HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wayne john warf <wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 12:42:17 -0500

In article <1992Apr3.232219.8647@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr1.191304.8082@athena.mit.edu> sybok@m4-035-2.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>>>Probably so.  I recently watched a film on TV in which even a Catholic
>>>priest and a communist mayor were waving guns around  -  "Don Camillo",
>>>it was called.  What a terrible example they were setting!
>>
>>Did you see "Pale Rider" with Clint Eastwood?  An EXCELLENT MOVIE about
>>a gunslinger who blows into town to clean it up; it turns out he's a priest.
>
>Instead of watching these gun-slinging movies, I suggest you watch
>a few Australian films, in order to see life in its fullest, and
>to get a more balanced perspective on the human experience.
>

Well, actually I watched an Australian produced film about a week
ago. It was called "Fortress." It's about a group of Australian
school kids who are kidnapped by some brutal captors in masks.
They  manage to kill all of the captors with various implements
other than good will. At the end, they descend on the most hated
of the kidnappers, the one in the "Father Christmas" mask, that's
Santa Claus for those in the U.S., kill him, rip out his heart
and display it in a glass bottle in their classroom. Life in its
fullest, indeed!
>-- 
>   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
>    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
>    was swatting at flies.


-- 
 *  WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu**I speak for me,OK?**sic semper tyrannis    *
 *   NRA LIFE* *NRA Certified Instructor* *Penna. R&PA* *Ind. SR&PA   *
 * Department of Decision & Information Systems, Indiana University   *
 * Bloomington, IN 47405 USA* *Pennsylvania CCW Lic.*Indiana CCW Lic. *
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 13 Apr 92 02:50:17 GMT
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University

In article <susan.703123142@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:
> ...
>>You sure do.  The very idea that somebody would resist a criminal assault.
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>	Yep, you just would have to protect your "honour" now wouldn't
>you Chris?  Couldn't just swallow your pride and not provoke a fight?
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>	Another male poster proves the point about their testerone levels....

  Another wommin proves that she either can't read, or that she is
incapable of distinguishing between being the victim of criminal assault
and provoking a fight.  If she means what she says (hard to believe)
then she really is saying that a rape victim shouldn't resist, but 
instead just don't protect her/his "honour", swallow his/her price
and let the rape proceed.  Otherwise the victim would be guilty of
"provoking a fight".

--henry schaffer
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx10.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:48:36 GMT
X-Bytes: 

In article <23444@goofy.Apple.COM> earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:
> In article <53161@mimsy.umd.edu> andy@sail.stanford.edu (Andy Freeman)  
writes:
> >
> >Under the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990 (part of the Crime Control
> >Act of 1990, HR 3757, signed by Bush on Jan 29,1991 and unopposed by
> >the ILA), it "shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor", punishable by 5
> >years and/or $5k*, for non-licensees to possess a gun within 1000 ft
>                         *^^^^^^^^^^^*
> >of a school.  Unloaded guns in locked containers or in locked racks
> >are okay, but none of those non-locking long gun cases qualify.  It
> >will be expensive to figure out whether or not a locked trunk or glove
> >compartment qualifies.
> >...
> 
> What does "non-licensee" mean?  Does this mean anything to me if I go  
down to
> the store, buy a hand/long/shot gun, fill out the paperwork, wait 2  
weeks,
> pick up the gun, load it and place it in my dresser draw (unlocked)?  Or
> does this law apply only to people carrying the gun outside their home  
on
> their person or car?
> 
> I guess the phrase "possess a gun" is what caught my eye...

I posted the full text (verbatim) of the federal law.  Unfortunately I  
zapped my own copy and don't feel like typing it all back in now.   
However.  The FEDERAL GFSZ Law DOES NOT apply to any firearms you keep in  
your house (on your private property).  STATE GFSZ laws MAY be different.

Non-licensee means that UNLESS your state (or city/county) issues you a
license to carry a firearm (CCW, LTC, etc.) in public; you can only
transport a firearm in/through a school zone if the gun is unloaded
and locked away.  To carry loaded and / or accesible you need a
state issued license.  The obvious problem:  if your state is one which
does not require licenses to carry / transport a gun, you CAN'T
and still have it accessible.

RIK
<not an attorney>
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Text of Ohio House Bill 709
Keywords: gun storage, children
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:48:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: dg-rtp.1992Apr15.194809.14425
Distribution: usa
Organization: N/I

In article <1992Apr12.033611.15126@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
[ text of proposed Ohio Kid/Gun Liability Bill ... ]
[ ... ]
>(B) This section does not apply to any of the following:
[ ... ]
>(4) An officer, agent, or employee of this state, another state, or the
>United States or a law enforcement officer when a child obtains possession
>of the officer's, agent's, or employee's loaded firearm during or
>incidental to the performance of the officer's, agent's, or employee's
>official duties.

Whether or not I think any other part of this Bill is a Good Idea (TM),
I fail to see why an "officer, agent, or employee of this state, [etc.]"
should be held to a _lower_ standard of accountability with kids & guns
than ordinary private peons -- uh, citizens.
From: ICDLJ@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Self-Defense
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:39:54 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University


 I agree wholeheartedly.
 I used to run in gangs, no problems.
 When I was in college I had very fast feet, and a quick first punch- all I
 needed.
 Then I got married, and my wife can't run as fast as I can.  She shouldn't
 have to, this is one of the reasons guys and gals differ.
 When you're both carrying your kids, you are really slow.
 We started packin'.
 That was in the S.F. Bay area, and concealed was illegal.
 We left Ca.

 You are the captain of your ship, you may remain aloof, but anything
 you fail to do in this regard may bear seriously on your contributions
 to the gene pool.
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:26:15 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr06.131348.5533@convex.com> langston@convex.COM (Kevin Langston) writes:
>db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>sybok@m4-035-2.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>>>
>>>Did you see "Pale Rider" with Clint Eastwood?  An EXCELLENT MOVIE about
>>>a gunslinger who blows into town to clean it up; it turns out he's a priest.
>>
>>Instead of watching these gun-slinging movies, I suggest you watch
>>a few Australian films, in order to see life in its fullest, and
>>to get a more balanced perspective on the human experience.
>
>    So of Mad Max, Crocodile Dundee, or The Man from Snowy River, which is
>    more of a "balanced perspective on the human experience"??
>
Nope. I was referring to our quality films. 

-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: curmw@dcatla.uucp
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Perot & Gun control
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:41:22 GMT
Organization: Digital Communications Associates, Alpharetta, GA



	Well folks, I saw it on CNN this weekend; Perot said:

	"I AM FOR GUN CONTROL.  When I was young, everyone had guns,
	but no one was shooting each other, now everyone has guns, and
	they're shooting each other."

	I'm not sure what he means by "gun control,"  but you can bet
	that if he is willing to make that statement, he is no friend
	of the 2nd ammendment.

	Rob Waterson
	My opinion, not DCA's.
From: jimiii@mips.com (Jim Warford)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Date: 15 Apr 1992 20:31:37 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, California
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: electron.mips.com

In article <1992Apr15.193416.973@ms.uky.edu> uk09365@nx02.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten) writes:

>It seems to me that this federal gun free school zones law may be designed  
>with the following intent:
>
>#1. To be used as model legislation by target states, eventually this will  
>be used to justify such legislation in all states.
>#2. To force states which do not currently have LTC's or other firearms  
>permit systems to adopt them (with background checks and waiting periods  
>to follow the technical detail of the law).
>#3. To enhance the penalties given armed drug offenders in school zones.
>
You forgot:
 #4  To give the criminals something to plea-bargain guilty to so the
     charges of distributing a controlled substance or assualt can be
     dropped.
 #5  To give the police another law to allow them to hassle the innocent
     citizens who they don't happen to like the looks of.
     "Well, your honor.  I saw him carrying a large package down the street
     towards the school and thought he might be a drug dealer.  When I 
     stopped him for questioning he acted nervous and I used that as 
     grounds to search the package and discovered the firearm."

--jimiii@mips.com




-- 
 Faster horses
 Younger women 
 Older whiskey
 More money!
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Ohio House Bill 709
Summary: parental responsibility, reasonable security
Keywords: ohio, hb 709, parents criminally liable for childs actions
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:42:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Apr9.134207.13503
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.

>> The Ohio House Judiciary and Criminal Justice Subcommittee meeting
>> of April 8th discussed H.B. 709.  This bill would make PARENTS or
>> guardians criminally liable [jail time!], if their CHILD takes a gun
>> belonging to his or her parents to school!

> Maybe I'm not getting something... I don't see what's wrong with this.
> I think parents *should* be held more responsible for what their children
> do.

I am very irritated with the sneaky way the hearing was conducted.

Also, consider this, if someone owns a firearm with kids in the home, what
is the minimum amount of security this law imposes on the owner ?  A big
safe!  That's very unreasonable to me.  If a parent can make a gun safe via
a trigger lock, lock box, or similar device, which keeps the gun from being
used by an unauthorized person [within a short time frame], that's not good
enough. The kid can steal the gun, and have the lock mechanism disabled
or removed, and then take the gun to school.  Hell, even a big combination
safe can be defeated if you're patient enough.

If your kid really wants your gun your had.  Just how much responsibility
should parents have for the actions of their children ?  If a child uses
their parents gun to commit a murder this law would not hold them liable.  
What about other weapons taken to school ?

I guess this rules out taking a gun to school on "show and tell day"
as Karl Kleinpaste stated he did once.

>> There is not any form of gun registration in Ohio [except the 4473].
>> So, if my child takes a gun of mine I bought privately how the hell
>> can it be proven to be mine anyway!  My child and spouse are hostile
>> witnesses in, so their testimony can't be used against me in court!

> Interesting argument!  Well, they could still go to Vance's and check the
> 4473 (i.e., do a trace) and see who it was sold to; if your name's on the
> 4473 they gotcha.  Or they might bring in a friend or co-worker who knows
> the gun is yours; or if they find your prints on it and you claim you've
> never seen it before they can probably convince a jury.

Yep, that's still true.

I'm interested in hearing from others on this type of bill.

I still want to break something.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
"Fight fire with fire, I always say." -- Bugs Bunny
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 02:33:12 GMT

db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:

>Well I have to dosagee with you. I don't think I should waste my
>time thinking such things. They are so unlikely. If we worried
>about all these whatifs all the time, life would be so unpleasant.
>Personally I have better things to do.

The rate of firearms homicide in Australia is very low, so David and
I are both very unlikely to get shot.  Good.  Let's not worry about guns.

It's unlikely that my house will be burgled.  Good.  I don't need to worry
about locking up my guns and ammunition.

Thanks, Dave!

>>>   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
>>>    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
>>>    was swatting at flies.
>>And while you preach tolerance for one's fellow man, your signature seems
>>quite contradictory.
>No, it is just that you don't understand it. Maybe if you worried
>less you would gain humour.

American readers have to understand that, to an Australian, an English
cricketer is not a "fellow man" (and, of course, vice versa).

Geoff Miller  (ghm@cc.adfa.oz.au)   |   Don't steal.  The government
Computer Centre                     |   hates competition.
Australian Defence Force Academy    |   (via Jeff Cooper)
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Kill for a penny myth
Summary: Davie's hypothetical
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:50:42 GMT
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University

In article <brian.703209351@coombs> brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:
> ...
>>In article <1992Apr11.014355.18095@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>>Oh sure Roberta.... like in the case of the guy that said he
>>>would kill for a penny;
>  ^^^^^^^^^^
>
> ...  Dave was discussing
>some who "said he WOULD KILL", not someone who, "said he HAS KILLED".  Learn
>to recognise the past and the future tense will you?

  Are you accusing Davie of discussing a *hypothetical*?  That's
even worse than getting tense with the future.  Oh, by the way,
why do you think that this guy hasn't killed lots of people so far -
not enough pennies or what?

--henry schaffer 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kossack@rice.edu (Jordan M Kossack)
Subject: Re: Salmon Rushdie's insight into America
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 06:11:26 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.031526.5698@matilda.vut.edu.au>, db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
- >> He is indeed fortunate to live in England.
- >
- >As compared to where?  North Korea?  Burkina Faso?  New Jersey?
- 
- The USA.

	Yeah, as long as he doesn't ride the underground, eh? 

	Funny, though, with all that "gun control" one would 
   think that bodyguards would be unnecessary.  Nicht Wahr?  


-- 
Jordan M Kossack  |    
kossack@rice.edu  |    I   L O V E   W H I T E S P A C E   ! ! ! 
 +1 713 270 9056  |
From: Leroy.Pyle@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Leroy Pyle)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:24:35 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:143/223 - The Paul Revere Net, San Jose CA

-> From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
-> Date: 14 Apr 92 16:18:16 GMT
-> Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
-> Message-ID: <1992Apr14.161816.13223@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
-> Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
->
->
-> >Why didn't the NRA tell us about this?
->
-> Possibly because they weren't having any luck getting you to do
-> anything about the other stuff going through.  Given that, why bother
->
-> I'm not a fan of the NRA, but it does give you plenty of opportunitie
-> to make a difference.  If you don't take advantage of them, it's
-> rather silly to complain that you didn't have others.
->
-> -andy
-> --
Nice going, Andy. I wish I'd said that.
 
    Leroy


3
--  
Leroy Pyle
UUCP: uts.amdahl.com!kennel!223!Leroy.Pyle
INTERNET: Leroy.Pyle@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG
"The views expressed above are those of Leroy Pyle only."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@m4-035-13.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
Subject: Re: Guns on school property
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 00:33:23 GMT

>Must be nice to be able too...
>
>Here in NC, it is a FELONY to carry an gun *OR* ammunition on school property.
>We have a small group of us that enjoy target shooting every weekend in a on 
>private property that a buddy owns.  It got to the point that since I lived off
>campus I was the unofficial 'armorer' of our clique.

What if a college has a range on campus?  Can you then get a permit to
carry on campus?

MIT has a range.  Even with my MA LTC, I still by law must get the chief
of campus police to sign something saying I can bring firearms on campus
for use at the range.  (Only firearms are prohibited without consent from
campuses in MA.  Ammunition is not subject to any additional regulation on
campuses, and an FID card will suffice.  Replicas are completely unregulated.)

The whole thing is stupid!  Why does the need to defend oneself necessarily
stop when one walks on campus.  Will the police ALWAYS be there?  NOT!

>At one point I had the
>following in my closet: 
>
>Taurus PT99AF 9mm
>S&W 4516-1 .45 cal
>S&W 629 .44 magnum
>S&W Model 39 
>Ruger 10/22 
>Ruger MkII .22LR
>Colt Delta Elite 10mm
>Mossberg 500 12ga.
>US M1 carbine
>Norinco SKS Carbine
>Norinco SKS Carbine w/ folding stock
>FIE snub-nose .38 spl
>1917 US Enfield .30-06
>
>God help the person that broke into my apartment!

I wouldn't leave my firearms at the range, which is the only legal place
to have firearms if you live on campus.  (The government need only
place a sentry at the door of the range, or lock it, and your firearm
is inaccessible.)  So I moved off campus.  Now my gun is only inches away
in Condition 3.

Your friends must trust you eminently--in your hands rests their freedom.
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: UK court approves use of shotgun
Date: 9 Apr 92 07:26:14 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <2317@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
>
>David Bowman:
>> I can think of loads of scenarios where running away is not
>> possible. I could not equal the champion of whatifs though!
>> But this thread was about people who were in a position
>> when they *could* run away.
>
>Awww-right! I'm now "Champion of Whatifs" and a "Ratbag"!

No. You are not the Whatif champion. You have a long way to
go before you beat him! 

Further, I didn't call you a ratbag, but you can claim the title if you like.
>
>Sorry David, this thread was about fighting.  What you are talking
>about is a "duel" (commonly called a "step outside" where I'm from).
>In a "duel" either of the participants can decline or run away.  A
>fight isn't quite so civilized and often isn't so voluntary.
>
It takes two to fight!

>In the Canadian form of english, duel and fight are not interchangeable.
>But then you Australians can redefine your language at will,  now
>can't you.

Well at least we speak English!
-- 
   "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: wayne john warf <wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 11:02:00 -0500

In article <1992Apr9.065647.1227@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <9204081804.AA04894@skinner.nprdc.navy.mil> malloy@NPRDC.NAVY.MIL (Sean Malloy) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr8.005718.15174@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au writes:
>>>Well in Australia, the police recognise that private gun ownership
>>>does not help minimise crime, and that it has the opposite
>>>effect. That is why the Police Associations plus the Chief
>>>Commissioners are right behind our gun laws, specifically
>>>the new ones which prohibit the ownership of guns for
>>>"self defence".
>>
>>From the information Brian collected showing that Australian police,
>>while they are obligated to _respond_ to crimes, have no obligation
>>to _protect_ an individual from criminals. In point of fact, there's
>>no practical way for a police force to provide _protection_ to every
>>individual. From the statement above, we see that the Police
>>Association and the Chief Commissioners are strongly opposed to
>>letting individuals protect _themselves_. The police can't protect
>>you, and they won't let you protect yourself -- what protection does
>>the individual _get_?
>>
>The individual gets protection of the police and protection by
>others in the community. We do not have the same problems as you
>have in America. We have Neighbourhood Watch and there are
>programs for people to learn how not to be a victim. There are also
>classes in the martial arts.   

Neighorhood Watch, crime avoidance programs and martial arts: Lord,
they could teach us so much if we only listened! We don't we have
any of these things HERE, now do we?

Of course, if you don't have the same problems, why do you keep
proposing the same solutions? Leave us to our own ignornant devices.

Martial arts...*gawd* why didn't we think of that!?
-- 
 *  WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu**I speak for me,OK?**sic semper tyrannis    *
 *   NRA LIFE* *NRA Certified Instructor* *Penna. R&PA* *Ind. SR&PA   *
 * Department of Decision & Information Systems, Indiana University   *
 * Bloomington, IN 47405 USA* *Pennsylvania CCW Lic.*Indiana CCW Lic. *