HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: This Chris Luchini person
Date: 10 Jan 1993 04:12:31 +1030
Organization: PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide,South Australia) - Anonymous Service
Reply-To: anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: flash.pax.tpa.com.au


It is seems Mr. Chris Luchini and several other people have already
called me an idiot and a bigot and Mr. Luchini has decided to boycott
me.

If you can't stand my postings for any reason, because I am anonymous
or because I am criticizing an organization you admire or whatever,
please follow Mr. Luchini's lead and don't read them.  Hit the "n"
key.  Put me in your kill file file if you must.  You can privately
call me a coward or a liberal or a bigot if you need that crutch to
avoid me.  Quietly avoiding what you dislike is always the mature thing
to do.

On the other hand, publicly announcing a boycott, or that I am in your
kill file, or publicly calling me a bigot or an idiot, especially after
replying to a posting, is not such a mature thing to do.  Let me for
the record state that I think many of Mr. Luchini's views are wrong,
maybe even extreme or fanatical at times.  Having fanatical views might
make one a bigot, but I don't think he is one.  It certainly doesn't
make one an idiot.  I respect Mr. Luchini's opinions sometimes and his
intellect always.  You shouldn't boycott his postings, because he
sometimes has interesting things to say.


--
** Anonymity & Privacy by PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide,South Australia) **

anon.admin@pax.tpa.com.au (a human)   anon.info@pax.tpa.com.au    (for help)
anon.ping@pax.tpa.com.au  (get alias) anon.key@pax.tpa.com.au     (register key)
anon.###@pax.tpa.com.au   (reply)     anon.post.grp@pax.tpa.com.au (post to grp)
anon.list@pax.tpa.com.au  (to mailing list about anonymous mailers)
anon.subscribe@pax.tpa.com.au         anon.unsubscribe@pax.tpa.com.au

For dialup Unix access phone +61-8-235-9010 - online registration.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Fight the bastards (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:47:07 GMT

In article <9301092025.17@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <lkmihpINNe5r@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.
COM (steve hix) writes:>>In article <9301052005.00@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@
merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:>>>In article <pa142548.605.726245230@utkvm1.
utk.edu> pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:>>>>
>>>>I'm a loner few friends.  Define "healty."  What if you're new in town and 
>>>>being stalked?  How do you prevent the local gun banners like yourself from 
>>>>defining anyone who wants reasonable means of self-defences as "violently 
>>>>undstable."
>>>
>>>I have nothing to do with the decision to issue a gun permit.  The chief of
>>>police does that.
>>
>>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.

Yep. Political appointees, not directly responsive to the electorate.

>>Uh...Rick...where did you get this notion?  Mr. Archer has said nothing
>>about wanting to arm felons.  Felons are barred from purchasing or owning
>>firearms, for the most part, anyway.
>
>Felons are barred from purchasing or owning guns only if the seller of
>guns has a way of determining that they are barred.

No. It remains a violation of the law for convicted felons to buy guns, 
regardless of the vendor's knowledge.

>>>>Don't forget the politically correct social outlook to get the job 
denying, >>>>I mean approving, permits.
>>>
>>>I don't think that is a requirement for being hired as a police chief.
>>
>>Your thinking so doesn't seem to affect the evidence supporting an opposite
>>view.
>>
>>>It could also go the other way.  A guy could buy a gun, and then go home
>>>and shoot his wife.
>>
>>He could be denied the gun, and go home and beat her to death. So?
>>
>>(She could be denied a gun, and be unable to effectively defend herself
>>from the beast...)
>>
>>>>>>If you make the wrong decision, what would your responsibility be?
>>>>>
>>>>>None, under current laws.
>>>>
>>>>So you can freely deny civil liberties with no penalty.
>>>
>>>That seems to be how it works for the police.
>>
>>I assume that you feel that this state of affairs is wrong.
>>
>>I could be assuming too much, though.
>
>Of course it is wrong, but so is the other extreme.

What other extreme?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:35:08 GMT

In article <9301061603.16@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan6.142333.19957@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
|> >In article <9301051932.51@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
|> >>Would it make you feel good inside to know that ex-cons who were in for
|> >>murder or armed robbery could legally buy guns?
|> >
|> >No, but passing laws just to make "you feel better" doesn't make sense.
|> >
|> >What does making that illegal have to do with keeping guns out of the
|> >hands of criminals ?  The illegal market for any good can supply almost
|> >anything if you have the money.  And criminals will spend the money to
|> >obtain the tools of their "trade."
|> 
|> So it's better to give up and have no restrictions on firearms?

So it's better to attack the wrong problem, thereby making the situation worse?

Frankly, Rick, your inability/unwillingness to answer direct questions is
beginning to make you tiresome.

You are losing credibility fast.

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing."  -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fight the bastards (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 01:24:26 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <lkmihpINNe5r@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:
>In article <9301052005.00@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>In article <pa142548.605.726245230@utkvm1.utk.edu> pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>>
>>>I'm a loner few friends.  Define "healty."  What if you're new in town and 
>>>being stalked?  How do you prevent the local gun banners like yourself from 
>>>defining anyone who wants reasonable means of self-defences as "violently 
>>>undstable."
>>
>>I have nothing to do with the decision to issue a gun permit.  The chief of
>>police does that.
>
>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.

>The local chief of police is a political animal, and will more often than
>not make his decisions based on what he feels are his political best
>interests.
>
>>>So citizens should ask the state and their friends and neighbors before 
>>>exercizing basic civil liberties.
>>
>>So you see nothing wrong with allowing ex-cons on parole from buying
>>guns, even if their crimes involved guns.
>
>Uh...Rick...where did you get this notion?  Mr. Archer has said nothing
>about wanting to arm felons.  Felons are barred from purchasing or owning
>firearms, for the most part, anyway.

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

>It's very rare that *anyone* argues that felons' rights are being abridged
>by these laws...the aforementioned felons having given up some basic rights
>in the commission of their crimes.
>
>Try being serious for a while.
>
>>>Don't forget the politically correct social outlook to get the job denying, 
>>>I mean approving, permits.
>>
>>I don't think that is a requirement for being hired as a police chief.
>
>Your thinking so doesn't seem to affect the evidence supporting an opposite
>view.
>
>>It could also go the other way.  A guy could buy a gun, and then go home
>>and shoot his wife.
>
>He could be denied the gun, and go home and beat her to death. So?
>
>(She could be denied a gun, and be unable to effectively defend herself
>from the beast...)
>
>>>>>If you make the wrong decision, what would your responsibility be?
>>>>
>>>>None, under current laws.
>>>
>>>So you can freely deny civil liberties with no penalty.
>>
>>That seems to be how it works for the police.
>
>I assume that you feel that this state of affairs is wrong.
>
>I could be assuming too much, though.

Of course it is wrong, but so is the other extreme.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
From: cstockwe@orion.oac.uci.edu (Craig Stockwell)
Subject: Militia
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:56:13 GMT

For anybody who has interest --

I recently started the "Cal Irvine Well-Regulated Militia" at the University of California at Irvine.

Anyone (repeat: ANYONE) may join (there are, however, restrictions on officers)
So, if you'd like to be a part, drop me a line ...

		M. Craig Stockwell
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary)
Subject: Re: 1.2 Million Handgun Defenses per year
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:28:46 GMT
Summary: Pots and Kettles

In article <LAMBERT.93Jan12220125@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>, lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
> >>>>> On Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:02:36 GMT, oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary) said:
> 
> > In his book Point Blank, Kleck uses a number of polls to estimate the
> > number of defensive uses of guns per year.
> 
> > Hart Poll, 1981, 644,000 handguns defenses per year(1) 
> > Mauser Poll, 1990, 691,000 gun defenses per year(2) 
> > Field Poll (California), 1978, 1.2 million handgun defenses per year(3) 
> > Time/CNN Poll, 1989, 908,061 handgun defenses per year(4) 
> 
> Interesting.  You chose to put the number 1.2M in the subject line,
> the largest estimate.  In his "Social Problems" paper Kleck states
> that the Field poll is unsuitable for estimating defenses (since parts
> of the US lie outside California).  Has he changed his mind?
> 

Is this the Tim Lambert who claims "The Kennesaw law had no effect"
using a study that did not even adjust for population changes?
Who is apparently trying to prove that gun control works from
a single data set - NSW?

I thought I was playing the game by your rules - making the strongest
claim possible from the data I use.  Note I only did it in the
headline and I made a note in the text that anyone should be able
to figure out.

Yes - the Field poll is California only.  That is why the (California)
appears in the post.  The California numbers could be high for two
reasons - crime is higher in California and California laws against
carrying are not very severe - so more people might carry and risk
a fine.  This tends to support the idea that handguns are useful
for self defense - more defenses due to more opportunities.

Can you think of any reasons why the data sets you use and the
statistics you use might might not prove what you say they prove?

By the way, I missed one estimate - the DMI survey - Kleck estimates
897,000 defensive handgun uses in 1978. (1)

Brian Leary

(1) Kleck, Point Blank, 1991, page 468.
From: nahst6+@pitt.edu (Nathan A Horstman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: bye guys!
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:46:10 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1993Jan6.164027.7125@uvm.edu> aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum) writes:
>subject: see you later!
>posted by: autonome forum
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Well, looks like we achieved our purpose. Post one or two controverisal 
>things and Net-rednecks grab their guns and start yelling. Well, no point in
>us wasting our time at the Usenet site.
>
>To keep up with our awesome left-radical news postings, just follow the
>newsgroup misc.activism.progressive.

Good riddance, scrote!

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.society.privac
From: jmorrill@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John M Morrill)
Subject: Re: Posting Email (was Re: Final Answer to Tavares)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:54:44 GMT

Er....I do not think so. One of the biggest misconceptions about the
copyright laws is that a copyright is a means to control the distribution
of what you write. If fact, the copyright laws are designed to ensure
authors is able to recieve reward for their work.

In my opinion, the finding here supports that concept. The court ruled that the
author was only entitled to payment for commerical value of his work. The court
did not award any punitive damage to the author because his work was used
without permission.

Believe it or not, everything you post here is copyrighted. Posting to USENET
does not make your post public domain. Now, what has happen is that by posting
to USENET, you have implicitly given permission for you work to be distributed
far and wide, but if your post is later found to have commerical value, you are
still entitled to recieve a royalty from whomever if you can sell it to.

As far as posting E-mail is concerned, it depends upon the situation. I would
be very upset if my friends posted email I have send them, because with
friends, it it a matter of trust. I have established a relationship with them
in which I trust them to keep the communication between us confidentail.
However, if someone posted articles in which they give the appearence of sweet
reason and then the same person emailed me a ranting flame, I would have no
problem with posting that email. I never promissed that person that either
implicitly or explicitly what they sent me would remain just between us.

As far as embrassement or intentional harm, the courts attitude can be best
summed up as, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen". Many of
you may remember that case of Hustler magazine vs Jerry Fallwell (sp). In this
case, the court ruled that even if the magazine ment to cause him emotional
harm that he could not recover damages, because even mean spirted personnal
attacks are protected by the first amendment when directed against
'public figures'. The court has a very broad definition of 'public figure'. I
have no doubt that once you chose to post to a medium that has million of
readers throughout the world, you to will be classed as a public figure.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strange problems call for strange solutions.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 08:26:56 GMT

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*.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Criminal rehabilitation?  Hah!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:38:44 GMT

In <C0E32D.H0y@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:

>This does not, however, mean that I think that society currently dictates
>appropriate punishment for crimes.

>When 90% of all murders are committed by persons with prior convictions for a
>violent crime, it's time to ask ourselves some questions:

>1.  Do we have any proof *at all* that _most_ violent criminals can be
>rehabilited?
	No.
>2.  Who are we letting violent criminals out again and again?
	Sheep?  Stupid?  Idealists?
>3.  Who benefits from following such an obviously stupid course of action?

	I can answer #3: lawyers.  I once had an idea I could not find a
single flaw in.  Violent crimes were dealt with by incarceration for a
certain period, with appropriate periods depending upon the severity.  The
second crime doubles the time in jail, no parole.  The third time?

	Remember Alcatraz?  The island fortress/prison?  Place the inmate
on there.  A Coast Guard Cutter is fairly heavily armed, hence it should
be able to get him to the pier without undue chance of being overcome by
inmates.  That's it.  Air-drop some food and necessary supplies, and leave
them to their own devices.  Riot?  Too bad, pal.  You gave up your civil
rights when you committed that third violent crime.  Deal with Bubba, the
nice guy who wants to marry you.  Rico got all the food?  The Red Cross
probably isn't interested.  Too bad.

	While it's touchy legal ground with respect to civil rights, it
does seem rather fair that the multiple taking of a civil liberty results
in a lack of those liberties, with adequate chance of appeal and further
two chances to go strait.

	Ar the risk of being cheeky, it's the USA version of Austrailia
to the Brits of over a century ago.  Look how both turned out.

< 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 >
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:29:45 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

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.

Snrk!  You could do the same thing from scratch, without stealing my
wallet.  (In fact, it would be FASTER to do it from scratch unless you,
too, just happen to be 6'6", 320 lbs., and inescapably attractive.)

Or, you could just MAKE UP a name and an SSN.  All the computer will
know is that you're not a felon (unless you're INCREDIBLY unlucky).

What's your point?  Do you think a "license to carry," with the
neighbors' references and the police chief's personal blessing 
solves the instant-check problem?

Hell, the Massachusetts LTC is 100 times easier to forge than any
driver's license.  Any idiot can make one with a common laser printer
(or even a good Xerox machine and some Wite-Out; the damn thing is
black and white after all), a passport photo, a cheap typewriter 
to fill in the blanks, a stamp pad for your thumb, and a Dazey 
Seal-A-Meal laminator.  So what if the serial number is crap?  
The dealer can't tell, and by the time the purchase registration 
paperwork gets to Boston, you can have all the guns you can afford.  
And if you need more, change the name and number and make another.

The LTC "solution" is the fake-ID guru's paradise.
-- 

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: oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary)
Subject: Orlando, Florida - Gun training offered, rape rate drops
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:38:54 GMT
Keywords: Plus other examples

In Point Blank, Kleck relates several instances of crime rates 
dropping after defensive training or a defensive event.

"From October 1966 to March 1967, the Orlando Police Department trained
more that 2500 women to use guns.  Organized in response to demands from
citizens  worried about a sharp increase in rape, this was an unusually
large and highly publicized program."

"An interrupted time series analysis of Orlando crime trends showed
that the rape rate decreased by 88% in 1967, compared to 1966, a 
decrease far larger than any previous 1-year period.  The rape
rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and in the United
States.  Interestingly, the only other crime to show a substantial
drop was burglary.  Thus, the crime targeted decreased, and the offense
most likely to occur where victims have access to guns, burglary, also
decreased." (1)

In Kansas city, retailers were trained and a rising robbery rate leveled
off while continuing to rise in the rest of the state and country.

In Detroit, grocery robberies dropped after grocers were trained.

In Highland Park, retail robberies dropped after merchants were trained.

In New York, subway robberies were down 43% the week after the Goetz
incident. (2)

Coincidence every time?

Brian Leary

(1) Gary Kleck, Point Blank, Aldine De Gruyter, 1991, page 134.
(2) Kleck, pages 134-135.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 10 Jan 93 04:00:09 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> 
> I'm getting confused here.  

"I can see you are..."

> Why would a criminal spend say $1000 to buy a gun if the societal 
> laws said that a gun store could sell that gun for $200 to anyone 
> who asked?

How will making a criminal (and law abiding citizens) pay more for
a weapon protect anyone?

it's a moot point anyway, 'cause the prices on the black market are
actually lower than the ones from legitimate retailers.

(speaking of which, does anyone out there have a HK P7M8/13 they'd like
 to get rid of? i know, i know. kinda like asking "would you trade
 me your porsche for this candy bar?" but hey, might as well ask...)

jason

--
sorry, my .signature is on strike.