HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 14:58:26 GMT

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?

+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
|      John Kapson      | "1935 will go down in history!  For the first time, |
| NRA               ILA | a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our   |
| jkapson@nis.naitc.com | streets will be safer, our police more efficient    |
|                       | and the world will follow our lead into the         |
|                       | future!"  - Adolf Hitler                            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
|                  PGP Public Key available via email                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Subject: Re:    ACLU and Crime (NOV 92, CJUST-L)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: who knows
Date:  5 Jan 1993 12:19 EST  

Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes...
> ========================================================================
> Mr. Moderator: Please forgive if this has already been aired on t.p.g.
> We feel this is a fascinating article from the ACLU and answers a few
> questions many t.p.g readers may have about the "Guardian of Liberty".
> Comments ?

I made a quick scan of the article and found no mention of guns as one of
the main causes of crime.  Has the ACLU changed it tune (not much, since of
all the constitional rights that the ACLU discussed, it did not mention the 2nd
Amend.) 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:49:16 GMT

In article <9301061627.25@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>
>>>And what about people with felony records?
>>
>>They don't want people to own handguns either.
>
>But your not worried about felons having guns?

What we got here is a failure to communicate.  Some men, you just
can't reach.  Now, take him over here.  He's bringing this upon
himself.  Son, are you dense, or what?  Or, are you an AI undergoing a
Turing test?
What the hell is a felon doing walking the streets?  If someone has
proven themselves to be a menace to others, why do we let them free
after they've committed their crime?
Stick to the topic at hand please, or is that beyond your capability?

>>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.

Seems he violated rule number 1 eh?  What's your point?
-- 
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,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: This organ donating thread
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:52:33 GMT

In article <1iab7aINN9c1@cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu> peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:
>In other words, a lot of people will be a lot better off because you
>are allowed to sell your organs.  And no one will be worse off.  What
>exactly is the problem?
>
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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: What Problem Is Supposed To Be Solved, Here? (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:03:57 GMT


ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
< rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

><   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.
>		Which statistics would those be, please, and where were 
>		they published?
><   And, of course, untrained idiots who bought a gun at K-Mart would never
><   hurt themselves or anyone else by mistake.
>		Can Kelly show where anyone asserted this?


	I'd be suprised if we see an answer for these.   The pattern
established so far, no matter how polite or reasonable the questioner, 
is that Mr Kelly seems to ignore any question that could put him on 
the spot, 

Not any way to sustain a news debate for very long.

I was hoping he'd last longer.

Jim Del Vecchio
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Privacy and Guns (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Date: 5 Jan 93 20:39:36 GMT
	<1992Dec31.194027.1838@cbnewse.cb.att.com> <9301021313.22@rmkhome.UUCP>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <9301021313.22@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
<   In article <1992Dec31.194027.1838@cbnewse.cb.att.com> random@cbnewse.cb.att.com (David L. Pope) writes:
<   >[Text regarding carry permits deleted.]
<   >
<   >>>Then why are we threatening other people with jail?
<   >
<   >> The police would like to know who has guns.
<   >  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<   >
<   >And it is our duty to restrict that knowledge.

<   Why is that?

	See the Bill of Rights for details: look under
	"Search and Seizure" and "Self-Incrimination".
From: rpalmer@Think.COM (Ralph Palmer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Time changes its tune ---NOT!
Date: 6 Jan 1993 21:30:30 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: basie.think.com


To the person who renewed his subscription to TIME after a sales
person told him that TIME has changed its ways, I suggest he look
at the cartoon in the Jan 11 1993 issue near the front of the rag.

It consists of a couple of Somali men standing under a sign that says
"Somali Rifle Association".  The men are wearing T shirts that say
"I am the SRA" and "Rockets don't kill people, people do".  There is
a poster on the wall that says "When AK47's are outlawed, only outlaws
will have AK47's.  There are two American servicemen looking at the Somali's
with one saying "I guess it will be more difficult than we thought to disarm
these guys" or something like that.

TIME has changed its ways, yeh when pigs fly...
				Ralph Palmer

These are my views and mine alone
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 16:15:14 GMT

In article <9301101355.53@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
[snip]
>If I set out today to buy an illegal gun, I bet it would take me weeks
>to find someone who would sell to me.

Approximately one year ago, a reporter from WKBD (channel 50, Detroit) and
a cameraman went to downtown Detroit to attempt this very act.  Total time
to illegally acquire a 9mm pistol was about 4 hours, if memory serves.

If Kelly ever wants an illegal gun, maybe he'd have better luck in Detroit...

+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
|      John Kapson      |                                                     |
| NRA               ILA |      "...to disarm the people (is) the best         |
| jkapson@nis.naitc.com |      and most effective way to enslave them..."     |
|                       |      George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380         |
|                       |                                                     |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
|                  PGP Public Key available via email                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:01:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma

>
>I've read a police training memo on act 511 put out by the attorney general's
>office.  The memo discusses the importance of charging the suspect under the
>correct subsection (mostly having to deal with the difference between a
>carrying charge and a posession charge), but NO WHERE in the memo does it
>mention that act 511 removed the restriction imposed by the "Reason for
>issuance".
>
>                                        rob b.
>
Replying to my own post (since I noticed I created an erroneous impression) :

Act 511 DOES remove the restriction (at least according to GOAL and a
layman's reading of the act).  My point about the memo is not to imply
that 511 does not remove the restirction, but to point out that the 
atty general has chosen not to train police on this lessing of constraints
on Massachusetts licensees.

                                        rob b.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:15:27 GMT

rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>I may have a strange sense of humor, but I find it amusing that someone
>who wants to buy a gun has friends that are all anti-gun.

	All friends _in the area_ is what's relevent.   If you
have moved (which some people do), it might not be so funny.


>When you apply for a gun permit, you are neither on trial nor under
>arrest.  It is a case of determining if the prospective gun purchaser
>is a criminal or not, something which the gun store owner can't do.
>And it probably, in this litigous society, protects the gun store
>owner and the manufacturer from being sued in some cases.

	In the state of VA they use an instant point of purchace
computer check, similar to what police use when you get pulled
over, or what is used for a credit card purchace.  In that 
particular state the seller _can_ determine if the buyer is
a criminal (defined as havinging a criminal record).

	In most states this is not the case, and the seller has
no such liability.

>>       A $200 dollar gun is a one time investment.  And it's taking
>>a gamble to assume all a mugger wants is your wallet.

>And it's a gamble to assume that you can pull out a gun and fire before
>the mugger, who already has his gun pointed at you.

	Yes, life is a gamble.   It's also a gamble to assume that 
you can spin your steering wheel and get out of the way before you 
are hit by a drunk driver, who is already heading straight toward you.
It's a gamble to assume putting "the club" on your car will prevent
a car thief from cutting your steering wheel off, etc etc.  
	The only limit to how many situations you can think of in life 
that are a gamble is your own imagination.

Jim Del Vecchio
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 00:47:08 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <C0FzJq.D1B@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:
>In article <9301051952.18@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>No, that's injustice, ethically bankrupt, and a direct and immediate 
>>>violation of her Constitutionally protected civil liberties.
>>
>>The government doesn't tell her how to pick her friends.
>
>What is your point here?  That she should have the right friends in
>order to protect yourself?

No, that there is a game that you have to play to get a gun permit from
the state government.  She needs to try a different tactic.

>>>>>Probably so; but since having a gun isn't a crime, it's frankly none
>>>>>of their damn business.
>>
>>Unless they are criminals or are on parole.
>
>What's your point?  The police, by nature, will have records on
>criminals.  They should *not* be keeping records on law abiding
>citizenry!

In the state of Massachusetts, everyone who has a drivers license
has a record on the police computers.

>>>proven.  Any other approach is termed "prior restraint," and is 
>>>unconsitutional.
>>
>>So therefore, prosecuting criminals is unlawful, since it takes away
>>their rights.
>
>No, it's part of "due process".  What the hell is your point?

That you believe that a person should be able to buy a gun without
question, because anyone who would buy a gun from a licensed dealer
is obviously not a criminal, regardless of the laws in effect.

>>>Because most newspapers subscribe to the philosophy of advocacy journalism:  
>>>pick a side in a issue an be a cheerleader.  Since most news organizations 
>>>suffer from paternalistic statism, they are anti-civil liberties.
>>
>>The local paper here reports arrests, which are a matter of public record.
>
>Not all do, and a seizure doesn't have to have an associated arrest.

In Massachusetts it does.

>>In MAssachusetts, you are more likely to have someone break into your home,
>>than have someone threaten to shoot you on the street.
>>
>>Perhaps I've been lucky, but I haven't been through experiences that would
>>make me want to carry a gun at all times, except when I lived in Boston.
>
>So, exactly what is your point?  That just because you have a warm and
>fuzzy feeling walking the streets, we all should?  Listen, as long as
>you are going to insist on not stating your points, we're not going to
>have an effective dialog.

Do you carry a gun every day?

How often do you have to pull it out and demonstrate that you are armed?

How often do you have to fire that gun due to the fact that your life is
in danger?

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely)
Subject: Re: Criminals And Guns (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Originator: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu
Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science
	<ATAYLOR.93Jan6083555@gauss.nmsu.edu> <9301061620.58@rmkhome.UUCP>
	<1iifvuINNn9d@transfer.stratus.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:03:34 GMT

In article <1iifvuINNn9d@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com
 (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>You might be interested to learn that James and Sarah Brady -- the
>HCI spokespeople -- own a handgun.

From their own propaganda, you'd think that they'd get rid of it out
of the fear that they'll shoot each other.

  So, did he say if it's one of those "undetectable plastic
semi-automatic assault pistols", loaded with "NRA-sanctified
teflon-coated armor-piercing cop-killer bullets"? :-)


		"OSU Academy requires rape, cultural training"
			-- Ohio State University newspaper,
			   over a story about campus police training
-- 
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:05:27 GMT

In article <9301041915.56@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>       As someone who A) has money, and B) has never purchased narcotics
>>I find this very, very scary.  What, then, if they decide that can
>>prevent shootings by confiscating guns, beating by confiscating baseball
>>bats, and child abuse by confiscating children?
>>       And where exactly did good intentions turn into a police state?
>
>This could easily be an anti vehicle registration and insurance debate.
>

PRECISELY!  Vehicle registration is JUST a revenue generator for the state, 
and does NOTHING to prevent crime.  

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: pes3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Paul Eric Stoufflet)
Subject: Re: pro-gun TV?
Reply-To: pes3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Paul Eric Stoufflet)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:33:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.151238.814@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>i turned on the TV the other day & caught a scene with Mariel Hemingway
>(Civil Wars?). her character was trapped in an elevator with someone who
>was making unwelcome advances ("Oh, you like it rough eh?"). she then 
>proceeded to pull a pistol from her purse, at which point the 
>agressor started talking -really- fast. anyone else see this? could it
>be the start of media showing handguns as useful for something besides
>slaughtering innocent children?

I saw some other followups to this article that basically said "too little,
too late", ie not enough to trust the networks.

BUT my wife and I were together when we saw this (I remember thinking
"too bad this is NYC and she probably doesn't have a gun" when she
produced one) and later she (my wife) said "I think I would like a 
handgun"  So the effect isn't all bad.  Perhaps the fact that she
works in lower Manhattan and has been in the State Supreme Court
building where the scene takes place numerous times helped.

What I didn't like was that the Susan Dey character is _very unlikely_
to have a CCW in NYC, said later that she made a police report, and doesn't
get into trouble.  I had a hard time believing that.

  / \ / \     Paul Stoufflet                          / \ / \
 |  / \  |    Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center   |  / \  |
 |  \ /  |    internet: pes3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu  |  \ /  |
  \_/_\_/     All opinions are my own                 \_/_\_/ 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Statistical Analysis
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:22:52 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.93Jan5005012@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>,
lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:

> >>>>> On Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:19:32 GMT, cescript@mtu.edu
>(Charles Scripter) said:
> > (Tim Lambert) writes:
> 
> Not so.  Here is what I said:
> 
>   In my goodness of fit calculation I used 19 degrees of freedom (21
>   data values less two fitted parameters) in the Chi square statistic.
>   Should I have use 18 df?
> 
> Not only did I say "degrees of freedom in the Chi square statisitic",
> I explained how it was computed.

OK, I'll accept this, since I missed the clause at the end.  I still
couldn't resist posting the "least square elephant"... ;-)

> >> Try looking up "degree of freedom" in a statistics book, or an
> >> encyclopedia of science or mathematics.
> 
> > OK, Let's try the "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" (70th, 1989-90):
> 
> > degree of freedom: "The number of variables determining the state of a
> >                     system to which arbitrary values can be assigned".
> 
> > Gee, that doesn't sound like what *you* used, Tim...  It sounds more
> > like the number of variables required to span the space (you must span
> > the space, if you wish to completely determine a system's *state*)
> 
> So you don't understand the definition.  It does describe what I used.
> I refer you to any elementary statistics book for an explanation.

Only Lambert could misinterpret the definition given above.  Q1: How
many variables are required to completely determine the "state of
your system"?  Q2:  How many "degrees of freedom" does this imply?

> Perhaps you will find the "Academic Press Dictionary of Science and
> Technology" easier to understand:
> 
> degree of freedom: _Physical_Chemistry_ 1. Any of the... [this one
                                         ^^^
>                    obviously does not apply]  _Mechanics_ 1. any of
                                                           ^^^
Curious....  Two definitions numbered "1."?...  <*grin*>

BTW, I'm rather fond of the Mechanics definition of "DoF"....
It's nice and intuitive.

> 		   .... [nor does this one] _Statistics_ the excess of
> 		   the number of data points over the number of
> 		   parameters. 

What do you conclude from your definitions?  What are you trying to
say?  You claim that neither definition which you posted applies...

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"...when all government... in little as in the great thing, shall be
drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
separated."  Thomas Jefferson, 1821
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: What Problem Is Supposed To Be Solved, Here? (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:36:07 GMT

rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>>	Perhaps the police could arrest persons accused of committing
>>	criminal acts *after* the act has occurred?
>>	Does this concept seem too radical for Kelly?

>It doesn't help murder victims very much.


	_Nothing_ can help murder victims.   They're dead!


Sheesh!
Jim Del Vecchio
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 19:20:44 GMT

In article <9301091934.40@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>>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.
>>
>>Ah ha!  A blatantly wrong statement.  The Supreme Court has determined
>>that police have *no* obligation to protect *anyone*.
>
>In what case?
>

C'mon people, give 'im the cititation, don't make me drag the database in 
from the house!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=