HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Carrying in San Francisco and in general
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:16:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.235202.11683@leland.Stanford.EDU> kato@leland.Stanford.EDU (Daniel William Roth) writes:
>Well, I think it is 'reasonable' to expect a citizen who wants to
>carry a firearm to be able to pass the relavent written and proficiency
>tests that a police officer must pass to graduate from the academy.  

Really?  What do you think PO qualification "means"?  Does appropriate
police behavior have all that much to do with appropriate civilian
behavior.  ("Police" standards aren't much of an obstacle, but Roth is
trying to solve a non-existent problem.)

>It seems to me that a group like the NRA could take the lead and 
>develop such a program and then lobby to get CCW licensing
>authority from the federal or state government, kind of like the 

Yeah, right. The NRA has been trying to get something like this in CA
law for a decade....

It doesn't hurt to know what's going on before proposing changes....

-andy
--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:08:08 GMT

In article <9301051932.51@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (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?

If they're still violent, then why, oh why, are they out on the street?

If we have "rehabilitated" them, then their rights should not be restricted.

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing."  -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
From: howard@Metaphor.COM (Lee Howard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The Armed Citizen
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:52:23 GMT
Reply-To: howard@Metaphor.COM (Lee Howard)
Organization: m4

In article <1993Jan5.075745.20297@news.acns.nwu.edu>, asbestos@nwu.edu (Michael A. Atkinson) writes:
|> 
|> Folks,
|> 
|> I'm afraid that, even with the overwhelming response from the net (and boy
|> was I gratified, thank you!) I'm not going to be able to find the time this
|> quarter to both type in (the scanner pukes on it) The Armed Citizen from
|> NRA's American Rifleman, and to make enough money to pay the rent.  I have
|> been told that I need to spend more time at work this quarter :-), and my
|> other obligations are pressing.  I'm also really short on funds, so getting
|> an account on the NRA's bbs is out of the question.  If they have The Armed
|> Citizen on the bbs electronically, it should be trivial for someone with an
|> account on it and Usenet access to post it.
|> 
|> I'm sorry.
|> 
|> I really hope that someone else will take up where I left off, and post The
|> Armed Citizen to talk.politics.guns every month.
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> Mike
|> -- 
|> Michael A. Atkinson    | "I'll give you a call next time I pass
|> asbestos@nwu.edu       |  through your star system." 
|>                                         -- Cdr. William Riker
|>             A Libertarian and an NRA member.

=======================================================

     I talked to Judy Howard (jhoward@netcom.com)- she, being a gung-ho NRA
     member, said that she'd be happy to post the Armed Citizen each month.
     She is in the middle of upgrading a memory board and some other hardware,
     but says the post should appear this week.

--- lee KC6KXI  NRA-Life ---
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Gun Control generally
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:20:16 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.93Jan6003557@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>
>National Crime Survey data (which is the source of your claim that
>criminals will be less succesful against armed victims) show guns used
>for defence in 80,000 crimes and for offence in 800,000 crimes in the
>US each year.
>
I suppose that may be valid. Of course, it won't include the times _I_ have 
used a firearm in self-defense.  I didn't report it, because in carrying 
reasonable means of self-defense I was myself committing a crime.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The Right to be Defended (Was Re: Dressed for Rape)
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 17:54:56 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <16B5228C0.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <9301091934.40@rmkhome.UUCP>
>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>In article <C0Fz6n.CLB@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Amar Caves) writes:
>>>In article <9301052017.35@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writs:
>>The point is that everything isn't black and white.  There are gray areas
>>where it is not easy to justify taking control of gun permits away from
>>the state.
>
>       Taking?
>
>>If gun laws are changed to allow anyone who has the money to
>>buy a gun, then a lot of other laws must also change.
>
>       I hate to burst your bubble, but there are states in this Union
>which allow just that.

Which states allow purchase of a handgun without _any_ paperwork changing
hands, or the identity of the purchaser being noted?

>>If the laws change
>>to a system where gun dealers get there info from a computer terminal,
>>then privacy laws in this country will have to change.
>
>       Excuse me, but if "anyone who has the money" can buy a gun,
>you've pretty much ruled out background checks.

Except, I have yet to see anyone say that they live in a state where
anyone who has the money can buy a hand gun.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<DLB.93Jan12103010@fanny.wash.inmet.com>
	<1iv6jbINNr96@transfer.stratus.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:27:19 GMT

In article <1iv6jbINNr96@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C.
D. Tavares) writes:

   >    Nope, sorry.  It's a civil, not a criminal, infraction -- like a
   >    traffic ticket.
   > 
   > Huh?  Traffic tickets, like any other summons, are criminal matters...

   Well, maybe this is a per-state thing.

   I have here in front of me (blush) an old ticket for "40-45 in a 30
   zone.  It's checked "ALL CIVIL INFRACTIONS" and reads, "All of the
   violations with which you are charged are civil infractions... If you
   fail to return this citation to the court within 20 days... you will
   lose your right to a hearing and your license to operate and your
   registration will be subject to suspension without further hearing...
   You will become subject to comtempt proceedings and the issuance of
   an arrest warrant, all as provided by law."

   Of course, there is also a box for "CRIMINAL COMPLAINT" which I assume
   they use for things like drunk driving.  Clearly you can get a criminal
   traffic ticket, but I've never had any experience with that.  From the 
   front of the ticket, it's evident that plain "speeding" (alone) can 
   never be marked as a criminal matter.

Ah ha!  A difference in legal terminology.

In this case (confusing, I know) a "civil infraction" is still a
criminal matter; a civil infraction is not tried in a civil
proceeding, but in a criminal proceeding.  I *think* (I am dredging
this from a conversation with a friend who lives in MA) that a civil
infraction has something to do with who can issue it; those fancy
traffic cops you guys have can issue "civil infractions", but not
"criminal infractions" (and thus "civil servants" can issue them).
Health code violations may be in the same class (that is true down
here).

I am not real clear about the exact deliniations of "civil
infraction", but if you do not show up (as above), you are in fact a
criminal in the sense that you will be charged with a crime.  I have
no idea if Massachusetts in some weird way defines misdemenors as
"civil proceedings" (a strange use of terms to my mind); however, a
law professor will surely call this a criminal matter (as opposed to a
"criminal complaint").

The two "commonwealths"  --- Massachusetts and Virginia --- have
strange legal terms for some things.  I don't know if this is one.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth)
Subject: Re: 1.2 Million Handgun Defenses per year
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:50:21 GMT

In <1993Jan12.193440.27009@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary) writes:

>In article <LAMBERT.93Jan12220125@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>, lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>> >>>>> On Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:02:36 GMT, oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary) said:
>> 
>> In other words, the NCS only counts defensive uses against crimes.  

>Could this be a language problem?  I can defend myself without considering
>myself a crime victim.  Let us say a man approaches me waving sharpened
>stick muttering  "I have this sharpened stick" over and over again.  I
>pull my coat to one side and say "I have a nice revolver in 
>44 magnum.  The strange man turns and walks away.  Have I been assaulted?

I think you just committed a crime. I think its either "threatening",
or maybe assault with a firearm, or at least "recklessly display of
a firearm". What was your indication that he had "intent"? 
He certainly had method (the stick) and opportunity
(he was approaching). If he was muttering "I am going to
stab you with this stick" or something in an unintelligible rage
that would be different.

>Yes - I felt threatened, I think a jury  would agree.  Do I consider
>myself a victim of an assault?  No.  Would I report it to the police -

You were not a victim, because you detered a criminal attack (assuming
he was going to attack you).

>yes - though the person that it happened to did not.  If someone,

What would to say to the police? "Some guy waved a pointy stick
at me, so I (recklessly displayed) my magnum and scared him
off"? If no crime occured, why report that nothing happened.
You might make an anonymous 911 call reporting an irrational
man waving a stick at people.



-- 
Greg Booth BSc                    |     /_____________________________
BCAA-PCDHF-BCWF-NFA-NRA-IPSC-BCFSS|@====|_____________________________>
Motorola Mobile Data Division     |     \
booth@mdd.comm.mot.com cgb003@email.comm.mot.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kevinc@solman.kpc.com (Kevin Cameron)
Subject: Re: reduction of availability
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:27:31 GMT

In article <76130@apple.apple.COM>, earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:
|>
|> Let's place 50 guns in a 25' by 25' room with 100 people and compare the
|> results with 100 guns in the same room with the same number of people.
|> 
|> Then place 50 guns in a 25' by 25' room with 100 people and compare the
|> results with 200 people in the same room with the same number of guns.
|> 
|> My feeling is that as people are crushed together in ever more increasing
|> density, they become more aggressive and fights break out more often.  To
|> me, that's the real problem we have today.

Actually, I don't think there would be much violence between the persons in
the room.  I think they would band together, use their guns on those who
placed them in that position, and try to escape.  This is how it should be.

Of course, the anti-gun nuts would prefer not to have access to guns in case
they might be tempted to use them against those who placed them in that
position.  After all, they were undoubtably told it was "for their own
protection" when the authorities put them in there.

-- 
Kevin Cameron

"Those who will trade essential liberty for promise of security will
 have neither" - Benjamin Franklin
From: post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:02:19 GMT
Subject: Re: Traveling with a gun
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

In talk.politics.guns, pecampbe@mtu.edu (Paul Campbell) writes:
[ a nice article on the constitutional intrepretation of laws ]

Some how, I think some of our Justices would argue with your presentation.

For example, they use the concept of "Stare Dictus", which, I think, means
something along the lines of " the Justices can do what we want if we so
deam that otherwise will cause unreasonable hardships".

David Post  davep@hpfcpp.fc.hp.com  hplabs!hpfcla!post
From: starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Time-Warner
Date: 8 Jan 93 00:20:13 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

Just a quick question about Time-Warner.  Was it Time-Warner that promoted
and defended Ice Tea's Cop Killer song?  

starbuck
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 01:09:57 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <C0G2DK.6pr@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>In article <9301051932.51@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (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?
>
>If they're still violent, then why, oh why, are they out on the street?
>
>If we have "rehabilitated" them, then their rights should not be restricted.

Be serious, criminals are not rehabilitated.  The state lets them out of jail
because they need room for the new prisoners coming in.  In Mass, the jail
census has been raised 10 % just by people who were jailed for drunk driving.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:02:42 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <93003.141102GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET> Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes:
>
>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>
>>In article <9212311249.09@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>What most people in this thread want is the right for anyone to just
>>>walk into Fred's Gun Store, plunk down the money, and walk out with
>>>the gun and ammo of choice.
>
>>Since there don't seem to be any benefits to policies other than that,
>>what's so unreasonable about it?
>
>Yup.
>
>>>I maintain that I wouldn't want to live in a state like that, as it
>>>would rapidly turn into a scenario like Beirut.
>
>  You're wrong Rick, any documentation to support the Beirut scene ?

I'm wrong only in that everyone does not go to Fred's store and buy
a handgun.  Obviously, some people don't feel that they will have 
to shoot anyone in the forseeable future.

>  You'll find plenty of evidence on this bbs supporting the armed
>  society in the USA as a peaceful society.  Keep reading.

That doesn't seem to be so in the state of Florida.

>  Rick would probably not be comfortable in Arizona.
>  Discounting the recent hysterical flurry of unConstitutional (both
>  Arizona and the Federal) laws here, fall-out from the elections; one
>  may purchase and carry a handgun almost anywhere in Arizona.  The
>  only major infringement is our 'concealed holster' regulation,
>  both while transporting in your vehicle, or for personal carrying.

I have been in Arizona, and never saw anyone carrying a handgun except
for police officers.  I did see a lot of long guns racked on pickup
truck gun racks.

>  The only government agency involved in marksmanship and firearm
>  safety is the Arizona Game and Fish Department, otherwise you
>  take advantage of secondary and collegiate, Scout, etc. clubs
>  or ranges offerings.  The decision to gun-proof your kids, or be your
>  own best friend is purely personal, just like your First Amendment
>  rights.

If a kid kills someone in Arizona with a gun do the parents take the
rap?

>  Women and men both are aware of this and that when they dress in Arizona.

?
-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
From: bd474@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bill McDonald)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The real gamble of self-defense with a gun
Date: 12 Jan 1993 05:01:51 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bd474@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bill McDonald)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au () says:

>Speaking for myself, I declare that:
>
>I will always give another human being nearly limitless benefit of the
>doubt before pointing a gun at him or her.  If it means I or
>someone in my family might die needlessly, so be it.  At least I
>won't kill needlessly.
>
A retorical question:

Have you ever operated an automobile unsafely (driving while under the
influence/too fast for conditions/operational deficiencies, etc)?
Do you always wear proper safety equipment while operating dangerous
machinery (Goggles, gloves, belts, etc.)?  Do you ever engage in any
activity that could conceivably put others' lives at risk?
Such action could likely result in a "needless death."  Be
honest now...  and if you can't answer in the negative, get down off
your soapbox, please.

>
>--

McD
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Wednesday, 6 Jan 1993 23:54:30 MST
From: Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
 <1992Dec31.011711.24829@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
 <9212311212.23@rmkhome.UUCP> <1993Jan4.193320.15001@amex-trs.com>


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."

Arizona Revised Statutes:  Title 13,
Section 13-3108

     A.   Ordinances of any political subdivision of this state
          relating to the transportation, possession, carrying,
          sale or use of firearms in this state shall NOT be in
          conflict with this chapter."

  Now read the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  This is what
  the NRA suit against Az. cities was all about.

  Is Arizona a soverign (?) state, with one supreme law of the state
  called the Arizona Constitution and lesser laws called the Arizona
  State Revised Statutes, which apply to ALL state citizens/residents,
  or is Arizona a bunch of chaotic political subdivisions running around
  like chickens with their heads cut off ?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Criminals And Guns (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:35:52 GMT

In article <9301061620.58@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan6083555@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>>In article <9301051207.02@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>
>><   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.
>>
>>	Then deal with this on the supply side; stop releasing
>>	unrehabilitated violent criminals.
>
>Unfortunately, in this state they are going for early release so they'll
>have room in the prisons for new inmates.  Every time they try to build
>a new prison, the "not in my backyard" people come crawling out of the
>woodwork, and get some lawmaker to side with them.

Come on, be fair here.  Would you /want/ a prison in your "back yard" ?
Would you be safer with the prison there or somewhere else ?  More than
likely, somewhere else.  That's why "Don't pick up hitch hiker signs"
are found on roads by prisons.  And who is more in danger of escaped
criminals ?  Someone close to a prison or someone far away ?  Would
such a prison /increase/ your property value ?  I guarantee you it will
drop considerably.  How would you like to lose, say $50,000, on a house
you can't resell for original value, let alone any increases for
inflation.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
From: earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 5 Jan 93 22:54:47 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer/ESD/OSBU/SW Dev/App & Tool Dev

....
>>> The police would like to know who has guns.
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>And it is our duty to restrict that knowledge.
>
>Why is that?
...

Perhaps not everyone feels that our government (or any government for
that matter) is 100% trust worthy.  The more they know, the more they will
abuse that knowledge.  It's just human nature.  Sorry, but we are that way.
Anytime, all the time, everytime, always, without exception, people will
misuse power and information.  Always.  Sooner or later that information
will be used against you.  You can bet on it.  Don't depend on our government
obeying any laws to protect that info either.  Our leaders have a terrible
record of ignoring laws in this country.

So, why would I not want the police to know I have a gun?  Because they
do not need to know this information in order to do their job.  They
should always assume I have a gun because I could have borrowed or stole
one.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 20:22:33 GMT
Summary: supreme court ruling in 1856

In article <9301091934.40@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> In article <C0Fz6n.CLB@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:
> >
> >Ah ha!  A blatantly wrong statement.  The Supreme Court has determined
> >that police have *no* obligation to protect *anyone*.
> 
> In what case?


In 1856 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that local law enforcement had no
duty to protect a particular person, but only a general duty to enforce
the laws. [South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (HOW) 396,15 L.Ed., 433 (1856)].

> So far, I don't know of any family of any murder victim who has
> successfully sued a police department for granting a gun permit
> to a murderer on the basis of wrong information from the FBI/courts.

You are wrong on this one as well.  This very thing happened in
Philadelphia, a woman's husband was murdered by a criminal using a
firearm.  The criminal bought the weapon from a dealer who did the
required background check through the police.  The police approved
the person, however there was something in the persons background
that should have prevented the approval.  She won around $1M.  This
is documented in "Why Gun Waiting Periods Threaten Public Safety"
by David B. Kopel, written March 25, 1991.  This is available on:

archive.cis.ohio-state.edu:/pub/firearms/politics/rkba/waitdanger

Read it for yourself.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com