HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Salmon (sic) Rushdie's insight into America
Date: 11 Apr 92 01:35:46 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <32495@darkstar.ucsc.edu> cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter) writes:
>
>>>No, not really. The original post that started this whole thread was a
>>>quote from a book of Salman Rushdie's in which he stated comtempt for the
>>>RKBA as practiced in the United States. Therefore, I feel that I have a
>>>pretty good idea of what his views are on the subject.
>>
>>I posted the quote. There was nothing about RKBA in it!
>
>It was something to the effect that he thought that US society was so
>violent because of the easy access to firearms. If that's not criticism of
>the RKBA, I don't know what is. Unfortunately, it's scrolled off the UCSC
>news server so I can't repost the original message.
>>>As for my compassion or lack thereof, I didn't say
>>>that Salman Rushdie shouldn't have protection, only that he should provide
>>>for it himself. (of course, he can't in England, as armed bodyguards are
>>
>>Why should he? 
>
>Because he is a private citizen, and not connected with the British
>government in any way, shape, or form. Therefore, despite his notoriety, I

It is his government. What on earth are you saying. That only
members of the government should be protected?

>do not believe that the government should be charged with his protection.
>Let him hire his own gunsels (oh dear, it's England, so he can't. Tough.)
>or use his government connections to get a CCP.

Society, through the government is responsible for his protection.
Any society that values freedom of speech should uphold it, which
is what the British Govt is doing in this case.

-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: justice@panix.com (Michael Justice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: An interesting bulletin board
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:04:39 GMT


Possibly within the charter under "information". :-)  Hopefully useful.

I just ran into a .signature in one of the Sun Micro newsgroups that gives
a phone number I am thinking of using:

#J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - Systems Wrangler, UH Dept of Mathematics
[...]
#     Want to report illegal or corrupt activities by a federal agency?
#        Call the Federally-sponsored Whistleblower BBS: 202.225.5527

I called it;  there's a BBS there.  I don't know if it's for real or a hoax.
With that disclaimer in mind:

According to the sign-on screen, Congressman Wise, of West Virginia, has set
this up.  Messages are private to the Congressman, and pseudonyms are allowed
in case you don't want to leave your real name.

Does anyone know Congressman Wise's gun rights position?  Would he support
an effort to fight Operation Forward Trace? or am I wasting my time?

BTW, from a listing of all Congressmen/Senators that was posted a while ago
(thanks MANY times to the person (Jeff C. -- sorry;  when I cut it up for
uudecoding, I lost the full header) for posting it!) :

#Name:     Robert E. Wise    Suffix = Jr.
#Nickname: Robert
#State   : WV
#Party   : D
#District: 03
#Type Rep: Rep
#Staff Person Name & Title: Lowell Johnson (AA)

			-- Michael.
--
Michael A. Justice, currently at: | NRA Life | This year, remember:
justice@panix.com                 | NRA-ILA  | Throw the Bums Out!
 (alternate address out of order) | T.H.R.O. | Re-elect Nobody!

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Guns and Rape
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<qmigcINNh9b@agate.berkeley.edu>
	<LAMBERT.92Mar31171444@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<raetfINNscb@agate.berkeley.edu>
	<LAMBERT.92Apr6023501@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Apr7.015817.20209@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:03:09 GMT

>>>>> On 7 Apr 92 01:58:17 GMT, jalden@coos.dartmouth.edu (Joshua M. Alden) said:

> It is true that the publicity in Orlando would have covered the
> entire metropolitan area, but that seems a poor reason to contend
> that the reaction should have been less focussed.  What would be the
> reaction among criminals in neighboring towns when they were
> informed via the news media that lots of women in Orlando were
> trained and carrying?  They would tend to avoid Orlando, I think.

>     In fact, it seems to me that widespread publicity would tend to make
> the effect more pronounced, rather than more attenuated.

So you would see it more as a displacement effect, where rapists
shifted their operations out of Orlando.  This is certainly a lot more
likely than them giving up altogether.  Other crime prevention
measures have been shown to displace rather than prevent crime.  For
example, hardening banks doesn't seem to reduce the number of
robberies -- criminals rob softer targets instead.

Of course, displacing rapists from high gun ownership areas to low gun
ownership areas is not "good" overall, since the total number of rapes
will remain the same, and fewer rapists will be shot :-).

Tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@m11-113-5.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
Subject: Re: Susan is still only thinking about herself
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:33:53 GMT


>	I've been robbed - it wasn't pleasant.  Anyway, I guess that 
>   makes me 100% likely.  Any more questions? 

What was the look on the bastard's face when he first saw the cold forged
steel of your autopistol, as you instinctively whipped it into battery?
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:27:57 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr6.140736.17911@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.233526.8883@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>> ...
>>Well Henry my old mate, you make a good point. We have fire departments
>>to worry about what ifs. We don't expect each citizen to own a fire truck and
>>firefighting equipment. In much the same way we have police to worry about
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>what ifs on the criminal front.... your analogy does not help your case.
>
>Dave old buddy,
>  We also don't expect each citizen to own a fire truck, although
>it is quite legal to do so.  However "firefighting equipment" is
>on the officially encouraged list.  My insurance company puts on
>pressure (of the economic sort) to own smoke detector/alarms and 
>fire extinguishers, the Fire Department also urges this, and I think
>that the city building code now *requires* smoke detector/alarms
>in new residential construction.  We don't leave all of the
>whatifs to the fire department.
>
>  Is civilian posession of fire extinguishers really restricted
>in Australia (including the large red or yellow "assault style"
>fire extinguishers?)  If so, then I would agree that my analogy
>doesn't help my case - in Australia.

I don't know what's forbidden. I don't go around worrying about
my property like you mob seem to. 

>
>--henry schaffer


-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clyde Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Bomb control fails in Eur
Date: 13 Apr 92 05:34:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:143/223 - The Paul Revere Net, San Jose CA

RB>From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
RB>Date: 9 Apr 92 21:57:45 GMT
RB>Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
RB>Message-ID: <4400157@iftccu.boeing.com>
RB>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

RB>I just caught the tail end of the news.  It mentioned a fellow in Europe
RB>(maybe UK?) who was on trial.  Apparently over a period of years he has
RB>killed 2-3 dozen with bombs and injured over 300.

RB>Now I wonder.  If gun control is so darned perfect in Europe why in the
RB>heck don't they institute bomb control?  After all, even in the good old
RB>'violent :-) US one doesn't have to worry about being blown up while
RB>walking down the street.  Come to think of it, I think I'd prefer an
RB>armed assault over a bomb.  At least you have a chance to defend
RB>yourself against the former.

RB>Wonder why the police don't protect the people better?

RB>Maybe it's because bomb control isn't any more effective than gun control.
RB>Maybe it's simply that there is a cultural bias towards blowing people
RB>up rather than shooting them.  Any ideas?

It may well be that it is easier to control firearms than bombs, and
when people don't have ready access to the preferred instrumentality,
they resort to the second best -- bombs.  Europe has a long history of
firearms controls.  It is perhaps not coincidence that the stereotype of
an anarchist is someone with a bomb in his hand with a lighted fuse.  I
believe that Newton's Third Law -- For every action there is an equal
and opposite reaction -- has a corollary in social action.  What is
usually called a side effect.  I would predict that if the powers that
be are ever successful in banning firearms in this country (God forbid!)
that one of the consequences would be a dramatic increase in the use of
unselective bombs.  As bad as it is, today when an individual is a
target of a criminal, the target is usually the one that gets hurt.  If
bombs are resorted to (as in Ulster or London), many innocent bystanders
get hurt also.

 * SLMR 2.1a * Truth crushed to earth shall rise again.


3
--  
Clyde Spencer
UUCP: uts.amdahl.com!kennel!223!Clyde.Spencer
INTERNET: Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG
"The views expressed above are those of Clyde Spencer only."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: CBS  *LIES*  vs.  Kileen motives
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:31:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.181959.18955@mcs.anl.gov>, shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
|> I also wonder if CBS mentioned that several patrons regularly carried
|> before the law was changed to make carry illegal and could have
|> stopped the killing except that they were obeying this stupid law.

I might be mistaken, but concealed carry has been illegal in Texas for
a long time.

Anyone with a date?

|> Thus everyone was defenseless. I didn't watch the show mentioned but
|> I bet there was no mention of Dr. Gratia for example. Does anyone remeber?

Dr. Gratia had been carrying concealed, in her purse, for some time, illegally.

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
"You are getting hung up unnecessarily by the use of the words (and
their associated meanings).  What you should be doing is _ignoring_
the actual words...the words themselves are completely unimportant."
--brian@coombs.anu.edu.au
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@m4-035-8.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
Subject: Re: Salmon (sic) Rushdie's insight into America
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:40:09 GMT

>  Oh, now I see - Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than
>others.  Rushdie is clearly in a different category than others
>who are "in danger of being attacked" because, um, er, well, it
>is clear anyhow, and I can see it.  You can cease your pity.
>> ...
>
>--henry schaffer

Where should donations be sent to help buy the Hezbollah agents some
plane tickets to England and a Rand-McNally map with detailed blueprints of
Rushdie's house?


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Manhood, talking tough, posting in t.p.g., life, universe and
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 14:28:44 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <susan.703122943@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>malloy@NPRDC.NAVY.MIL (Sean Malloy) writes:
>
>>Fine; you can let your 'alternative _peaceful_ solution' be lying down
>>and spreading your legs when a rapist isn't willing to listen to you,
>>but don't try to force _your_ idea of the _right_ solution on someone
>>to whom lying back, gritting their teeth, and accepting it is a
>>completely _unacceptable_ solution. Coercing everyone else to follow
>>your ideal of 'peaceful solutions' makes you different from men only
>>in that you're employing a different _kind_ of violence.
>
>	A rather typical male response IMO.  Have you ever considered that
>it might not be possible to reach the point where its no longer necessary
>for anybody to have to, "lie back and grit their teeth,"?
>
>	Why should we as wommin have to control the behavior of men who
>can't control their dicks?

Because if you don't, those men will be using their physical strength
to control your behavior.  Utopia, BTW, is not an option.

-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald)
Subject: Re: Susan is still only thinking about herself
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date:  7 Apr 92 23:21:30 GMT

larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto) writes:

>susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:

>[...]

>>	It is?  Funny, we don't have plea bargaining, revolving door
>>prisons, a massive crime wave by recividists nor do we suffer from the same
>>levels of violent crime as does America.  To me, it appears that our legal
>>system is working just fine.

>Bingo!  Availability of weapons has little to do with crime.  

	It is a contributing factor.  Guns are very effective for intimidation
hence guns are liked by criminals as they make their crimes more effective.

>								A swift,
>sure justice system has everything to do with crime reduction.  When you
>consider that estimates are that 70 percent of violent crime in the USA
>is by repeat offenders out on parole, bail, or plea bargaining, you can
>more clearly see the problem.

	And who is to blame that such a system has been allowed to flourish?
You as the American voters have allowed the system to be created and for
it to have continued.

>The NRA has recently started a crime watch to publicize the more absurd 
>miscarriages of justice perpetrated on us by judges that live in another
>dimension from the rest of us.  

	Could it be that they are allowed too much room to _interpret_ the
laws which are laid down by your legislature?

>An example:  The 2nd District Court of Appeals overturned a life sentence
>for a man convicted of sexual battery (Florida's legal term for rape)
>of a 13 year old girl with muscular dystrophy because the girl wasn't
>helpless enough.  He was tried on a charge of sexual battery of a 
>physically helpless person - defined by statute as someone asleep,
>unconscious or physically unable to communicate unwillingness.

>The Appeals court ruled that the statute did not apply since the girl
>screamed for help and tried to push him away.  Ultimately, the man was
>resentenced to one year in jail on two counts of misdemeanor battery.
>He was given credit for time already served and was released.

>This is unfortunately not a rare occurance.  Maybe we could export our
>lawyers to a point half way between the USA and OZ...

	Perhaps its also a case that your legal system has too many loopholes
designed into it which allow obviously guilty people like this to go free
too easily?  It could also be a problem with too few prisons and no effort
made at rehabilitation of the criminals once they are locked up?

	Tell me, BTW, why didn't the state appeal against the sentence as
being too lenient?



--
|  *   |We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men, and if we were free... |
|*    *|as under natural conditions, our motherhood would be our glory. That |
|    ' |function gives women such wisdom and power as no male ever can       |
|   *  |possess. - Elizabeth Cady Stantoni___________________________________|
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 13 Apr 92 07:11:10 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr13.025017.10051@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>In article <susan.703123142@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>>cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:
>> ...
>>>You sure do.  The very idea that somebody would resist a criminal assault.
>                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>	Yep, you just would have to protect your "honour" now wouldn't
>>you Chris?  Couldn't just swallow your pride and not provoke a fight?
>                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>	Another male poster proves the point about their testerone levels....
>
>  Another wommin proves that she either can't read, or that she is
>incapable of distinguishing between being the victim of criminal assault
>and provoking a fight.  If she means what she says (hard to believe)
>then she really is saying that a rape victim shouldn't resist, but 
>instead just don't protect her/his "honour", swallow his/her price
>and let the rape proceed.  Otherwise the victim would be guilty of
>"provoking a fight".
>
You are taking what Susan said, out of context. She isn't referring
to a situation where rape may occur, but to a situation where
someones pride is affronted, but where no physical injury of
any consequence has been inflicted.
-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Subject: Re: Susan is still only thinking about herself
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 05:10:31 GMT

susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:

>larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto) writes:

>>susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:

>>[...]

>>>	Yet in every other major natural disaster, the government brings
>>>out the troops because the police just can't handle the situation, now
>>>don't they?

>>Susan, the national guard is often called out in times of trouble not
>>to prevent looting but because they are a large pool of organized help.  
>>That is part of the charter of the national guard. They have the men and
>>machinery for those *big* jobs.  Police departments don't have bulldozers,
>>6-bys, big helicopters or the personnel to run them.  The guard does.  No
>>city can afford to have that kind of assets just sitting around.

>	So why then is it the National Guard which is shown patrolling the
>streets?  They don't get shown digging through rubble or cleaning up damage.
>They are shown patrolling against looters.

Okay Susan, you and your eunuch know more about the USA than all of us who
live here.  Now go play somewhere else and let the adults talk.

--
Larry                                   |   Thunder makes all the noise;
                                        |   lightning gets the job done.
larryd@milton.washington.edu
I have my opinion; the university has its own.
From: vanremme@ee.rochester.edu (Bill VanRemmen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Ohio House Bill 709
Keywords: ohio, hb 709, parents criminally liable for childs actions
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:37:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Univ of Rochester, College of Engineering and Applied Science

In article <1992Apr9.042001.1004@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>The Ohio House Judiciary and Criminal Justice Subcommittee meeting
>of April 8th discussed H.B. 709.  This bill would make PARENTS or
>guardians criminally liable [jail time!], if their CHILD takes a gun
>belonging to his or her parents to school!
>



I'm risking a serious flaming here...

I am strongly pro-RKBA, and a member of both NRA-ILA and SCOPE.

It seems to me that owning a gun, while most certainly a RIGHT, entails
a certain personal responsibility to see that the gun is not misused.  If
you have minor children, that responsibility extends to them as well.



>Just the way for a child to stick it to his parents that he doesn't
>get along with.
>


If you have a child that you don't get along with (major problem as opposed
to a minor child 8-), you probably should take extra precautions to see
that that child can't get your gun!

If the parent takes said precautions and the kid STILL gets the gun,
the parent should not be held liable.


***  Shields up!

-Bill VanRemmen
From: aa543@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thom Boughton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Susan is still only thinking about herself
Date: 9 Apr 92 02:14:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr9.021426.12619
Reply-To: aa543@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thom Boughton)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)

<2247@nu
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

In a previous article, cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) says:

> 
>
>Don't let her throw you off.  Her formulation could best be stated as, 
>"US LAW DOES NOT APPLY IN AUSTRALIA... but Australian law DOES apply in the 
US,
>or at least OUGHT to".  This is a standard line for them.  They retreat to it
>every time somebody makes them look foolish.  They retreat to it a LOT. :)
>
>

Yes, so I have noticed!

I've only recently been hanging around this section of the net ...maybe 2 weeks 
worth.  In that time I've noticed at least two score instances where such 
implications have been made.

As for such comments as the above (not to mention the drivel about the 
obligations of Aussie police,) obviously false statements deserve obviously 
false attention.

Fact is ...I really COULDN'T care less.  Whatever statutes they saddle 
themselves with is their business.  I just wish she and her addled cronies 
would return the favour.

Most of Suzie's msg headers really *do* come out on this end as being from 
Duke. When I realized the error, I tried to make nice.  Seems she is less 
interested in the subject matter than she is in having her tantrums.  Behaviour 
which is typical of a femi-nazi.



Sad ....I remember when we were all people.



--

"They live here, Lieutenant. They've got women, and pigs, and everything!"

                                                    ....Firesign Theatre
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: wayne john warf <wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: UK court approves use of shotgun
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 11:34:20 -0500

In article <1992Apr9.072614.1767@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <2317@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
>>
>>David Bowman:

>>Sorry David, this thread was about fighting.  What you are talking
>>about is a "duel" (commonly called a "step outside" where I'm from).
>>In a "duel" either of the participants can decline or run away.  A
>>fight isn't quite so civilized and often isn't so voluntary.
>>
>It takes two to fight!

Perhaps you missed the point. It may "take two to fight," BUT ONE MAY
BE AN UNWILLING PARTICIPANT REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY HAPPY THOUGHTS
HE'S BEEN THINKING OR HOW HARD HE'S TRIED TO ESCAPE. 

>>In the Canadian form of english, duel and fight are not interchangeable.
>>But then you Australians can redefine your language at will,  now
>>can't you.
>
>Well at least we speak English!

You can? Does that mean, then, that you have simply been refusing to do
so all this time?
-- 
 *  WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu**I speak for me,OK?**sic semper tyrannis    *
 *   NRA LIFE* *NRA Certified Instructor* *Penna. R&PA* *Ind. SR&PA   *
 * Department of Decision & Information Systems, Indiana University   *
 * Bloomington, IN 47405 USA* *Pennsylvania CCW Lic.*Indiana CCW Lic. *