HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:20:58 GMT

In article <viking.726306933@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:

>	In any event, comp.risks provides much more insight as to how
>such a system can cause false information to be collected against an
>individual.  I suspect the incident rate would be incredibly low, but
>when implementing such a system it is imperative that the computer not
>be seen as de-facto evidence of a person being a criminal, but rather
>that the person deserves a bit more checking upon, perhaps by an
>appeals process.  The gun dealer is out of the loop here, but the
>sheriff's office and the courts offer one (albeit biased) appeals
>route that might be considered.
>
>	Just a word of paranoia...

That's why I included the right to challenge the report.  Don't worry,
I'm not proposing such a system.  Just trying to see if Kelly would be
satisfied with it.  Since I, a person with a minimum of shop training,
can relatively easily build many different types of weapons I think
that restrictions on what you can buy, and who can buy them are kinda
stupid.  I think age is the only relevant data a store owner should be
concerned with.  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.  What's really scary is the fact that we let those people
*drive*. 

Personally, if I ever get injured by an assailant
in a place that restricts my right to bear firearms, I'm suing the
place.  I don't have any illusions about winning, but since it seems
to be the only way one can make point these days. . .  Might even
include HCI in the suit.
-- 
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: pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:09:47 GMT

In article <9301041935.22@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>>My wife is stalled on her permit because all of the people she's known
>>>>for any length of time in the area are anti-gun.
>>>
>>>That's life.
>>
>>       That's amusing.
>
>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.

It happens to us gun-toting homicidal maniacs when we move into states that 
have spent the tax-payers money convincing them that the Constitution doesn'
t mean what it says.

>
>>>This is assuming that anyone who steps up to the counter to buy a
>>>gun has innocent intentions.
>>
>>        This is the only proper assumption.  The government is not>>*
allowed* to decide you are a criminal unless *they* can produce>>proof.  
That's why *they* have to prove you guilty in a court of>>law, not you who 
has to prove yourself innocent.  That's why *they*>>have to have a 
sufficient amount of evidence to even bring you to>>trial.  It invites the 
sort of government abuse our Constitution was>>written to prevent if they 
are allowed to label you a criminal unless>>you prove otherwise, or until 
they get around to checking you out.>
>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.

That's not what you said:  you were talking about "keeping guns away from 
the psycologically unfit," not checking for a criminal record.

>>       It may have been somewhere.  But summary confiscation, of any
>>property, doesn't seem to make the news very often.  It's fairly common
>>to confiscate weapons and not return them even if there are no charges
>>filed or the person is acquitted.
>
>I have no knowledge of that.

You haven't been following the War on Drugs very closely.  It is standard 
procedure to "arrest your money/boat/plane" and then force you to sue to get 
it back.  There is no arrest and no conviction.  

>
>>       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.  But it's your decision to make, not the state's.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Twilight Zone
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:18:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.193923.894@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>> >
>> >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?
>
>YES!

	Good, so far...
>
>...give people the constitutional rights they were supposed to have all along!
    ^^^^

	AACK!!  STOP THAT!   This is WrongThink manifested as WrongSpeak.
	BAD Jason!  Bad BAD Jason!!  Nobody can GIVE a person rights.  ACK.
	You meant to say (right?) "stop denying people their rights, as
	recognized and protected under the constitution".

	It may sound like picking nits, but it is exactly this kind of misuse
	of terms and language that affect profound changes in the way people 
	perceive and think about things over the long haul.  This is the very
	trick of NewSpeak that Orwell warns about in 1984, the abuse of
	language, which is one of the best ways to scramble people's thinking.

	The use of the nonterm "assault weapon" is a prime example.  The media
	has pounded the people of this country with this BS nonword for so long
	that it has become an accepted part of the vernacular, even though 
	nobody has a clear definition of the word (which would be difficult to 
	have since there is none).

	Do as you will, I only offer these words to alert you of the problem.

	-Andy V.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The NRA has an image problem with gays
Date: 11 Jan 1993 21:38:10 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1il3orINN480@flash.pax.tpa.com.au>, anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:

> Most gays, fanatic pseudo-libertarians excepted, have good reason to be
> steamed with the NRA, because the NRA supports William Dannemeyer.
> When a buck goes into Dannemeyer's campaign chest, it isn't earmarked
> for "pro-gun efforts".  Dannemeyer can use that dollar for anything he
> wants pertaining to his re-election, including writing anti-gay slurs
> into the Congressional Record, although that particular act of his was
> free.  And Dannemeyer isn't the only A-grade NRA Congresscritter who
> hates gays enough to shackle them with the law.

Here in Massachusetts, I had the choice of voting for an anti-gay, 
anti-choice, anti-gun Democrat, or an anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-gun
Republican.  It was one of the easiest choices I have ever made, since
regardless of my stance on the other two issues, I was stuck with no
choice.  Other voters are not as "lucky."  (By the way, there WAS a
pro-gay, pro-choice, pro-gun Republican in the primary race, though
he didn't win.  There was ONLY one Democratic choice.)

> If he isn't an NRA director, whether or not he hates gays is a red
> herring, I suppose.  In an issue of Guns and Ammo I was flipping
> through he seemed to be dwelling on Barney Frank's deeds and the fact
> that they are illegal in several jurisdictions.  But maybe I was
> reading too much into his sweet prose.

Conversely, the newsletter of our state NRA affiliate organization
recently PRAISED Congressman Barney Frank for beating up the BATF
over their stupid "1-800-ATF-GUNS" billboards.  Barney scored BATF
for "denigrating the law-abiding gun owner."  I don't know if Barney
is generally "pro-gun" (he's not in my district) but he clearly isn't 
a kneejerk asshole.

So your generalizations just don't cut it.
-- 

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: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:23:48 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <PA146008.603.726338593@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <9301052244.31@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>Except in Kennesaw(spelling?), Georgia.  But I do believe strongly in
>>home defense, although I believe that the best home defense weapon is
>>a shotgun.
>
>       To the best of my knowledge, Kennesaw did not require those who, for
>some reason, would not use a gun (religion, ethics, etc.) to own one.  It 
>was more symbollic than anything else.

>>>        We're doing OK here in East Tennessee.  I understand some of the 
>>>Western states are doing real well.  Looks like we have evidence on both 
>>>sides of the spectrum, and the only thing they would seem to agree on would 
>>>be that gun ownership alone is not the problem, but at bare minimum 
>>>operating along with something else.
>>
>>Hmm.  Someone else said that it was against the law for civilians to
>>carry guns in Tennessee.
>
>        You jump subjects pretty quick.  Above you were talking about home 
>defense, now you're talking about carry.

I thoought the Kennesaw, Georgia law allowed carry.

Getting a home defense weapon in Massachusetts is relatively easy.

>        Try and pay attention:
>
>        Gun ownership in East Tennessee is quite high.  Very high in many 
>places.
>
>        It is illegal, according to state law, for a civilian to carry a 
>firearm either open or concealed.  (It's a misdemeanor.)  
>
>        People do it anyway.
>
>        Clear enough? 

Ah, but if you are carrying an illegal weapon, then you are a criminal.

And if you kill someone with an illegal weapon, self defense or not,
then you are a murderer.

>>>       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.

Which will surely convince the Tennessee state government to change the
laws?

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: Re: Trying Again For R. Boudrie
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:25:14 GMT

In article <4242@eastman.UUCP> (MJ) writes:
>Rob, I don't know if you responded to my first attempt to ask wou the
>following questions because I was away during the holiday.  Here it goes gain
>and Thanks in advance.

I never recieved your earlier mail (or was it a net posting?)

Please email me your address so we don't burden the net with personal
conversation over the net.

But for information of general use :

(1)  Non residents may obtain carry permits from :

    Massachusetts Dept of Public safety
    Firearms Records Bureau
    One Ashburton Place
    Boston, MA

   Yes, they WILL issun unrestricted carry permits if you give them
   some sort of reason.   They require a copy of your home state 
   carry permit (or proof of clean criminal record), and a $10/year fee.

(2)  I have seen Canadians who have obtained NYS carry permits,
listing their Toronto area address & Canadian citizenship, from
one of the counties near Buffalo (but NOT Erie county).

regards,
rob

rboudrie@chpc.org
508 624-7400 x635 (call if you can't get to me via email)


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 17:51:48 GMT

In article <pa142548.600.726243641@utkvm1.utk.edu> pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
(T. Archer) writes:
>>And, of course, untrained idiots who bought a gun at K-Mart would never
>>hurt themselves or anyone else by mistake.
>
>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.

EXACTLY!

Not to mention the fact that the number of accidental deaths by firearms
in the US has dropped from 2400/year to 1200/year, between 1970 and 1990.
This despite a substantial increase in gun ownership...

Accidental deaths are not the problem.  Violent criminals are the problem.

   don

p.s.  Happy New Year, folks.  Here's a wish for the New Year...
========================================================================
                          **************
                      *********************
                   *******              ******
                ***     ***                   ***
             ****         ***                    ***
            ***    HH   HH  ***CCCC   IIIIIIII    ***
           **      HH   HH    ***        II         **
           **      HHHHHHH    CC***      II         **
           **      HH   HH    CC  ***    II         **
           **      HH   HH     CCCC ***IIIIIII      **
            ***                       ***         ***
               ****                     ***     ***
                 ******                    *****
                      *********************
                          **************
========================================================================
Don Baldwin  -  Software Engineer  - e-mail to:  donb@tamri.com
From: reb@cup.portal.com (Richard Earl Benedict)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 09:25:23 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa

86/3740 cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

> In my town, "protection of life and property" boils down to PROPERTY ONLY.  
> You qualify only if:
> 
> 1) you are a professional security-type person, protecting someone 
>    ELSE'S life or property;
> 2) you are self-employed AND carry significant cash or valuables.
> 
> In both these cases, your license is ONLY considered valid while ON THE
> JOB.  Not during off hours.  Change jobs, you get your license PULLED.

"Joe Doe" was arrested and convicted under Bartley-Fox because he was
carrying on a license supposedly valid only while he was working. The
conviction was overturned when the court was made aware of Chapter
511 of the acts of 1990.  The story does not necessarily have a happy
ending, however.  I'm now convinced that the cops here in
Massachusetts are more the problem than the solution.  It seems they
would rather enforce the laws they WISH were on the books, and ignore
those which ARE on the books, court orders notwithstanding.  What's
worse, they get away with it.

Massachusetts folks who are members of GOAL can read the details in
"Another Case of No Justice" in the next issue of /The Message/.

Rich Benedict

reb@cup.portal.com | "Those who beat their swords into plowshares
dick@dragonsys.com |       will plow for those who don't."
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 16:42:29 GMT

In article <9301101340.48@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
[snip]
>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?

     Is this how Kelly interprets "Always keep the muzzle pointed in
     a safe direction"?

+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
|      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: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:22:38 GMT

In article <1ihqdrINNh9j@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>In article <93006.235430GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>, Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes:
>> 
>> Arizona Constitution:  Article II, Section 26
>> 
>> "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of
>> himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this
>> section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or
>> corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of
>> men."
>
>This is phrased in an interesting manner.  It implies that you can't
>hire bodyguard(s) to defend you -- you have to do it yourself!

       I think what this means is that you don't have the same *right* to 
hire bodyguard like you have the RKBA.  That is, it may be legal, but not
a right.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 04:48:32 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <1993Jan7.220619.22521@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>In article <C0I7A4.A5K@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:
>
>>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?
>
>If their entire term was served they are released; only CA and WA have
>indefinite sentences.
>
>Some havens of political stylishness let convicts, even those in for
>violent crimes, out on weekends; now, that's just plain stupid.

Yup.  Who can forget good, old Willie Horton?

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Criminal rehabilitation?  Hah!
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:11:22 GMT

In <C0E32D.H0y@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>

>2.  Who are we letting violent criminals out again and again?

The news coverage of the Dodd hanging mentioned that Washington state
recently passed a law that says even if someone completes the entire
term of their sentencing they can still be held in prison indefinitely
if they are deemed too dangerous to let out.

Has the constitutionality of such laws ever been tested ?
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:06:32 GMT

In article <9301042000.28@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>And before that I went through the process of getting an FID card when
>they first issued them, since I owned a couple of rifles at the time.
>Before the FID card, you didn't need anything to buy a rifle or ammo
>except proof that you were over 21.

May we see your papers citizen.


>What was her reason for getting a license for the protection of life and
>property.  Business?  A substantiated attack?

Why should she need one?

>Well, you have to play the game since the state makes the rules.

You don't *have* to play.  Back people far enough into the corner and
they'll fight back.  

>>Wow, what an incredible asshole I must be to insist that the police 
>>assume that citizens are innocent until they are proven guilty.  What 
>>would America be like if that were, like, a general rule or something?
>
>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?

Not that I'm proposing anything, but how about this.  A system in
which a gunstore owner can enter a persons name and pertinant data
into a database that then searches to see if that person has ever been
convicted of a violent felony.  If no, then an ok to sell is given.
If yes then the history is printed out, and an opportunity to
challange is given to the paerson.  Just to make it fun, everyones
past is randomly queried into the database.  
Now, I'm not advocating this, I personally don't think you should have
to prove anything to defend yourself.


>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.

If you believe statistics, I'll make a bet with you, any amount, that
I know exactly what the cause of your death will be.  Statistics, and
any doctor in the country will back me up on it too.  Of ocurse,
you're a fool if you believe statistics, they can mean just about
anything.  

>It's very sobering to look at the police news in the paper, and see the
>multiple daily arrests for Domestic Violence.  Either women are reporting
>it more than they used to, or a lot of men are taking out their frustrations
>at home.

I'd say more people are reporting it.

-- 
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