen if everyone
<   in California over the age of 18 was issued a gun.

	Kelly should know that persons over the age of 18 but not
	yet over 21 are not allowed to buy handguns under Federal law.

<   I believe that it would be a catastrophe.

	Then I must be living in a catastrophe, as anyone over the
	age of 21 in New Mexico can buy a handgun in the time it
	takes to fill out the Federal 4473 form and hand over the
	money.


	Funny, I don't see any catastrophe...perhaps Kelly and I
	define that word differently? 


	The closest thing to a catastrophe I see in the US
	is Washington, DC....home of the handgun ban since 1976.

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 18:24:34 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <16B523082.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <9301092258.38@rmkhome.UUCP>
>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>In article <ARCHER.662.726428493@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archr) writes:
>>>In article <9301061637.45@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>>>       Besides, you were talking, as well, about checking peoplfor a
>>>>>subjective psychological readiness for a gun.  Instant checks have been
>>>>>instituted to check someone for a criminal record.  What happens it what
>>>>>always happens when you try to control a commodity that people who don't
>>>>>obey they law want.  They find a way around it.
>>>>
>>>>That's right.  I'm a criminal.  I steal your wallet and use your SS number
>>>>and other pertinent information to make myself an identity that will
>>>>allow me to pass the spot check.  The spot check is now worthless.
>>>
>>>WELL DONE!  Criminals can circumvent ANY gun control scheme you care to put
>>>in place.
>>
>>Except for one that requires taking of finger prints as a basis for
>>identification.
>
>       No, they'll just find a way around it.  They'll buy smuggled guns,
>or simply steal one.
>
>       Hell, they're stealing them *now*.

Often from the homes of honest gun owners.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Gun Control generally
Organization: none
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:35:57 GMT

>>>>> On 22 Dec 1992 20:18:32 GMT, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) said:

> (Jason Price) writes:

>> I'm not saying that because I own a handgun that I'm more likely to 
>> commit a crime, what I'm saying (as I explain in the other memo) is that
>> because I own a gun, someone breaking into my house (say) is going to 
>> bring a gun because they know I might have one, so I'm certainly more
>> likely to get shot (and killed, due to the significantly higher damage 
>> a gun could do than other weapons).

> But you aren't a criminal, so your theories of how criminals think are at
> best less than legislatively compelling.

> James Wright and Peter Rossi, in "Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey
> of Felons and Their Firearms" (New York: Aldine, 1986) reported that 3/5 of 
> the prisoners studied said that a criminal would not attack a potential 
> victim who was known to be armed.  2/5 of them had decided not to commit
> a crime because they thought the victim might have a gun.  Criminals in
> states with higher civilian gun ownership rates worried the most about 
> armed victims.

And criminals who had actually encountered armed victims worried least.

> So roughly half of the criminals WILL NOT escalate, preferring to give
> up (or find unarmed victims).  

Woah there.  3/5 said that OTHER CRIMINALS would not "mess around"
with armed victims.  2/5 had been deterred ONCE.  Only 8% were
deterred "many times".  24% agreed that "committing crime against an
armed victim is an exciting challenge".

More relevant to the escalation possibility are the criminals
motivations to go armed.  50% said that "chance victim would be armed"
was a very important reason to carry a gun. 

> Of those that do, a greater percentage than
> before will lose an encounter with an armed victim that they would not
> have lost with an unarmed victim.  Current US statistics indicate that
> many more crimes are prevented by gun ownership than are committed by
> armed criminals.

National Crime Survey data (which is the source of your claim that
criminals will be less succesful against armed victims) show guns used
for defence in 80,000 crimes and for offence in 800,000 crimes in the
US each year.

Tim
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Criminals And Guns (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<9212311212.23@rmkhome.UUCP> <C0Cox6.Ivt@SSD.intel.com>
	<9301051207.02@rmkhome.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:35:55 GMT

In article <9301051207.02@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

<   When you have state governments that seem to release convicted murderers
<   and armed robbers on a whim, then you have to have some means of keeping
<   them from buying weapons.

	Then deal with this on the supply side; stop releasing
	unrehabilitated violent criminals.

	Note that it is a Federal felony for some convicted criminals
	to buy firearms, yet they seem to ignore this law. Perhaps
	one definition of "lawbreaker" is "one who ignores laws, 
	including gun laws"?

	Note also that there is *no* legal way for the average 
	Washington, DC resident to buy a handgun, yet the criminals
	in that Congress-run city seem to have no problems whatever
	in obtaining them. 

<>|> In Arizona, I believe, there is now a move to restrict the current laws
<>|> that allow children to carry concealed weapons, as many parents are
<>|> concerned that it has become fashionable for junior high students to
<>|> carry concealed weapons.
<>
<>You are WRONG - no one in Arizona, except police, is allowed to carry concealed
<>weapons.  Those kids were breaking a law that's been on the books since the
<>1950's, at least.
<>
<>The argument in Arizona is basicly over whether the state pre-emption law is
<>worth the paper it is written on.

<However, kids can carry, but not concealed.

	So what?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: schabel@calspan.com (Dave Schabel)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Calspan Advanced Technology Center
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:14:04 GMT

In article <9301041902.48@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>I'm wrong only in that everyone does not go to Fred's store and buy
>a handgun.  Obviously, some people don't feel that they will have 
>to shoot anyone in the forseeable future.

Well, I don't feel that I will get into a car crash in the
forseeable future, either.  But I _will_ wear my seat belt,
just in case.

>>  You'll find plenty of evidence on this bbs supporting the armed
>>  society in the USA as a peaceful society.  Keep reading.
>
>That doesn't seem to be so in the state of Florida.

I don't know what you mean.  Could you clarify, please?  Seems
to me that the preponderance of armed violence in FL is carried
out by the same type of people (as you mention in another post)
as in Boston -- crack dealers.  Unless you count the recent
occurrences of self-defense made necessary by hurricane Andrew.

				Dave Schabel


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Schabel         | Opinions and comments contained herein are mine and  |
schabel@calspan.com  | do not necessarilly reflect those of Calspan Corp or |
                     | its customers.                                       |
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 02:49:35 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <C0GCDu.GIx@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>In article <9301051928.44@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>|> >>And, of course, untrained idiots who bought a gun at K-Mart would never
>|> >>hurt themselves or anyone else by mistake.
>|> >
>|> >It takes one minute to train even an idiot to not hurt themselves or 
>|> >others:  don't point the end with the hole in it at anything you don't want 
>|> >a hole in.
>|> 
>|> There is slightly more to it than that.
>
>What else would you suggest as basic training to avoid the problem you mention
>above?

1. Effective cleaning and maintenance.

2. Clearing of jams and misfires.

3. A complete understanding of applicable state laws.

4. And most important - how to engage and disengage the safety.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:04:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.205518.17352@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!cs.utk.edu!gatech!udel!wupost!spool.mu.edu!clark!henson!n9020351
>From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
>Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
>Message-ID: <1993Jan1.205518.17352@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
>Organization: Western Washington University
>References: <1992Dec28.012227.18236@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> <9212301448.43@rmkhome.UUCP> <1992Dec31.011711.24829@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> <9212311212.23@rmkhome.UUCP> <1hvjpgINN1o3@transfer.stratus.com>
>Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 20:55:18 GMT
>Lines: 16
>cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>
>>Well, let's see.  Two months ago, a state police officer stopped a man
>>for speeding.  The man's target permit became visible as he offered his
>>license, and an illegal search of the car followed.  The police found an
>>expensive pistol belonging to the man's mother.  They determined that he
>>was not on his way to a sporting event, so they confiscated the pistol
>>and charged the man under Bartley-Fox.  Bartley-Fox says specifically
>>that you cannot be charged under it if you have ANY license to carry
>>(although the police can then revoke your license).  Despite this, the
>>judge ignored the law and convicted the man.  Also, they did not return
>
>
>	Why didn't he ask for a jury trial?
>
>JD
The same reason most of us don't.

"If you cop to the misdemeanor and leave your gun with us, we won't 
procescute on the felony charge.  If you don't cop a plea, we'll go for the 
felony conviction and ask for the maximum sentance.  You have more to lose 
than we do.  What'll it be?"
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 08:59:03 GMT

In <9301092258.38@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>>WELL DONE!  Criminals can circumvent ANY gun control scheme you care to put 
>>in place.

>Except for one that requires taking of finger prints as a basis for
>identification.

	I've got a Zippo and a vial of novocane; if I torch my fingertips
a bit those fingerprints will be erased forever.  It's a matter of resolve,
not one of finding the ultimate identification.  We already have that with
DNA fingerprints, but the cost is too large to implement, and the
privacy issues are quite large as well.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary)
Subject: Re: Kennesaw, 1986: Burglary Still Down 85%
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:15:56 GMT
Summary: 86 was a high burglary year

In article <LAMBERT.93Jan12212851@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>, lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
> >>>>> 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.  

I agree with Mr. Lambert, by picking the right years you can
alter the results.  However I don't think this comparison is meaningless.
 
If you check Mr. Lambert's Kennesaw
data, you will see that 1986 had the most burglarie of any year.

If you check Mr. Lamberts population adjusted data, you will see 86
is the post law peak.

So if Kleck is calculating the decline the way Mr. Lambert thinks
he is, Kleck has chosen a high year for comparison and thus strengthens his 
case for burglary declining sharply after the Kennesaw law.

However, Kleck and Lambert do not calculate the same way
since Mr. Lambert's graph shows total burglaries up or equal 
(I can't tell since the graph was messed up) when 81 is 
compared to 86 (see below).

> 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.

When Kleck does his calculation using total burglaries (1) he
gets a decline of 56% between 1981 and 1986 so obviously Mr.
Lambert and Dr. Kleck don't do their computations the same
way.  Who should I believe?

Brian Leary

(1) Kleck, Point Blank, 1991, page 137.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: communists + anarchists in the NRA
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:56:45 GMT

aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum) writes:

>Just curious: how many other communists/anarchists are there in the
>NRA besides us? Hopefully there are some other leftists in the group;
>we can't let it get totally dominated by right-wing freaks!

>	autonome forum
>	aforum@moose.uvm.edu

Yeah, and are my friends and I the only NAMBLA members?

Just kidding.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 22:44:15 GMT
Organization: N/I

In article <1993Jan5.224957.837@Firewall.Nielsen.Com> jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson) writes:
>In article <9301051207.02@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>[snip]
>>When you have state governments that seem to release convicted murderers
>>and armed robbers on a whim, then you have to have some means of keeping
>>them from buying weapons.
[ ... ]
>Note that Kelly ignores the fact that it is already illegal most (all?) places
>for "convicted murderers and armed robbers" to purchase firearms (as well
>as simple possession being a parole violation in that case).

Simple possession by convicted felons is also illegal (18 U.S.C. 922(g)
-- another felony), not just another parole violation.
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 7 Jan 93 05:29:44 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <1993Jan6.173252.4279@cbfsb.cb.att.com> osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:
>	Personally, if I ran a company, I'd encourage my employees to bring
>	their arms to work.  In fact, I'd probably build a range on site for 
>	them to use off hours.  But that's me.

My resume is in the mail... :)

    don
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:55:08 GMT

bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:

>Thank your law makers for that one.  I recently returned from a trip to 
>Germany.  It's a bitch to get the paperwork to own a handgun there, but
>once you get approved, there are many new, decent all steel revolvers for 
>under $60.00!  Autos start at around 150, at least in this one store. 

	Are you sure?  Some of those German revolvers are just zinc
with a blue look-alike finish.   I can't think of any names offhand,
but there are a few I was suprised at because I thought they were
were supposed to be decent.

Jim Del Vecchio