HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:27:14 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats

In article <JGREELY.93Jan6111850@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu> jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes:
>In article <9301051928.44@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>In article <pa142548.600.726243641@utkvm1.utk.edu> pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>>All you can do is place a political tool at the
>>>hands of people who think that no one should own a handgun.
>
>>And what about people with felony records?
>
>They don't want people to own handguns either.

But your not worried about felons having guns?

>>>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.
>
>More to what?  Shooting, or not having a gun accident?  Certainly
>training someone to shoot with any accuracy requires more training
>than "don't point it at people", but basic safety is, well, basic, at
>the level of "don't stick your hand into the blades of a running lawn
>mower" or "don't mix bleach and ammonia".  Oddly enough, I know people
>who've failed to obey both of these rules (with the obvious
>consequences), but I don't know anyone who has been injured in a gun
>accident.

I know several.  One of them made the grave mistake of buying the poor
excuse for a gun that Walther sells these days.  His PPK liked to jam
at frequent intervals.  He tried to clear a jam by tapping it on a gun
rest at a range, and shot himself in the foot.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 10 Jan 93 22:42:56 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
> >rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> >> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
> >> >rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> >> >>There is slightly more to it than that.
> >> >
> >> >What?  I've been handling firearms for over two decades and I 
> >> >have yet to put a hole in anything that the barrel wasn't 
> >> >pointed at.
> >> 
> >> I can say the same thing, myself, but I've seen other people who 
> >> weren't quite so lucky.
> >
> >please explain to us how the bullet exited from the side of the 
> >gun. or was it the rear? regardless, i'm sure a lot of people 
> >would be interested in this little feat of marksmanship.
> 
> So your saying that from the moment that they first pick up a gun, 
> people have the control to always put a bullet exactly where they 
> want it to go?  That they would have enough control to fire off a 
> whole clip of 9 mm as fast as they can, and they would be in 
> control of the barrel the whole time?

can you -never- answer a direct question? any time someone dosn't have
control of the weapon they may or may not be pointing at something
they don't want to put a hole in. the original fact remains that 
unless you're pointing the barrel at something the bullet isn't going 
to go there. thus the rule "Don't point the barrel at anything you don't
want to put a hole in." control is an obvious prerequisite

jason

--
me
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Who is more affluent and better educated than average?
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 18:41:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.043613.25953@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary) writes:
>
>Do you think it hurt their fingers to type the last part?

	I'm sure that there are at least a few therapists out there that
	are now making a small fortune on this.  Whether they are physical-
	or psycho- therapists... well I guess we'll never know for certain.

	-Andy V.
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: TIME is on the ropes, asks for forgive
Date: 12 Jan 93 02:57:40 GMT
Organization: Victoria University of Technology

In article <1907@esl.ESL.COM> drm@esl.com writes:
>
>I noticed that a recent (post-New Year's) issue of Time had an editorial  
>cartoon in which the "Somalian Rifle Associaiton" asserted their rights to  
>deep and bear rocket launchers in the face of Marines bent on confiscating  
>arms used in thuggery.
>
Time makes a good point! I thought you lot would support
the right of the Somalis to keep and bear arms. Is it one
rule for citizens of the USA and another for citizens of other
countries?

>I haven't noticed any pro-gun articles or cartoons, though I am not a  
>reader of the magazine. (Just happened to flip through it in the check-out  
>line.) 

Sure!
>

Cheers,

Dave
-- 
" And so they took Ned Kelly and hanged him in the jail,
  For he fought singlehanded although in iron mail.
  And no man singlehanded can hope to break the bars;
  It's a thousand like Ned Kelly who'll hoist the flag of stars"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:38:34 GMT

In article <9301091958.22@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>If I am cornered in my home, I am allowed under the law to defend myself.

Why can't you defend yourself if you are not cornered?   Must you abandon 
your home and loved ones rather than defend yourself against an intruder?  
This is the case in New Jersey.  Is it also the case up in Taxechussets?

>
>There is nothing wrong with public defense.  I just don't think that
>anyone should be able to buy a gun and carry it around the street.

I detect a conflict here.  If you don't want anyone to be able to carry 
means of self-defense, how can you claim that "there is nothing wrong with 
public defense."

>
>So how come the carry permit system doesn't work up in the corner of
>the state near Chicago?
>

Who says it doesn't work?  If the legal carry for citizens is the root of 
the problem, why is the problem endemic to the entire state, instead of just 
the Chicago area?

>Yes, I don't feel safe if anyone can just buy a gun even if they are
>crazy, or drug dealers, or car jackers.


You're not safe anywhere, regardless of the gun laws.  Ask any resident of 
Washington DC or New York city.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:08:09 GMT

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

>In article <C0Cox6.Ivt@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>>Being poor doesn't mean you have no right to defend yourself.
>>
>>And charity isn't just money, food, or clothing.
>>
>>|> >Disarming most people is, at best, complete waste of time.  How many
>>|> >people who we don't want carrying obey this law?  None?  Then why are
>>|> >we threatening other people with jail?
>>|> 
>>|> The police would like to know who has guns.
>>
>>In a police state, this is a valid argument.  In our Republic, it should be
>>repugnant to anyone who understands that:
>>
>>1.  Persons have a guaranteed right of privacy; and
>>
>>2.  The government exists at the whim of the governed.
>
>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.

       "Have to," is an interesting way to phrase things.  First, if the 
state governments *are* releasing murderers and robbers on a whim, with no 
thought as to whether they're a danger (or even completed their sentence, 
which most don't) explain to me why *I* should be put at an inconvenience 
and danger for it?
       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.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 09:44:29 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

In article <C0E219.G9u@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>I find this personally amusing.  I grew up in Arizona several decades ago, in
>several different rural areas, and we kids brought (*gasp*) guns to school,
>regularly.
>
>In the 5th grade, in particular, I had a teacher who loved hunting doves.  In
>season, the boys and girls in his class would bring in our personal shotguns,
>most of us riding on the school buses, and go dove hunting before class in the
>millet fields across the road from the school.
               :
>You'll excuse me, I hope, if I don't broadcast the school's name - I'd hate to
>sic the liberal education establishment on them.


Same here.  When I was in grammar school in the early 60s, my 
"cap gun" was a navy arms 6 shot black powder revolver given me
by my dad.  For ordinary play, I used just the primers.  With dad
supervising, more serious play involved loading the thing with 
black powder and Crisco.    Very serious play involved black powder
and lead ball.  I wore this gun to school all the time and nothing
was thought of it other than I once gave a demonstration on how to
clean a gun to my 5th grade class.

Part of the school fair each year was the shooting range.  A
range was set up on the softball field and a fair midway-type 
shooting gallery was set up.  .22s were the weapons and stuffed animals 
were the prizes. Us kids shot with or without our parents being present.
All we had to do was to have the dime it took to buy a ticket.

This school was the Alpine Crest school in Hamilton County, TN (Chattanooga.)

Kirk, I've tried to figure out some other explanation for the fact
that we could safely handle firearms as children without there being
an accidental death or murder wave when our contemporaries cannot.
The only thing I can come up with is we and our parents and
teachers were just flat smarter and tougher than what exists today.

Can you just imagine what it will be line in another 30 years when
everyone sits shaking in their homes terrified to step outside 
for fear that some boogeyman (kids with guns, evil assault drugs,
marauding ozone holes, etc) will get 'em.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Traveling with a gun
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 09:13:50 GMT

In <1993Jan10.065611.21174@mtu.edu> pecampbe@mtu.edu (Paul Campbell) writes:

>This is ludicrous. The constitution REQUIRES them to recognize the
>laws and proceedings of other states.

	Not exactly.  According to my on-line copy:
 
Article IV
 
Section 1.    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the
public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which
such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2.    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all
Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. [...]

	What this says to me, a layman, is that the Fed gets to say what
laws have to be recognized by other states, and that only those laws that
apply in the state you are in apply to you while you are there.

	That's why a nationwide CCW is being pushed -- it does allow the
full faith and credit clause to actually work for a change.

< 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 1993 21:26:26 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301051955.18@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> In article <pa142548.604.726244364@utkvm1.utk.edu> pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
> >In article <9301021347.42@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> >>So, do you carry a gun 24 hours a day?
> >>
> >When I was a Georgia resident I did.  Here in Tennessee, private citizens 
> >can't get carry permits.
> 
> When you were living in Georgia, how often did you have to pull a gun and/or
> shoot at somebody?

How often has your seat belt, bike helmet, or home fire extinguisher 
saved your life?

How often has your home fire insurance paid to replace your house?

How many burglars or housebreakers has your home alarm system detected?

Do you believe that only Boy Scouts should be permitted to "Be Prepared?"
-- 

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: CLF@ECLX.PSU.EDU (Christopher L Frame)
Subject: TIME is on the ropes?  Well kick them when they're down!
Organization: Penn State Engineering Computer Lab
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 06:03:18 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <1ifu2eINN17c@eagle.natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com writes:

> In article <GOOGS.93Jan6131632@pravda.webo.dg.com> googs@pravda.webo.dg.com (Joe Gugliemino) writes:
> >
> >As a result of your position on gun control I will no longer buy
> >Time/Life/Warner products.
> 
> I doubt that Time/Life/Warner will take a threat to boycot all their
> products seriously.  They make Albums, CDs, movies, video tapes, many
> magazines (not just Time and Life), etc.  I think they publish Parade
> which comes with a lot of Sunday newspapers.  I also think they own
> the Six Flags amusement parks.  The list of products is quite long.
> 
> I encourage you to boycot Time magazine but are you really going to
> stop buying all Time Warner products.  If you are then more power to
> you but if you aren't then don't make idle threats that will just
> be laughed at.
> 

	There are better things than boycotting.  Subscribe to TIME and then
cancel when the bill comes.  This costs TIME some $$$$, not much but every
little bit hurts.  Also send in subscription requests from dead people, or to 
public addresses, or to Handgun Control Inc.

	But don't say I told you so.

SS  "Attempt to take my firearms and I will attempt to take your life"

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:33:35 GMT

In article <9301092003.20@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <C0G0Br.E4v@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.
edu (Anmar Caves) writes:>>In article <9301051928.44@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!
rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:>>>>Why? There is no way to prevent someone 
who is not "psycologically able" >>>>from getting a handgun.  All you can do 
is place a political tool at the>>>>hands of people who think that no one 
should own a handgun.>>>
>>>And what about people with felony records?
>>
>>What about them?  You failed to even come up with something coherent
>>here.  You asked a question, that cannot be answered because we can't
>>read your mind as to the subject of your question,
>
>I'm just questioning your all or nothing attitude.  You are saying that
>all people, all of the time, should have equal access to guns.  And
>when the smoke clears we'll see who wins.

The attitude is not all or nothing, but "what is reasonable?"  And "what has 
the potential to be abused."

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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 03:20:50 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <1993Jan7.145826.27832@Firewall.Nielsen.Com> jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson) writes:
>In article <9301061609.11@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>I also think that the only people who should *not* be
>>>allowed to carry in public (aside from the previous age restriction)
>>>should be the seriously mentally unstable, and convicted violent felons
>>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>However, you must have a foolproof way of determining this.  The only
>>way at present is fingerprints, FBI records, and police/court records.
>
>So Kelly agrees, then, that letters of reference and the discretionary,
>OfficialOkeyDokey of the local police chief are unnecessary?

Pretty much.  My emphasis is basically on checking past arrest/conviction
records and current court status.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:23:34 GMT

In article <9301092003.20@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <C0G0Br.E4v@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:
>>In article <9301051928.44@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>>Why? There is no way to prevent someone who is not "psycologically able" 
>>>>from getting a handgun.  All you can do is place a political tool at the
>>>>hands of people who think that no one should own a handgun.
>>>
>>>And what about people with felony records?
>>
>>What about them?  You failed to even come up with something coherent
>>here.  You asked a question, that cannot be answered because we can't
>>read your mind as to the subject of your question,
>
>I'm just questioning your all or nothing attitude.  You are saying that
>all people, all of the time, should have equal access to guns.  And
>when the smoke clears we'll see who wins.

Yes, people who violently go against the social norm will have less
chance of getting away from it.  If the whole society is truly as
violent as you portray it, then should we be allowed to go on?  
-- 
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#Purveyor of
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#nontraditional
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #family values
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #Space For Rent
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:03:26 GMT

In article <9301052017.35@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>What was her reason for getting a license for the protection of life and
>>>property.  Business?  A substantiated attack?
>>
>>She shouldn't need a reason.  That she feels a need for resonable means of 
>>self defense should be enough.
>
>And the police are paid from the taxpayers money to protect her.

Look around.  Do you see a police officer?  Probably not.  

Did you know that the police are not obligated to protect you?  (Anybody got 
the relevant court decision on that handy?   My civil liberties filebase is 
no on-line.)

>>Those rules are illegal under the US constitution.  You should not be "
>>playing by them,"  you should abide by them and work to change them.  Not 
>>accept them because the "state makes the rules."  The state is the servant 
>>of the people, not the master of them.
>
>Why doesn't any press the Supreme Court on the issue?

No one can make the Supreme Court hear a case.   The Supremes have 
consistently decline to hear civil liberties cases under the Second 
Amendment since the turn of the century.  (US vs. Miller is a noted 
exception.)  The Supremes are mostly statist of either a liberal or 
conservative bent who, for different reasons, find an armed civilian 
populace anethema to their personal political agendas.  By refusing to hear 
the cases, they avoid ruling in a way that would adversely affect those 
agendas.

>>>How would you have them do this if there were no licensing procedures
>>>for guns?  How do you screen out people who already have a criminal
>>>record?
>>
>>Keep a national database of convicted felons.  Have the purchaser present a 
>>driver's liscence.  Dial up the database.  If there is not a "denied" 
>>response, make the sale.  No wait, no elaborate research.
>
>So you take the responsibility away from the police, and put it on 
>the poor bastard who owns a gun store.

No, on the institution responsible for maintaining the database.  Ideally a 
private contractor under state supervision.

>
>>>And if you believe the recently published statistics, you wife is in
>>>the greatest amount of danger from you, and my SO is in the greatest
>>>amount of danger from me.
>>
>>Only if you have either a criminal record or a violent history.
>
>There is a guy on trial right now, Kenneth Seguin, who comes from the
>next town.  He strangled his kids, and chopped up his wife with an
>axe.  He was a "seemingly" mild mannered vice president at a local
>high tech firm.
>
>Cases like this have been happening all during 1992 in Mass.

All the more reason for people to be able to defend themselves.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A new solution! (Was: Re: Dressed for Rape)
Date: 8 Jan 93 15:09:18 GMT
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma

>"The licensing authority MAY NOT prescribe any other condition for the
>issuance of a card, and it shall within 30 days from the date of
>application either approve the application and issue the card or deny
>the application and notify the applicant of the reason for such denial
>in writing."
>
>Unlike pistol permits, FID cards are NOT subject to the discretion of
>your police chief.
>-- 
>
Also...

   - They MUST allow you to apply
   - They MUST issue an official reciept when you apply
   - The reciept becomes a temporary FID card in 5 days

   [ even so, some PD's will not even let you apply until after
   they have done the record check - they rely on the fact that the
   check wil be completed be fore you could get a court date to
   force them to accept you application, making their unlawful
   refusal to take the application initially a mute point ]

>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