HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fight the bastards (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:08:09 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

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.

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.

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.




















--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:24:41 GMT

In article <9212311212.23@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

|> >BTW - Did you ever wonder why the AMOUNT of property carried is
|> >considered relevant?  If Trump loses his watch to a mugger, he's out
|> >pocket change, while losing $10 can be a real hardship for a poor
|> >person.  Considering who gets useful police protection, restricting
|> >the poor's ability to take care of themselves is a cruel joke.
|> 
|> How does a person who would endure hardship by being robbed of $10
|> acquire a gun.  I own several guns, and they all cost $200+.

For about 20 years, I have been donating used, low cost, but reasonable quality
firearms (mostly revolvers) to acquaintances (and relatives) of mine that could
not otherwise afford to defend themselves.

That's how.

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.

|> >A number of states have decided to issue permits to most anyone who
|> >applies.  They haven't had the horrible experience that Kelly assumes.
|> >Are Bay Staters different?
|> 
|> In Arizona, I believe, there is now a move to restrict the current laws
|> that allow children to carry concealed weapons, as many parents are
|> concerned that it has become fashionable for junior high students to
|> carry concealed weapons.

You are WRONG - no one in Arizona, except police, is allowed to carry concealed
weapons.  Those kids were breaking a law that's been on the books since the
1950's, at least.

The argument in Arizona is basicly over whether the state pre-emption law is
worth the paper it is written on.

-- 
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
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 02:58:37 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <C0Gy6L.6Er@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>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.

I'm getting confused here.  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?

Aside from Morton Grove, where is it completely illegal, for any reason,
for a citizen to buy a gun?

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: TIME is on the ropes, asks for forgive
Date: 7 Jan 93 05:25:43 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <1993Jan6.162050.20633@amex-trs.com> skimmel@amex-trs.com (Steve Kimmel) writes:
>I'm not sure what to make of this.  I'm not ready to turn in anything
>I might own, and yet the killing that takes place in categories 1-3
>is a real problem.  I think that no small part of the problem is,
>to use the words of someone several weeks ago, the culture of violence
>that is a big part of American culture.  The first choice for confilict
>resolution has not always been to kill the other person. Where is this
>comming from?  Could Dan Quayle been aiming at the right industry after
>all?  If we say that in all but the most life threatening situation that
>killing is bad, where is this being drummed into little heads?  In church?
>In civics class?  In terminator II and die hard,harder,hardest?

I'd say the media has a lot to do with it.  Both the entertainment industry
and little foreign policy adventures like Panama have shown force to be the
solution of choice, when frustration is encountered.

   don
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 12:12:55 GMT

rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>For one thing, I don't see anyone here talking about how to get rid
>of blackmarket guns.  Everyone here seems to ignore that problem.

	How would you get rid of the millions of guns that now
are in the black market and in the posession of criminals? 

Not "how would you prevent the transfer of more guns into the
black market", but how would you "get rid of", as you say, the
guns in criminal hands at present?

Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: googs@pravda.webo.dg.com (Joe Gugliemino)
Subject: Re: What Problem Is Supposed To Be Solved, Here? (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Date: 07 Jan 93 19:28:50 GMT
	<ATAYLOR.93Jan5133412@gauss.nmsu.edu> <9301061141.17@rmkhome.UUCP>
Organization: NSDD/ONSD, Data General Corp., Westboro, MA

[] Regarding Re: What Problem Is Supposed To Be Solved, Here? (Was: Dressed for Rape);
[] rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

 rk> And according to the newspapers, specifically the Boston Globe and the
 rk> Middlesex News, the state attorney general's office has released statistics
 rk> that show that women are more in danger from being killed by husbands and
 rk> boyfriends than any other circumstance.  This statistic must be fairly
 rk> accurate if the police chief's association of Massachusetts has publicly,
 rk> in print, stated that they are willing to be lenient about giving gun
 rk> permits to women who have domestic violence related court orders in effect.
I saw an article in last Sunday's Boston Globe saying how violent crime
on women by ex-SO's was on an increase.  It was based on hokey stats.
Although the paper has already hit the recycle bin, a VERY rough
representation of the stats would be something like this:

Year  Total Violence    Attrib    Domestic   Domestic 
      on Women          Known     Cause      Rate

1991   48               24        12         50 %         
1992   24               12         8         75 %

(NOTE:  These are not the real numbers, but the illustrate their
argument)

Based on these numbers the Globe argued that violence on women was up,
and that they thought revoking firearms permits of ANYBODY that has been
served a restraining order was a proper action.

A couple of notes that the Globe didn't mention:

1.  Absolute violence against women was down by a lot.
2.  Domestic violence against women was down by a lot.
3.  In some divorce procedings, restraining orders are matter of course
    to gain legal advantage, and have no relation to "potential
    violence" by either party.
4.  Not all the violence was done with firearms.

While I'm not saying that violence will go away, I think you have to
carefully watch the arguments put forth to restrict RKBA.  They are
often flawed.  On the other hand, the fact that Chiefs might be more
lenient to ANYBODY is a step in the right direction...
--

                             Later,

                             Joe Gugliemino

(new address)
       |
       V
googs@pravda.webo.dg.com             Voice: (508) 870-6318
Joe_Gugliemino@dg.com                      Phone messages routinely routed
Data General Corp., Westboro, Ma.             to the nearest black hole...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: The NRA will always be right wing.
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 13:50:36 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

As quoted from <C0K5M1.Ezp@SSD.intel.com> by hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays):

> In article <1ikgh3INNp26@flash.pax.tpa.com.au>, anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:
> 
> Looks like the aussie anti-gun fanatics are at it again.  Is that you, Susan?
> 
> I encourage everyone to ignore this thread, as, first, the NRA encompasses 
> persons of every economic, political, sexual, and religious background, and
> second, I seriously doubt any Australian, particularly an anonymous one, has
> any particular knowledge of either American politics, or NRA internals.

You make an EXCELLENT point.  I didn't catch the origin of the message which
started the thread.

These drones are in a VERY precarious position regarding this issue, MUCH more
so than the NRA has EVER been.  I don't want anybody to forget how "Susan"
told gays to "pity" people who were assaulting and killing them.  I don't
want anybody to forget how the OZ Continuum squirmed when I accused it of 
promoting gay bashing by trying to disarm law abiding homosexuals.

They don't have a leg to stand on, and I point this out whenever I get the 
chance, especially to homosexuals.  They have no more duty to die to protect
criminals than anybody else.  After all, who's more of a friend, the person
who works to guarantee your right to defend yourself, or the one who works to
protect your murderer by disarming YOU...?

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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Concealed carry in Tn, etc (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:20:59 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <g2yrn9@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

>>>>       Come visit Knoxville.  You won't actually see people carrying 
>>>>guns here, either.  :-)       
>>>
>>>So you're saying that a lot of people just carry concealed weapons,
>>>no matter what the laws say?
>
>>       Bingo.  Give the man a cigar.  That's exactly what I said.  But then,
>>Tennesseeans seem to take their state government even less seriously than 
>>most people.
>
>Boy's kinda slow, huh?  Yeah, we tend to ignore those nuts over in
>East Arkansas, er, I mean Nashville.  They occasionally steal a bit of
>our money and call it "taxes" but otherwise, they are pretty much
>ignored.

       I've checked.  Republican East Tennessee's getting rooked by 
Democratic Middle and West Tennessee.  Virtually every county in this end of 
that state pays more money in taxes than it recieves in services, by 
something like 20-30%  Then "Fat Boy" McWherter uses all the school systems 
out here that the State's not funding to pretend we don't have enough money 
and push for an income tax.
       I'm thinking of starting a secesionist movement.  The Great State
of Franklin needs to return.

>Hey Dave, whatcha wanna bet this guy's gasping for breath at the thought
>that we'd actually *ignore the LAW*  :-)

       I've said this more times than I care to count:  Pass a law people 
think is wrong, and they won't take it seriously.  Nobody takes speeding 
seriously, and in East Tennessee they don't take prohibitions against
concealed carry seriously.
       And for Rick's information, we don't have firefights in the street
everyday.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 7 Jan 1993 23:12:58 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301061250.46@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

> >Here's what we actually have in Massachusetts:
> >
> >"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
> > their potential victims from buying weapons."
> >
> >God forbid we should do something about "releasing convicted murderers and
> >armed robbers on a whim" instead of screwing down on everybody ELSE'S guns.
> 
> Or perhaps we should let the police shoot more criminals.

Let them?  In too many cases, the only restraining criterion is that they 
are NOT THERE to shoot.
-- 

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: cwt@mitre.org (Carl Traber)
Subject: Re: "all people, all of the time"  (Was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA.
	<9301092003.20@rmkhome.UUCP> <1993Jan10.174555.16853@ncsu.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:37:26 GMT

hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:

   In article <9301092003.20@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
   > ...
   >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.   ...

     Here is the crux of the matter - it appears to Rick Kelly that
   the poster to whom he is replying, and many other pro-RKBA posters,
   are saying this.  I claim that nobody (or at most a *very* small
   fraction) is saying this - and that (almost) every pro-RKBA poster
   wants to deny access to guns for such groups of people as inmates
   in prisons, inmates of mental institutions, convicted violent
   felons on parole and to very strongly limit access for young
   children#.  I also claim that many enthusiastic statements are made
   by pro-RKBA posters who mislead Rick Kelly into thinking that
   they have the claimed attitude rather than the position I describe.

I agree with Henry that there are people that absolutely should not
have the RKBA -- I was on the jury that convicted such a person.  I
also think that such violent people -- when properly identified (e.g.
via conviction for a violent felony) -- should have the burden of
proving they are no longer dangerous before the RKBA is restored to
them, but that this option should be available to them.

     Am I right?  If so, then perhaps people need to be clearer about
   this (and also let Rick Kelly know how they feel.  I suspect that
   he'll stop needling people after he finds out their actual
   positions.)  If not, then I need to learn something.

     #(I know that pro-RKBA people disagree on the important details
   such as how to treat convicted felons who have "paid their debt" to
   society, and the age(s) at which children should or shouldn't have
   access.  But that isn't important with respect to whether they 
   have an "all" position.)

I think that ALL children should receive basic firearms safety training.
I would prefer that it were taught in school, to reach the greatest
number of kids.  I also enjoy seeing the kids learning how to shoot in
a safe and responsible environment -- my kids did.  They all can ask
Daddy to let a friend join us at the range or sand pit, and I'll
usually agree as long as the kid is well-behaved and/or accompanied
by a parent that keeps him/her under control.  Thet really do enjoy
bouncing those soft drink cans around.

-- Carl Traber
From: dstine@cisco.com (David Stine)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Firearms safety training for children (Was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Date: 5 Jan 1993 04:51:20 GMT
Organization: 9th Flying Pig Combat Squadron
NNTP-Posting-Host: glare.cisco.com

In article <1993Jan5.015536.7235@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>In article <1i9ocjINNguh@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
># ...  I read in a recent HCI mailing
>#that the NRA is promoting an education package that includes the (gasp)
>#"handling and firing of live firearms!"
># ...
>[...]
>My argument was that "forbidden fruit" is very attractive to
>children (and adults), and that familiarization would take some
>of the allure away, and that safety training would add to their 
>childrens' chance of survival.
>
>  Both of these families have found shooting to be "lots of fun",
>and their emotional anti-gun fervor has really died away, with one
>family starting to think about what gun(s) they might even want to
>buy.

My thanks to Henry for another informative post. I'm going to start
instructing this year and have saved this post, since it had so many useful
hints-n-kinks.

I'd also like to second the assesment of "forbidden fruit is attractive to
kids" theory. While I can't make a sweeping generalization (since I have no
stats to back it up) I can say that my parents certainly saw things much the
same way Henry does. And not just about firearms; about booze, cars, sex and
all those other nasty adult things that can get you into big trouble. Instead
of treating these things as "you can't do that because I say you can't", the
attitude was one of my being treated as an adult with the expectation that I
would act as a responsible adult. Add to this some frank and non-judgemental
discussion of what the heck was going on and I suddenly thought my folks were
a whole lot smarter than some other parents.

eg: while other kids were out getting shit-faced every chance they could, my
mom bought beer for me. Getting drunk wasn't a big deal. (after all, who was I
going to be 'rebelling' against by doing so?) Other parents were dumbfounded.
And they were still dumbfounded when it turned out that their kids were the
ones with DWI convictions and my mom's kids were not. Same deal with firearms.
Other kids got arrested for having them in a vehicle passenger compartment (a
BIG no-no in NJ even 15 years ago) and my mom drove me to the range just about
every weekend during the summer. And the other parents were even more
dumbfounded. 

dsa


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: This organ donating thread
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 08:30:20 GMT

pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

>The problem is that the potential exists to allow creditors to force an 
>invasive surgical procedure to procure an asset that they are legally 
>entitled to.

	While it's possible for this to come about, I've been putting off
ingiunial hernia surgery for three months waiting for the insurance company
to get their act strait, and I may have to put it off another five months
because I'm not missing the first week of classes recovering from the
operation.  In any event, the state cannot, I'm told, require one to
undergo any medical procedure (save lethal injection), and I suspect
creditors can be answered with a simple, "You can have my kidney when I
die and not a moment before.  Follow me around, asshole, and wait."  If
the state doesn't have this power, it's unlikely a creditor has it.
My talks with the hospital indicate they can only operate on me if I
am incoherent, no family members can be contacted, and I am in imminent
danger of losing my life due to this injury.  Without permission, they
will attempt to stabilize me, not fix me.

	Unless your creditor has a middle name of "the," as in Vinnie
the Shark, Guido the Gun, Mack the Knife, etc... you're probably safe.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns