HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: uk09365@nx03.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: Stop Handguns Postcards
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:09:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
X-Bytes: 

In article <1992Apr16.061701.3208@rice.edu> kossack@rice.edu (Jordan M  
Kossack) writes:
> 	Of course, nothing is stopping you from getting these and 
>    altering the address or, even better, making up your own raving 
>    anti-gun postcards.  For example, if the local CoP is anti-gun,  
>    send postcards to the mayor, local papers, etc. asking why the 
>    police are armed with EvilKillerNineMillimeterAssaultPistols.  
>    Quote Rep John Bryant (D) of Texas, who said that "[t]he fact 
>    of the matter is nobody needs an assault weapon except cowards
>    and criminals and weirdos" and be sure to ask which of the three 
>    categories the Chief of Police is in.  Sound like a peacenik.  :-)  

A few days ago a rabid (definitely not sarcastic, either) anti-gun type  
had a letter to the editor published in which he raved against those 17  
shot EvilKillerNineMillimeterAssaultPistols, ignoring (I guess) that all  
of the uniformed Lexington Police carry Glock 17's, and dragged out the  
old "NRA and the Cop Killer Bullets" lie.  I am trying to write a response  
right now.  My problem is that I also want to respond to another person  
whose letter bitched about the County Council legalizing airgun sales to  
adults ("Maimings and deaths going to be the sure result...").  I want to  
combine the letters if possible.

RIK

p.s. has anyone ever heard of a locality where the police could not arrest  
someone for firing a gun at your person or property (house, car, self)  
because no one was wounded and discharge on private property was legal?   
The woman who is complaining about the airgun legalization claims that in  
her old hometown (not specified) the police would not take action unless  
someone was wounded??
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:07:36 GMT
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University

In article <1992Apr3.233526.8883@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
> ...
>Well Henry my old mate, you make a good point. We have fire departments
>to worry about what ifs. We don't expect each citizen to own a fire truck and
>firefighting equipment. In much the same way we have police to worry about
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>what ifs on the criminal front.... your analogy does not help your case.

Dave old buddy,
  We also don't expect each citizen to own a fire truck, although
it is quite legal to do so.  However "firefighting equipment" is
on the officially encouraged list.  My insurance company puts on
pressure (of the economic sort) to own smoke detector/alarms and 
fire extinguishers, the Fire Department also urges this, and I think
that the city building code now *requires* smoke detector/alarms
in new residential construction.  We don't leave all of the
whatifs to the fire department.

  Is civilian posession of fire extinguishers really restricted
in Australia (including the large red or yellow "assault style"
fire extinguishers?)  If so, then I would agree that my analogy
doesn't help my case - in Australia.

--henry schaffer
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:41:22 GMT

cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:

>Yes.... always non-violent ways are the ONLY ways put forward or recognized.
>You live in a sheep society.  You know no better.

	I thought we had gotten away from such pap answers, but it seems not.

	Tell me Christopher, which out of the two societies of Australia
and the United States requires their citizens to be indentified by a national
identity number?

	Which population has tolerated the imposition of such an afront to
their right to privacy?

	I would suggest that your society is just as full of sheep as you
seem to claim my own is.



--
Brian Ross__________________________________________________________________
	"If it is dangerous to suppose that government is always right, it
will sooner or later be awkward for public administration if most people
suppose that it is always wrong."______________________________J.K.Galbraith
From: Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clyde Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: ANTARTICA
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:45:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:143/223 - The Paul Revere Net, San Jose CA

TO:   JHAGELIN@POMONA.CLAREMONT.EDU
FROM: Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.fidonet.org,
DATE: Tue, 7 Apr 92

Julie, this is a test to see if I can get email to you.  Your dad gave
me the address.  To bad you're not in the bay area at the moment.
Tomorrow night there will be a talk at Foothill College about the
geology of Antartica.  Let me our your dad know if this message gets
through.
                Clyde

 * SLMR 2.1a * We are such stuff as dreams are made on.


3
--  
Clyde Spencer
UUCP: uts.amdahl.com!kennel!223!Clyde.Spencer
INTERNET: Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG
"The views expressed above are those of Clyde Spencer only."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Repeal the second amendment
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 20:59:01 GMT


|  There seems to still be a small reason for the right to bear arms: If our
|government grew tyranical and out of control, the citizens should have the
|power to throw out leaders and establish new ones.  The only way to accomplish
|this would be through armed insurrection.  Is it?  Actually, this power is
|already built into our consitution- the people have the power to establish
|a new leader at their will.  

Right on! Paper of the constitution versus the guns of government;
no contest! Paper wins! Declare victory and go home!

Christ.
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 1000 feet
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:36:36 GMT
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University

In article <RkDwiB1w164w@upchrch.UUCP> joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  ) writes:
> ...
>It is illegal in Florida to carry a firearm into any college or
>university facility (790.06(12)).  ...

  I don't know the exact language but NC has the same kind of law
with regard to all schools.  However I checked with an attorney
as to whether I was in violation if I had a cased gun in the locked
trunk of my car and was told that I wouldn't be violating the law.
So perhaps the Fla. law needs to be checked for the legal definition
of "to carry".  Usually I interpret "carry" as meaning "carry on
one's person", analogously to "concealed carry" meaning "carry on
one's person in concealed manner".

--henry schaffer
From: earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Argh! (Open Carry)
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:25:31 GMT
Organization: Dewey, Screwum & Howe, Inc.

In article <52212@mimsy.umd.edu> anthrax@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:
>...
>To clarify: If I were working in phoenix (which might happen), am I going to
>prone out EVERYONE I contact with who is legally carrying openly? Of course
>not.  Am I going to prone out people who are legally carrying openly, but who
>are involved in some non-standard behavior (suspicious person calls,
>disturbance calls, etc.)? Absolutely.  Am I going to prone out people who I
>have some suspicion that they might try to use the weapon? Yes.
> 
>Even with dealing with a person who is carrying openly down the street in
>broad daylight just walking thier dog, I am going to at the absolute minmum
>have my hand on my weapon with the snaps off on my holster.  I, in all
>likelyhood, with have the weapon drawn, but at my side.
>...

What bothers me about this attitude is that it assumes people who have a gun
hanging off their belt are out to kill someone.  Cops have guns displayed for
all the world to see, should I assume they are out to kill me?  Sounds like
we have a problem here.  The cops don't trust "The People" and "The People" 
don't trust the cops.  Gee, aren't things just wonderful?
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 9 Apr 92 07:01:14 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr8.000921.995@ee.rochester.edu> vanremme@ee.rochester.edu (Bill VanRemmen) writes:
>>
>>You must have a miserable life, worrying all the
>>time about what can go wrong. I would get such equipment if
>>I lived in the bush, but in the inner city, no way!
>
>
>One buys the equipment so that one doesn't HAVE to worry
>all the time about what might happen.  It's called "Being Prepared"!
>
>
I'm not into Boy Scout mentality. In my opinion, being "prepared"
can be taken to extremes. 

>
>>
>>>time (like police response time) can be several minutes...longer if they're
>>>already busy with another fire (crime).  Guess I should just let my house
>>>burn down while I wait?
>>
>>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.

>Violent attacks can happen just as fast (or faster).  Self-defense
>is up to the individual (by definition).
>
So?

-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Susan is still only thinking about herself
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:40:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.32299
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz; Open Access Computing


In article <1992Apr7.032008.5893@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>Sorry Richard, I should have put smilies there. I was alluding
>to a certain poster who loves raising hypotheticals.
Brian Ross? Or perhaps Susan McDonald? It's predominantly the Aussies who
enjoy bringing up absolutely meaningless hypotheticals. (cf. the "Would you
shoot someone over a penny?" thread.)

Marc Reeve
cmraman@ucscb.ucsc.edu cmraman@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Guns and Politics (was: Story behind Missouri CCW bill)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:16:05 GMT

>The seeming inability of liberals to rationally and effectively address the
>problem of crime has led the Democratic Party seriously astray. Conservatives
>can only gape at Democratic "anti-crime" proposals which focus on "racially-
>balanced, equal-opportunity executions", early-release into the community of
>violent, multiple-offenders, opposition both to effective bail reform and the
>building of more prisons coupled with their support for expanded probation
>and parole services for perpetrators of serious felonies as an "alternative"
>to incarceration.
>
>The relentless irrationality of the left-liberal wing is nowhere so clearly
>demonstrated as in the area of gun control. Heartened by the near-passage of
>the Brady bill last year and confiscatory gun schemes in states on both
>coasts

Interestingly enough, gun control politics gets some discussion in
Barney Frank's "Speaking Frankly" (the title might be "Frankly
Speaking").  Frank is a self-described liberal rep from MA.  He makes
many of the same points, arguing that gun control does nothing but
hurt the democrats, especially at the national level.  (He also says
that gun control won't help, but that he still supports it.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clyde Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Aussies
Date: 9 Apr 92 07:08:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:143/223 - The Paul Revere Net, San Jose CA

SM>From: cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter)
SM>Date: 8 Apr 92 04:29:15 GMT
SM>Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz; Open Access Computing
SM>Message-ID: <32342@darkstar.ucsc.edu>
SM>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

In the course of reading the give-and-takes between the Australian and
American posters it has occured to me that there may be a historical
explanation for the difference in attitudes.

Most of the American Forefathers were risk-takers who came to the New
World to escape oppression -- being told what they could or couldn't do.
They arrived in an untamed wilderness with no one to depend on but
themselves.

The Australians on the other hand, were forcefully removed to a penal
colony against their will.  There they found themselves being controlled
by their captors, who told them what they could do and what they
couldn't do.  If they went along with the program they survived.  If
they didn't they may not have.  It seems being taken care of by their
captors has become institutionalized there.

        [A bit tongue-in-cheek, but think about it.]

 * SLMR 2.1a * I regret that I have but one life to give!


3
--  
Clyde Spencer
UUCP: uts.amdahl.com!kennel!223!Clyde.Spencer
INTERNET: Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG
"The views expressed above are those of Clyde Spencer only."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:39:42 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

As quoted from <1992Apr13.071110.6179@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):

> You are taking what Susan said, out of context. She isn't referring
> to a situation where rape may occur, but to a situation where
> someones pride is affronted, but where no physical injury of
> any consequence has been inflicted.

Let's cut to the chase Dave.  She's already explicitly stated that violent
assaults by extremists shouldn't be resisted.  Do you concur with that opinion
or not?  If your friend had broken the bottle over your head, would you then be
entitled to resist, or would you follow her exhortation and pity the person as
he beat you to death?  Do you accept or reject the duty to die that she
imposes?


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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: 1,talk.politics.guns,fido.rtkba
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Registration in the USA
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<1992Mar23.203351.29881@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<LAMBERT.92Apr2213847@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Apr2.220500.2635@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:43:56 GMT

>>>>> On Thu, 2 Apr 1992 22:05:00 GMT, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) said:

> (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>When you don't like the way a discussion is going a useful tactic is
>>to try to change the subject.  To do this successfully it is usually a
>>good idea to be a bit more subtle than Andy is being here.

> If the "question at hand" is really "the effect on the rape rate of
> gun use by attackers and DEFENDERS", then why does Lambert include
> rapes where the defender had no gun in his "proof" that with-gun
> resistance doesn't work....

I thought Andy's previous attempt to change the subject was unsubtle.
This time he really takes the cake, starting a sentence with the
current subject and crashing onto the tracks of another subject by the
end, and misrepresenting my position in an attempt to muddy the
waters.  (OK, OK, so its a mixed metaphor.)  One more time: defensive
gun use has very little effect on the rape rate, no matter how well it
works in the cases where it occurs, because it is very uncommon.

>>the data you have provided below show that
>>gun rapists succeed 49% of the time and other rapists 29% of the time.

> And with knife and unknown weapon are very close.

To each other you mean.  Knives are 14% "better" than unarmed and guns
are 21% "better", so a gun is a 50% more effective weapon than a knife
for a rapist.

> We're still left with the "are there other differences between
> rapists who use different weapons?" question.  If the answer is
> "no", then the raw rates can be used as is, but if there are
> differences ....

Yes, and in deciding if guns are useful in defending against rapes, we
need to consider the question "are women who use guns for self defence
different from other women?"  and "are the circumstances when a gun is
likely to be available for self-defence different?".

> Is Lambert assuming that with-gun defenders are no better off than
> their unarmed sisters against with-gun attackers?

No.  No-one has presented any data that would help us decide this
question.

>   (I've repeatedly posted references to data contradicting Lambert's
> "criminals will just start using guns more often if they think that
> defenders are carrying" theory.  Yes, some do, but the overall
> effect is different.)

I guess I must have missed it.  All I've seen is you twisting yourself
in knots, arguing that a gun is not useful for self defence against
someone armed with a gun.

Tim
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Aussies
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:49:10 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <2238.29EA0C04@kennel.FIDONET.ORG> Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clyde Spencer) writes:
>BR>From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
>BR>> BR> More so in some cases, its climate is much
>BR>> BR> harsher than the North American continent
>
>BR>>If total area of aridity is somehow important (most of your population
>BR>>after all lives in coastal cities) than the point is well taken.
>
>BR>        So?  You have colder winters, we have much, much hotter summers.

How much above 107C (136F) does it get there?  And how much of the total
population lives in there?  (I know about active ranching in the Outback,
but just how large is the population actually working and living out there?)

Sorry, but it's Tasmania for me, given a choice!

>Everywhere except the coastal cities where most of your population still
>lives!


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Salmon (sic) Rushdie's insight into America
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:38:42 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

As quoted from <32214@darkstar.ucsc.edu> by cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter):

> 
> In article <1992Apr6.002155.1809@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
> >Of course I'm
> >sure that if anybody attacked him, he'd be as well protected by his bodyguards
> >as Huey Long was by his....
> >
> Didn't some historian determine sometime in the last year that Huey Long
> was actually killed by a bullet from one of his budyguards' guns? He
> apparently dug through police records and found that the "assassin's" gun
> had not, in fact, been fired. The irony of the entire situation was, of
> course, that Huey was killed while leaving a legislative session in which
> he had been filibustering a bill that would have re-legalised concealed
> carry for the general public in Louisiana...

That WAS my point... doubtless lost on davey wavey....

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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jca@crash.cts.com (John C. Archambeau)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Date: 14 Apr 92 06:12:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: crash.1992Apr14.061223.8632
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA

In article <1992Apr13.204124.26228@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.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
>qualifies.
>
>That's independent of state law, although many states are considering
>similar measures.

In CA, a locked trunk qualifies as a locked case.  At least that's what
my NRA and state certified firearm instructor told me.  :)

Considering how warped CA state law is regarding firearms, I think a 
locked trunk will qualify.
--

     // JCA

 /*
 ** ARPA    : jadpc!thewall!jca@nosc.mil | 13 + 1 = 21
 ** INTERNET: jca@thewall.cts.com        |
 **           jca@thewall.uucp           |           Glock 21
 ** UUCP    : nosc!jadpc!thewall!jca     |
 */
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:44:12 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <32298@darkstar.ucsc.edu> cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter) writes:
>
>In article <1992Apr7.090454.10224@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>No. Why do you postulate such a silly thing. But of course all
>>things in moderation. No use being a hero and getting burnt. 
>>Houses can be rebuilt; people cannot.
>And here we are back to your argument about property vs. life. Admittedly,
>getting burned in an effort to save mere possessions is stupid (though said
>possessions may have cost you a lifetime to gather, may be irreplaceable,
>etc.). But what if (oh no, not that phrase again) a child is trapped and
>you could have saved her with a fire extinguisher, or prevented her being
>trapped in the first place by the warning of a smoke detector?
>>>
You have convinced me. Seriously. I am going to get a fire extinguisher!

>>OK. Then how come the police are against private gun ownership
>>for self-defence. After all firefighters encourage people
>>to have preventative equipment.

>n general, the rank-and-file police officers are not against the general
>populace having guns for self-defense (or for any other non-criminal
>pursuits, for that matter.). It's the idiots that make the laws and a few
>highly visible police chiefs (such as ex-Chief Joseph McNamara of San Jose,
>long may he rot) that are against such a common-sense policy, and wish to
>tear out various parts of the Constitution.
>
The situation here. Both the guys at the top *and* the  police
associations (which represent the rank and
file, are against private gun ownership for self-defence.
-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns