HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:58:12 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <C0G04L.DtM@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:
>In article <9301052244.31@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (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.
>
>So, since *you* believe in home defense, it's ok then?  You'll be
>suprised at the number of people who will tell you you have no right
>to defend yourself, even in your own home.  But, in your mind, defense
>at home is ok, but we shouldn't defend ourselves in public?  Whatcha
>gonna do, hope you can outrun the assailant and get home to get your
>shotgun?

If I am cornered in my home, I am allowed under the law to defend myself.

There is nothing wrong with public defense.  I just don't think that
anyone should be able to buy a gun and carry it around the street.  At
least in this town, there are drug dealers who would love to be able to
go in and buy what they want off the shelf.

>>Hmm.  Someone else said that it was against the law for civilians to
>>carry guns in Tennessee.
>
>Just concealed.  Indiana has concealed carry permit system, and quite
>a lot of people do carry, and we have a very low rate of violent crime
>(except up in the corner of the state near Chicago.  Could this mean
>that availablility of guns has nothing to do with violence???

So how come the carry permit system doesn't work up in the corner of
the state near Chicago?

>>So you're saying that a lot of people just carry concealed weapons,
>>no matter what the laws say?
>
>Yes.  An estimated 5%, but such numbers are very tricky to come by
>since most people don't flaunt the fact they break the law.  Even in
>places where concealed carry is permissible it's hard to gather data
>because most people simply won't give away vital parts of their
>defense plan.
>
>Once again, I ask, do you have a point?

Yes, I don't feel safe if anyone can just buy a gun even if they are
crazy, or drug dealers, or car jackers.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Subject: Re: reduction of availability
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: who knows
Distribution: usa
Date:  6 Jan 1993 12:22 EST  

><76130@apple.apple.COM>, earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:
>|>
>|> 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.

I guess that means that the Swiss (high density of people and guns) must be
lying about their crime statistics :-)
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:44:52 GMT
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.

In article <9301061627.25@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <JGREELY.93Jan6111850@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu> jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes:
>>In article <9301051928.44@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>
>>>And what about people with felony records?
>>
>>They don't want people to own handguns either.
>
>But your not worried about felons having guns?

Not very much.

If you can find a way to keep guns out of the hands of felons without
infringing on law abiding (and vast majority) people please suggest it.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 11 Jan 1993 19:28:30 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301092346.39@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> In article <1ii89nINNn9d@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> >In article <9301051952.18@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> >
> >> A friend of mine got his sporting license 3 years ago.  He joined a gun
> >> club for less than $100 per year, got the three references, and was given
> >> a permit.  No hassle.
> >
> >So you approve of policies that restrict gun ownership to the relatively
> >well-off.
> 
> I don't see $100 per year as excessive.

It's excessive for a price you have to pay to exercise a constitutionally-
guaranteed right.  What was the poll tax?  $5?  $10?  Well, the Supreme
Court thought THAT was excessive -- in fact, they ruled that ANY amount
was excessive.

> >It's none of the government's business who your friends are.
> 
> Your're right.  It's a poor attempt at determining a person's state
> of mind and/or standing with other people.

Thank you.

It's also poor form to insist on local references for someone new to the
area.  In my opinion, it's also damn poor form to demand these references
and then to shitcan them (none of my references were EVER contacted).  It's
nothing more than a form of harrassment, another hoop to jump.

> True, if the ex-felon buys an illegal gun.
> Mostly true.

Terrific, we seem to be agreeing on these points.

> That's interesting.  So the Brady Bill isn't interested in using serial
> numbers on guns to find out who owned it last, when it was used in the
> commission of a homicide?

Would you like an electronic copy of the Brady Bill?  Ask me and I will 
send it to you.

I have two versions: the original one which is for a waiting period only,
active in the House at the time that HCI was screaming about the Staggers
Bill being a fraud and proposing an impossible system; and the Senate
version, which includes most of the Staggers Bill (except the parts where
government officials are actually held ACCOUNTABLE for negligently or
fraudulently denying the purchase of a law-abiding citizen).

Neither of them have anything to do with serial numbers or registrations,
at least overtly.
-- 

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,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: This organ donating thread
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:13:00 GMT

In article <viking.726309020@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>Xref: utkux1.utk.edu talk.politics.guns:30921 alt.society.civil-liberty:6078
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.society.civil-liberty
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!cs.utk.edu!gatech!destroyer!news.iastate.edu!vincent1.iastate.edu!viking
>From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
>Subject: Re: This organ donating thread
>Message-ID: <viking.726309020@vincent1.iastate.edu>
>Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
>Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
>References: <1i72i8INN6fn@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <1993Jan4.110244.28723@doug.cae.wisc.edu> <VEAL.595.726168840@utkvm1.utk.edu> <1iab7aINN9c1@cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu> <pa142548.608.726245553@utkvm1.utk.edu>
>Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 08:30:20 GMT
>Lines: 27
>pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>
>>The problem is that the potential exists to allow creditors to force an 
>>invasive surgical procedure to procure an asset that they are legally 
>>entitled to.
>
>	While it's possible for this to come about, I've been putting off
>ingiunial hernia surgery for three months waiting for the insurance company
>to get their act strait, and I may have to put it off another five months
>because I'm not missing the first week of classes recovering from the
>operation.  In any event, the state cannot, I'm told, require one to
>undergo any medical procedure (save lethal injection), and I suspect
>creditors can be answered with a simple, "You can have my kidney when I
>die and not a moment before.  Follow me around, asshole, and wait."  If
>the state doesn't have this power, it's unlikely a creditor has it.
>My talks with the hospital indicate they can only operate on me if I
>am incoherent, no family members can be contacted, and I am in imminent
>danger of losing my life due to this injury.  Without permission, they
>will attempt to stabilize me, not fix me.
>

The state also does not currently have the power to make you an organ donor 
against your will, or by "implied consent."  Giving the state this power 
would be a precursor to the other.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The homophobia question comes to a stopping point
Date: 11 Jan 1993 21:54:05 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1innuhINN7n1@flash.pax.tpa.com.au>, anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:

> It appears that the the homophobia question comes to a stopping point.
> My bets are that it's there in the NRA and it's taking it's toll...

It's very simple.  The people in the US who are most likely to be
accepting of gays are not accepting of guns.  The NRA attracts people 
who are pro-gun.  I could postulate that statistically, the NRA might 
be comprised of a greater percentage of people with negative feelings 
about gays than you find in the population as a whole.  But translating
that into an organizational policy bias, much less an official bias, is
intellectually dishonest.

If you are pro-gay, and pro-gun, and are not a member of the NRA,
you are not part of the solution -- you're perpetuating the problem.

> The NRA has no image problem with its members and sympathizers.

That's not always true.  But discrimination against gays hasn't even
been brought up.  (I'm talking about charges by victims, not third
parties like you.)

> But there are almost certainly other potential
> conflicts, among them the status of AIDS in its insurance programs.

Huh?  I can't claim to be an expert on their insurance, but the
insurance they gave ME protects my GUNS.  Since my guns can't get
AIDS, and can't give AIDS to anybody else, what's the issue here?
-- 

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...

From: ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:30:48 GMT
Subject: Re: The NRA will always be right wing.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

> >Here is some advice:  Give up.  The NRA will always be right wing.
> >I doubt that any NRA directors are losing any sleep over Colorado
> >Amendment 2.  Maybe one or two of them have some closeted qualms.
> >The other 90 or so (or however many there are) think that fags
> >deserve no sympathy.  If you don't believe it, ask Wayne LaPierre
> >how many homosexuals there are in the NRA.
> >
> 
> Homosexuals are welcome to join the NRA.  I am sure that the NRA respects
> the gays right of self defense. 
> 
I don't recall seeing anything about sexual preference on the 
application to join NRA.

The NRA would do well to actively recruit gays as well as women, blacks,
hispanics and a diverse population. It would help against the liberal
rich white + so-called "black leaders for civil rights" who seem to
represent the anti-gun faction. 
 
If gays are concerned about "gay bashing" leading to actual violence
against their persons, then a firearm is a legitimate answer and then
the gays and the NRA have some common ground. And the NRA could very
much use the organized energy of the gay community to achieve such things
as mandatory issue of CCW permits. And the gay community could use the
NRA to achieve a better degree of self-defense against their oppressors. 

The local news has been running lots of stories about violent 
attacks on homosexuals. My first thought is sadness that these 
individuals can't get CCW permits and are relatively helpless by law.
I know, I've checked the permit process. My second thought is that
naturally, the media will never ask the question the way I would :-)

The so-called "gay lobby" could very legitimately request that the permit
system be changed- something which I would like to see also.

Gay bashers represent Coloradans like John Hinckley represents the NRA.

Ron Miller
Ft. Collins, Colo.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Saved by the gun, part II
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:53:56 GMT

In article <_7xrhsc@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>
>This sequence was about as graphic a demonstration as possible that
>there really ain't no reliable one stop shot.  Of course, if the

A *small* hole in the heart will frequently not be instantly fatal.
You can live with a significant portion of your myocardium damaged and
still keep going for several minutes.  I saw this on more than one
occasion.  Granted, it's almost always fatal, unless one is in the
operating theater when it happens.  Shoot, John, if I ripped your
heart out of your chest and threw it on the floor, you'd still have
time (if you hadn't succumbed to phsychological shock) to pull out
your favorite self defense weapon and put several holes in me before
you died.  You want an instant drop, get a CNS shot, preferrably high
up in the cervical spine.  
  
>cop's holeshooter had been equipped to make those half inch holes,
>the outcome might have been a bit quicker. :-)

Agreed.  I'm still waiting for high power energy weapons to become
easily portable.  I think the guard should have been carrying a
backup.  Kinda dumb to rely on any one point for anything so critical.

-- 
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
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The real gamble of self-defense with a gun
Date: 13 Jan 1993 02:07:14 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan13.000831.2532@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

> Homicides involve people who have a long history of getting into
> "arguments" that end up in violence.  Most of us get into arguments...

Snrk... snrf... sppbwb..bbbbwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Sorry.  300 messages in the newsgroup today just pushed me over the edge.
-- 

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: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Meanwhile, back in reality... (Re: The NRA will always be right wing.)
Date: 9 Jan 93 01:56:05 GMT
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore

In article <1ikgh3INNp26@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:
>
>Don Baldwin laments that the gun lobby is weighed down with the label
>of hard-core conservative.
>
>Here is some advice:  Give up.  The NRA will always be right wing.
>...
>It is true that the GOP has been seriously damaged by its reactionary
>posterior.  The NRA is a big part of its problem.  The GOP is either going
>to go down the toilet, or ax the NRA and other fanatics in the party,
>or both.

Meanwhile, back in reality, the NRA gained 20 or more A+ congressmen in the
House while the moderate Bush administration snatched defeat out of the jaws
of victory in spite of pandering to the liberal media by instituting the 
largest tax increase in American history and the most sweeping barage of new
federal regulations since the 60s.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:17:08 GMT

>>	Why didn't he ask for a jury trial?
>>
>>JD
>The same reason most of us don't.
>
Actually, he wasn't tried.  He got "continuance without a finding" - an
administrative action leaving the charge in limbo for a year (reinstatable
if he is re-arrested for something else) then it disappears.

You can't ask for a jury until a trial is ordered.  This was a really slick
move by the judge to bypass the need to follow the law, and render a ruling
which is virtually unappealable (aside from a major suit) since no one
has any conviction to appeal.

>"If you cop to the misdemeanor and leave your gun with us, we won't 
>procescute on the felony charge.  If you don't cop a plea, we'll go for the 
>felony conviction and ask for the maximum sentance.  You have more to lose 
>than we do.  What'll it be?"

A friend of mine opted to go to trial rather than cop to a misdemeanor for 
pulling a gun on a teenage housebreaker.  It dragged on for over a year; 
cost him $15K+; subjected him to a potential 27 years on 3 counts of ADW
(in RI); etc.  He was exonerated by the jury in 15 minutes.  I have great
admiration for his character is sticking up for what is right, despite
the great expense ane personal stress.

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


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Guns and  Boston Crack Dealers (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 08:30:40 GMT

In article <9301100014.02@rmkhome.UUCP>
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan7135421@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes
>><In article <9301061155.03@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>><   In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan5134603@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) wites:
>>
>><   ><   I believe there is some benefit in determining if a person is
>><   >,   psychologically able to take on the responsibility of owning
>>,   ><   a handgun.
>><   >
>>,   >	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.
>>
>>	And do they also determine if a person is "psychologically
>>	able to take on the responsibility of owning a car"?
>>
>>	If not, why not?
>
>Probably because the primary purpose od automobiles is transportation, not
>defense.

       I don't get it.  Are you suggesting that guns availability should
be controlled because the purpose is for *defense*, not becuase the thing
can be a dangerous weapon?

       Exactly what other defense items should be so regulated?

       Locks?  Mace?  Stun guns?  Maglites?

       Enquiring minds wanna know.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: A new solution! (Was: Re: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:31:35 GMT

In article <1id5uoINNm8l@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> ...
>Yeah, the Middlesex News -- home of Tom Moroney, that paragon of
>impartiality who wrote that "If Wayne Lo had been forced to go out 
>of state to buy his SKS, he might have gotten lost, found God, or 
>just never come back."  Say, THERE'S a good justification for another 
>gun-control law in Massachusetts.
> ...

  I think you've got it!  Mass. should have a law that *every*
applicant for the FID (or whatever you call it) must first drive
to Montana and back, stopping in at least 3 houses of worship
on the way.

  Remember that "if it might save even one life ..." it would be
worth it!

--henry schaffer
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: CCW permit for Columbus, Ohio.  Huh ?!?
Keywords: ccw, columbus ohio
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:46:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.164613.8846@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>I called the Columbus PD, and asked about getting a CCW permit, and
>was told "Those are issued through city hall"; I called City Hall and

typical runaround.

>they switched me to the License dept. and they said, there is no such
>thing, they only have applications for buying guns, not carrying
>concealed.

larry, i'd suggest you notify that gang at PRO on this, in case
they missed it.  despite the clerk's comment, CCW permits may
exist, and it worth be worth knowing about.  several things to
keep in mind: (a) obviously they're discretionary if they exist,
(b) who's got them and why (if they exist), (c) what does this
mean for carry statewide, assuming they're issued by county,
and (d) this may be a ploy to associate as much negative press
with CCW permits as possible, even if CCW permits don't exist.
this would help make it hard for PRO or others to get a CCW
system passed later down the pike. 

drew
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
"Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds." - Oppenheimer
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: "all people, all of the time"  (Was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 17:45:55 GMT

In article <9301092003.20@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
> ...
>I'm just questioning your all or nothing attitude.  You are saying that
>all people, all of the time, should have equal access to guns.   ...

  Here is the crux of the matter - it appears to Rick Kelly that
the poster to whom he is replying, and many other pro-RKBA posters,
are saying this.  I claim that nobody (or at most a *very* small
fraction) is saying this - and that (almost) every pro-RKBA poster
wants to deny access to guns for such groups of people as inmates
in prisons, inmates of mental institutions, convicted violent
felons on parole and to very strongly limit access for young
children#.  I also claim that many enthusiastic statements are made
by pro-RKBA posters who mislead Rick Kelly into thinking that
they have the claimed attitude rather than the position I describe.

  Am I right?  If so, then perhaps people need to be clearer about
this (and also let Rick Kelly know how they feel.  I suspect that
he'll stop needling people after he finds out their actual
positions.)  If not, then I need to learn something.

  #(I know that pro-RKBA people disagree on the important details
such as how to treat convicted felons who have "paid their debt" to
society, and the age(s) at which children should or shouldn't have
access.  But that isn't important with respect to whether they 
have an "all" position.)

--henry schaffer
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns