HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:20:56 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan7140140@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><In article <9301061208.19@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
><   In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan5141848@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><   ><In article <9212311212.23@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
><   ><
><   ><   >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.
>,   >
><   >	The police would like to know a lot of things; that's
><   >	why we have a Constitution that was designed to limit
><   >	the powers of the government.
>
><   So convicted criminals shouldn't lose ther constitutional rights?
>
>	Yet another fallacy from Kelly: in order for this question
>	to make any sense, all gun owners are criminals. Since 99.999%
>	of gun owners are *not* criminals, Kelly's "point" is moot.
>
>	To reiterate: the police would like to know a lot of things
>	about law-abiding citizens, but they don't need to know them.
>	We have a system of government under which the police's
>	desires do not (yet) outweigh the citizens rights.
> 
>	Either Kelly doesn't understand the difference between
>	a free society and a police state or he's playing dumb
>	deliberately. 

But your looking for society where any honest citizen can get a gun
unchallenged, and by some feat of magic criminals will be denied.

><   >	So what? Florida, Georgia, Oregon, Washington, Idaho and
><   >	Vermont all issue concealed carry permits to pretty much
><   >	anyone (actually, Vermont has no permits; the state
><   >	constitution allows concealed carry by anyone who does not
><   >	have criminal intent). The experience in those states suggests
><   >	very strongly that Kelly is wrong.
>
><   How do they determine criminal intent?
>
>	Well, gosh-a-rooney, how do you think, Kelly?

I don't see how they could if the procedure for purchasing a gun is
the same as for buying a pack of cigarettes.

>[lots of text deleted, Kelly's changed subjects again]
>
><   >
><   >	If it is a failure, why is Kelly defending it?
>
><   I'm not defending it.  
>
>	No? Then why so many electrons expended claiming
>	that "anyone" can get a gun in Ma. so an arbitrary
>	and capricious "license" is needed?

Just like a car.

><I'm just saying that, in my experience, there isn't
><   a high rate of illegal searches.  
>
>	What experience does Kelly have, pray tell?

><A legal search is declaring someone is
><   under arrest, and then reading them the Miranda warning before the search
><   is conducted.
>
>	Oh, I get it: Kelly hasn't read in the newspapers of
>	any illegal searches, therefore they aren't happening.
>

And where does your information come from?

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ghm@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: Firearms safety training for children (Was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:21:31 GMT

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

[Very helpful description of training session deleted]

>  I could have had an enjoyable session at the range, instead of
>working *very* hard for 3 solid hours.  On second thought, I did
                                                            ^^^^^
>have an enjoyable session at the range.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

My only comment on Henry's post - this point should have been more
strongly emphasised.  Coaching (at any level, from introductory
to advanced) can be _very_ satisfying, and it is something that 
all experienced shooters should probably be doing more of.  It
is extremely satisfying to introduce someone to your favourite
sport and see them take a serious interest.

Introducing your friends to shooting is an excellent idea.  However,
can I also suggest that we should _all_ be prepared to help out.  I
am getting extremely pissed off with some of the "senior" members
of my local pistol club who refuse to give up a little of their
club competition shooting to help out with the beginners' group.
Now, I know Henry said that he comandeered an empty range, but did
any of the other shooters see that he was working with a group of
beginners and wander over for a chat or offer to help?  That's
a simple thing that can do a lot to make a beginner feel welcome.

Geoff Miller  (g-miller@adfa.oz.au)
Computer Centre, Australian Defence Force Academy
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Watch Yourself in the Democratic Republic of Chicago
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:54:56 GMT


"And last summer, aldermen banned possession of assault weapons
and allowed police to impound vehicles in which operable guns
were being transported, registered or not."

[Southtown Economist, Jan. 4, 1993]

Don't get caught by the police in Chicago with an assembled firearm;
hide it well!

One amusing item of interest is that the fool ex-cop Alderman Ed Burke
(Democrat) states: ..."we ought to reconsider registration of long
guns. Those are not really the problem." Of course, the f*** didn't
bother to mention that when Mayor Dick(head) Daley came out with his
military-style semi-auto rifle & shotgun ban this year.

Amazingly enough, a lot of gun owners have actually wised up to Dick
Daley's registration gun schemes; firearms registrations that once
numbered in the 700,000 range are now down in the 200,000 range.

Unlike NYC's gun owners who actually trusted their government to
never, EVER confiscate their duly registered weapons, some Chicagoans
actually have some sense.

Too bad voters Chicago will still vote the straight Democratic
ticket; sickening.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 10 Jan 93 02:14:12 EST
Distribution: usa
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:
> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
> >rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> >> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
> >> 
> >> 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".

mea maxima culpa. of course. (that's why i said "all along".) i -won't-
do it again.

properly chastised,
jason

--
 "Why was I cursed with a woman like you? You're my misery! A knife in my 
  heart! Come on, we can discuss this later. Let's just get married."
	                   - Adam, from the best episode of Northern Exposure
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Concealed carry in Tn, etc (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:15:35 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <g2yrn9@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>       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.
>
>Hey Dave, whatcha wanna bet this guy's gasping for breath at the thought
>that we'd actually *ignore the LAW*  :-)

No, I think it's funny as hell.

It boils down to one group of criminals worrying about another group
of criminals.

Hell, maybe if we got rid of BATF we could get some real population
comtrol going.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
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 14:50:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.110244.28723@doug.cae.wisc.edu> sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge) writes:
>Xref: utkux1.utk.edu talk.politics.guns:30810 alt.society.civil-liberty:6020
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.society.civil-liberty
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!cs.utk.edu!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!caen!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zazen!doug.cae.wisc.edu!sean
>From: sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge)
>Subject: Re: This organ donating thread
>Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
>Date: 4 Jan 93 11:02:44 CST
>Message-ID: <1993Jan4.110244.28723@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
>References: <1i72i8INN6fn@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
>Lines: 11
>Everyone makes money on the organ donation except the donor or donor's family.
>It is illegal to sell the organs.  But the doctors and hospitals make money through
>the surgeries needed.
>
>The solution is simple.  Allow people to sell their organs.  Pay people for the
>right to take their organs when they die.  
>

No way.  

"Sorry Mr. Creditor, I'm bankrupt."

"No problem, that extra kidnet you are carting around is a $30,000.00 legal 
asset.  I'll just sue for possession and then sell it."

No thanks.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Always wear your safety equipment, kiddies.
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:35:20 GMT

In article <9301101321.40@rmkhome.UUCP>
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>In article <16B522E4D.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Val) writes:
>>In article <9301092205.48@rmkhome.UUCP>
>>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>
>>>In article <4zyr59q@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>>>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>>
>>>>So Rick, how many times have you used your seatbelt?  Does the low
>>>>probability of your needing your seatbelt preclude you from wearing it?
>>>>Or have you figured out when you're going to have a wreck and only
>>>>wear it then?
>>>
>>>That's kind of the wrong question to ask someone from Massachusetts.  It
>>>is best to figure that your number is up every time you get behind the
>>>wheel.  Just in the block I'm on, my neighbors and myself have had at
>>>least 20 cars come crashing into our front yards in the last five years.
>>>
>>>I've broken my back in two car accidents where I was standing still and
>>>someone else crashed into me.
>>>
>>>I always where a seatbelt.
>>
>>      Though I'm willing to be Rick doesn't know it, he just answered his
>>own question.
>
>Ok.  If shootings in my community were happening with the same frequency
>as car accidents, I would probably be damn sure to arm myself every time
>that I left the house.

        You're still failing to see the point of doing something in
case.

        If auto accidents were lower, would you *really* not wear your
seatbelt?  I wouldn't.  Statistics don't you a damn bit of good when
your head goes through your windshield.  It doesn't help that the
likelyhood of the accident was 1 in 200 or 1 in 100 if it's *you*.
        Home fires are a fairly low occurance around here.  Yet I've
still got an insurance policy which covers it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
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 15:03:51 GMT

In article <9301042000.28@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>> >Or can't pass a written test, or a shooting test, or can't get letters 
>>> >of recommendation from three other citizens, or doesn't belong to a
>>> >bona-fide sporting club ($100-$200/year).
>>
>>> These requirements have changed over the last decade.
>
>>Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs, son.  I went through the
>>entire process I described no more than THREE MONTHS ago.
>
>And I went through the process in the late 70's.  It was a snap.

It's 1992.  The 70's were 20 years ago.

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

She shouldn't need a reason.  That she feels a need for resonable means of 
self defense should be enough.

>
>>She considered asking our next-door neighbor for a character reference.
>>He's well known in town; selectman for two terms, minister of two local
>>churches for over a decade.  Mack Mitchell -- maybe you've heard of him,
>>he's been in the news.  He's now in MCI Concord for six years on two 
>>counts of rape of a minor.  But character references are so infallible,
>>so I guess it wouldn't be reasonable to do without them.
>
>Well, you have to play the game since the state makes the rules.
>
Those rules are illegal under the US constitution.  You should not be "
playing by them,"  you should abide by them and work to change them.  Not 
accept them because the "state makes the rules."  The state is the servant 
of the people, not the master of them.

>>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?

Keep a national database of convicted felons.  Have the purchaser present a 
driver's liscence.  Dial up the database.  If there is not a "denied" 
response, make the sale.  No wait, no elaborate research.

>And if you believe the recently published statistics, you wife is in
>the greatest amount of danger from you, and my SO is in the greatest
>amount of danger from me.

Only if you have either a criminal record or a violent history.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 10 Jan 93 04:15:45 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes:
> >rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
> The question, then, is how does the state govern the sale of weapons
> to law-abiding citizens while keeping felons from not having them
> and at the same time not infringing on anybodies rights?

the answer is, you don't. people who wish to have guns will obtain 
them. this includes felons. banning the tools will never help as long 
as there are people who wish to use the tools in an inappropriate 
manner.

i have to say that someone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be
trusted with a car, a knife, a large amount of money, corrosive 
chemicals or anything else more potentially deadly than a crayon.
they should not be out in society until they have been trained/
rehabilitated to be more responsible.

> >[side note: we seem to be able to communicate in e-mail. Several
> >people whose opinions I respect have tried to communicate with you 
> >on the net, and it doesn't seem to be working.  Why not?]
> 
> 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.

well, lets figure out why there's a black market to begin with, shall
we? ... time's up! "Black markets exist because 'legitimate' markets
are not providing for consumer demand." *bing!* "10 points. Thank 
you, next question, addressed to contestant number two..."

black markets will exist if there is even one person who cannot get
what they want through legitimate means. enforcement can affect the
price of goods on a black market, but that's all it can do. so, 
recognizing the fact that it's impossible to make any real change to 
the situation that way, let's stop with these silly restrictions & 
see what we can about solving the -real- problems. i.e., why are 
people shooting each other with guns, obtained legally or otherwise, 
in the first place?

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`      "We are errant knaves, all; believe none of us." - Hamlet      `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Killing Machines Easily Bought In Boston (Was: Guns and  Boston Crack Dealers (Was: Dressed for Rape))
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<9301021305.12@rmkhome.UUCP> <ATAYLOR.93Jan5134603@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<9301061155.03@rmkhome.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:43:59 GMT

<In article <9301061155.03@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
<   In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan5134603@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
<   >	Then why isn't Kelly also demanding licensing for cars;
<   >	automobiles are used to cause more deaths than firearms
<   >	every year.

<   I don't know about the laws where you live but cars and drivers here are
<   licensed/registered, and cars get a title search before the registration
<   is granted.

	Yet thousands die every year as a result of the unrestricted
	use of these killing machines. Any psycho can walk into a
	car lot and buy a 2-ton killing machine in minutes; the
	car dealers aren't even licensed in many cases! 

	It's time that society cracked down on these killing machines;
	I'm surprised that Kelly isn't demanding a waiting or "cooling
	off" period before someone is allowed to buy a car, a
	background check (so that criminals won't have any cars
	to use to commit crimes) and Federal licensing of all car
	dealers, so that only good people will be in the car business.

	It's obvious that these laws are needed, because over 40,000
	people will die by car this year alone....we simply must
	stop the carnage.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: 1.2 Million Handgun Defenses per year
Organization: none
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 12:01:25 GMT

>>>>> On Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:02:36 GMT, oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary) said:

> In his book Point Blank, Kleck uses a number of polls to estimate the
> number of defensive uses of guns per year.

> Hart Poll, 1981, 644,000 handguns defenses per year(1) 
> Mauser Poll, 1990, 691,000 gun defenses per year(2) 
> Field Poll (California), 1978, 1.2 million handgun defenses per year(3) 
> Time/CNN Poll, 1989, 908,061 handgun defenses per year(4) 

Interesting.  You chose to put the number 1.2M in the subject line,
the largest estimate.  In his "Social Problems" paper Kleck states
that the Field poll is unsuitable for estimating defenses (since parts
of the US lie outside California).  Has he changed his mind?

> Kleck talks about problems with surveys, but states that the surveys 
> probably tend to underestimate gun defenses due to recall failure.

Or overestimate, due to telescoping.

> What about that estimate of only 80,000 defensive uses per year from 
> the National Crime Survey?  According to Kleck:

> "One survey that almost certainly is not adequate for estimating the total
> number of defensive gun uses is the National Crime Survey.  Respondents in
> that survey are not asked about defensive actions unless they first give
> an affirmative answer to screener questions asking about victimization
> experiences in general."

In other words, the NCS only counts defensive uses against crimes.  If
this is the reason for the discrepancy between 80,000 and one million,
then there must be 900,000 defensive uses of one of the following
types:
1. No crime occured: e.g. Somebody is trying to break in. House owner
takes gun and investigates.  Discovers the wind was knocking a branch
against the window.  While the gun helped the house owners peace of
mind in this case, he was never in any danger.
2. The crime is "assault with a deadly weapon" and is committed by the
gunowner: e.g. A burglar uses a gun to hold an angry resident at bay.
While I wouldn't call this a defensive use, the burglar probably
would, and it would be counted in one of of the above polls as such.

Tim

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: CCW in California
Date: 11 Jan 93 04:18:36 GMT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

What is the status of the class action suit for the right to CCW in
California?  With the new police chief in LA, has anyone succeeded in
obtaining carry licenses there?  Does California issue non-resident
permits?
 
cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Nothing can be said truly of what does not exist."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: archer@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Left/Right
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:32:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.173553.23525@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

>>      I dunno, but I've never been afraid of some rich Republican
>>stopping his Mercedes, placing the car phone on hold, and stepping
>>out with a gun.  Now Senator Kennedy, there's a man I wouldn't want
>                                                 ^^^
>>holding a gun, let alone driving a car!  (alright, that was uncalled for.)

>No argument there; my only point of contention is your abuse of the word
>"man".  I'm not sure WHAT he is but he isn't a man...

I prefer "tax-fattened hyeana" or "congresscritter, myself..."
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Date: 10 Jan 1993 14:33 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan10.113719.15410@henson.cc.wwu.edu>,
 n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes...
>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> 
>>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.
> 
>That isn't true in any of the 50 states.
> 
>It may be something you can be charged for, but murder has it's 
>own seperate definition.

Misdemeanor manslaughter, in states which have it, comes to mind.

							Daniel Reitman
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns