HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: communists + anarchists in the NRA
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:28:21 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer/ESD/OSBU/SW Dev/App & Tool Dev

In article <viking.726308417@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>csjohn@watson.mtsu.edu (J Wallace) writes:
>>aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum) writes:
>>>Just curious: how many other communists/anarchists are there in the
>>>NRA besides us? Hopefully there are some other leftists in the group;
>>>we can't let it get totally dominated by right-wing freaks!
>
>>Is this a joke?
>>Do you have a name, or are you just another cowardly crackpot?
>
>	Finger provides nothing from my site.  Anybody else have any
>information?  In any event, I noticed something interesting in his
>posts.  Governments murdered people, guerilla's "executed" people.
>...

--- finger aforum@moose.uvm.edu ---
[moose.uvm.edu]
Login name: aforum                      In real life: autonome forum
Directory: /hp1usr/u/misc/aforum        Shell: /bin/csh
On since Jan 06 12:43:45 on pts/3 from 132.198.103.126
42 minutes Idle Time
Plan:

                     aforum@moose.uvm.edu

Autonome Forum is an autonomist information collective that disseminates
information about liberation struggles in advanced capitalist countries and
in the so-called "Third World". Our focus is on armed struggle and other forms
of militant/left-radical resistance, but we do not limit ourselves to this.
We come from an internationalist perspective that is anti-capitalist and
anti-imperialist, but we do not separate the struggle against patriarchy,
racism, and homophobia from the struggle against capitalism and imperialism.
The development of a coherent revolutionary praxis is, for us, not rooted in
dogmatic ideologies, but in an anti-authoritarian practice that draws upon
many different strands of revolutionary theory.

                        autonome forum
                        PO Box 1242
                        Burlington, Vermont
                        05402-1242    USA

------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary)
Subject: Merry Olde England
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 04:36:53 GMT
Keywords: Murder Capital of the 13th Century (*)

As Don Kates points out you don't need guns to have a tremendous
murder rate.  England once had a murder rate many times the US rate. 
  
He quotes from a study "which finds the homicide rate
in thirteenth century England to have been higher than it has
ever been in the United States, although, of course, guns did
not yet exist.  Then, as today, the rate varied dramatically by region,
with the most peaceful having a homicide rate only two or three
times that of our least violent areas (a rate less than half our 
national rate) and the most violent having a rate two or three
times our most violent regions.  Just as today, the murderers
were restless, disturbed, alcoholic, and poor; the victims were primarily
their relatives and acquaintances; the weapons were primarily
knives and agricultural implements, and secondarily large rocks."

"So much for the notion that - without addressing the root causes
of violence - a society can greatly reduce the resulting harms
just by banning handguns." (1)

Brian Leary

(1) Don B. Kates, Restricting Handguns, 1979, North River Press, page 109
(*) It is not clear that England really led the world in murder, but the
    rates presented are impressive.  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: kevinc@solman.kpc.com (Kevin Cameron)
Subject: Re: The real gamble of self-defense with a gun
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:02:59 GMT

In article <1it58vINNgbq@flash.pax.tpa.com.au>, anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:
|> (Rest of dumb post deleted)
|>
|> 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.

If anyone had any doubts that the arguments of the anti-gun nuts are rooted
in passivism, that post should dispel them.

Tell me, Mr. (Ms?) "anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au" (or should I just call you
Susan?), what do you mean by "nearly limitless benefit of the doubt"?
In other words, where do you draw the line?  What amount of threat
to you and your family would it take to get you to act to point a gun
at them (let alone fire the gun)?

Are you a member of some radical religious cult?  If not, where do you
get such radical passivist ideas?

-- 
Kevin Cameron

"Those who will trade essential liberty for promise of security will
 have neither" - Benjamin Franklin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A new solution! (Was: Re: Dressed for Rape)
Date: 7 Jan 1993 20:39:29 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <ARCHER.663.726428569@utkvm1.utk.edu>, ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

> >And it is extremely easy to get an FID ( allows purchase of long guns and
> >ammo ) unless you live in Boston.

> Unless your local police chief decides to make it otherwise.

Um, no... even a blind pig like Massachusetts can find an acorn every
once in a while...

From Chapter 140, Licenses (emphasis mine):

129B: Firearm Identification Card; Ineligible Persons ; Denial;
      Revocation; Suspension.

"Any person [living or working in the state] may submit to the licensing
authority application for a firearm identification card, which such person
shall be ENTITLED TO, unless the applicant

a) [was convicted or serving time for a felony within the past 5 years]
b) [was confined for mental illness, but a physician can override this]
c) [was convicted, serving time, or in treatment for drugs/booze within 
    the past 5 years]
d) [is under age 15]
e) [is 15-17 but doesn't have parental permission]
f) is an alien.

"The licensing authority MAY NOT prescribe any other condition for the
issuance of a card, and it shall within 30 days from the date of
application either approve the application and issue the card or deny
the application and notify the applicant of the reason for such denial
in writing."

Unlike pistol permits, FID cards are NOT subject to the discretion of
your police chief.
-- 

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: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Concealed carry in Tn, etc (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 08:19:42 GMT

In article <9301092215.39@rmkhome.UUCP>
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>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.

       Rick, you need a little education about the state of affairs
in the United States.

       We're *all* criminals, Rick.  All of us.  Every single last one
of us.

       How, you might ask, did this happen and you not know about it?

       There are so many laws, state, local, and federal, on the books
you can't help but violate them.  You're probably a felon every day.
And it's not even that.  Ever exceed the speed limit?  Ever park where
it said "No parking," or stop in a fire lane?

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

        Ok, kids.  I'm officially offended.

        Violating a state law against carrying a concealed weapon
(which in Tennessee is a misdemeanor) is *not* the same as casually
going around killing people out of hand.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: communists + anarchists in the NRA
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:50:49 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

As quoted from <1993Jan5.161623.9558@uvm.edu> by aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum):

> 
> Just curious: how many other communists/anarchists are there in the
> NRA besides us? Hopefully there are some other leftists in the group;
> we can't let it get totally dominated by right-wing freaks!

Learn something from the Klan shooting in NC, did we...? :)

I know a Stalinist who did.  A good shot with a Walther PPK/S too....


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:53:03 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301092315.08@rmkhome.UUCP>, 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?

Well, you've already seen two such ideas:  the driver's license
acknowledging the owner's RKBA unless marked or punched; and the
instant check performed by the dealer.  You haven't much addressed
either of these.

> 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.

Many people here have concluded that prohibitions are unenforceable.
They don't work for drugs today, and no one has made them work despite
having tried for several decades.  Trying to "reinvent the square wheel" 
for guns as well is not considered a useful task by many (most?) of us.
-- 

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: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Time changes its tune ---NOT!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 03:12:56 GMT

In <1ifj1mINNglg@early-bird.think.com> rpalmer@Think.COM (Ralph Palmer) writes:

>TIME has changed its ways, yeh when pigs fly...
>				Ralph Palmer

	I've not yet recieved my first issue of Time, but as I recall
Time was pretty good at picking out the most damning editorial cartoons
and placing them inside.  Does it say who penned the cartoon and what
newspaper he wrote for?  I've actually seen some fairly pro-RKBA
cartoons in there as well, especially during the Iraq war.

	Since you seem to have the issue, what's the slant on the news
items?  Still as biased or is their slant starting to weaken?

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The real gamble of self-defense with a gun
Date: 12 Jan 1993 23:18:03 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1it58vINNgbq@flash.pax.tpa.com.au>, anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:

> People have bandied about a great many statistics about "successful"
> versus "unsuccessful" self-defense.  None of these statistics include
> the numerous cases where a man with a gun thought he was acting in
> self-defense, but wasn't.
> 
> I don't have any statistics either...

> But in many of these cases it seems to me that this claim is sincere...

> most homicides have no planning whatsoever and arise from
> verbal arguments...

> But if you're trying to persuade Mr. Kelly or me or anyone else that
> shooting the wrong man is a remote possibility in general, you ought to
> back it up with some actual facts.

What?  It's our turn AGAIN?  

When do YOU take a turn providing statistics (instead of strawmen)?
-- 

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: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Oh No!  NSW homicides again
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<LAMBERT.92Dec22033035@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Dec21.235939.20459@mtu.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:21:24 GMT

>>>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:59:39 GMT, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) said:
> (Tim Lambert) writes:

>> (Charles Scripter) said:
>> > It is quite standard practice to use SQRT(N) for error, and
>> > works surprisingly well for many systems (as many of them obey
>> > Poisson statistics).
>> 
>> But the numbers above are homicide rates per 100k population, not the
>> actual numbers of homicides,

> Absolutely correct, Tim.  I'm really surprised that it took an "expert
> in statistics" such as yourself **2 MONTHS** to figure this out.  The
> SQRT(N) argument is valid for *unnormalized* data...  Yes, I knew it
> was incorrect at the time I posted it; I posted it as an "exercise for
> the student".  You didn't fare very well... 

And at the time I pointed that your numbers were wrong.  And when you
claimed that the homicide rate was Poisson I pointed out that was
wrong too.  What's this two months nonsense?

> [Rest deleted]

The rest of Charles' posting is another one of his incorrect
"exercises for the student".  If anyone had trouble figuring out was
wrong with it, I suggest looking in an elementary statistics book.

Tim
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 12 Jan 1993 19:19:01 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan12.003017.13158@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> In article <9301091934.40@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> >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.
> 
> We've yet to see any good that comes from letting the state have any
> control....
> 
> >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.
> 
> Since anyone who has money can have a gun illegally, any laws that are
> based on another assumption are fatally flawed now.

I think a clarification is needed here before you spook Kelly again.

I don't believe anyone is arguing that "we should not have laws that say
that violent criminals cannot own guns," or that "since anyone can get 
guns we should remove all laws that say who can get guns."  (If you are,
feel free to spook Kelly AND me.)

What we are arguing is the usefulness of these laws for certain purposes:

o  These laws are VERY useful for punishing criminals found with guns.
o  These laws are NOT useful for preventing criminals from getting guns.

The point is, you cannot depend on the law to be a prophylactic.  We have
passed a number of these laws, and when they don't work, we think the
solution is to pass more.
-- 

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
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 01:17:33 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <1993Jan6.203301.1285@Firewall.Nielsen.Com> jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson) writes:
>In article <9301061202.15@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>[snip]
>>>Does Kelly contend that "convicted murderers and armed robbers" would not
>>>have easy access to 'alternative' weapons sources should conventional gun
>>>shops require background checks, letters of reference, fingerprints,
>>>waiting periods, and a kiss on the cheek from the local police chief?
>>
>>Ah, but what I have been hearing here is that there should be no laws 
>>governing the sale of weapons.  That the sale of a weapon should only
>>hinge on whether the buyer has the money in his/her hand.
>
>Note how Kelly avoids the question and attempts to change the subject.
>Can Kelly show some old posts where people suggest that "there should be
>no laws governing the sale of weapons"?  Or is Kelly confusing "no laws"
>with "fair, effective, non-intrusive, non-abusable laws"?

Define "fair, effective, and non-intrusive".  Obviously, all laws can be
abused.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 10 Jan 93 04:02:13 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
> >rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> >>There is slightly more to it than that.
> >
> >What?  I've been handling firearms for over two decades and I have 
> >yet to put a hole in anything that the barrel wasn't pointed at.
> 
> I can say the same thing, myself, but I've seen other people who 
> weren't quite so lucky.

please explain to us how the bullet exited from the side of the gun.
or was it the rear? regardless, i'm sure a lot of people would be
interested in this little feat of marksmanship.

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`        Practice random acts of kindness and senseless beauty        `,` 
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Subject: Re: bye guys!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: who knows
Date:  7 Jan 1993 11:17 EST  

<1993Jan6.164027.7125@uvm.edu>, aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum) writes...
>To keep up with our awesome left-radical news postings, just follow the
>newsgroup misc.activism.RECessive.
> 
>For communism, anarchy, oppression and other discredited thoughts.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jbs@ranger.rti.org
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment Foundation and CCRKBA problem
Organization: Joe's Bar and Grill
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 18:34:05 GMT

In article <9301061652.AA12393@pravda.webo.dg.com> googs@pravda.webo.dg.com (Joe Gugliemino) writes:

>This is a letter I'm mailing today.  It's posted here as an FYI.  

Correct your spellings of "amendment" before you post it.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fight the bastards (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 22:34:12 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <ARCHER.706.726781627@utkvm1.utk.edu>, ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

 [it doesn't matter]

Could you please include a working e-mail address in your postings?  My mail
to you is bouncing.
-- 

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: cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Chris Luchini)
Subject: This anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au creature.
Reply-To: cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
Organization: High Energy Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 05:58:07 GMT



This poster is just a net.bigot that should be ignored. 


I here by pledge that I will not respond to any posting
by it, or any follow up's to any postings by it, no 
matter how provoked.

I urge you all to take the same pledge.


*1110 W. Green/Urbana IL 61801/217-333-0505/cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu 
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 23:41:49 GMT

In article <9301101332.00@rmkhome.UUCP>
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>In article <16B523162.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Val) writes:
>>In article <9301100014.02@rmkhome.UUCP>
>>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>
>>>In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan7135421@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writs
>>>><In article <9301061155.03@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) write:
>>>><   In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan5134603@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)wites:
>>>>
>>>>,   >	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.
>
>Under Mass law:
>
>Mace - requires a FID card
>
>Pepper gas - requires a FID card
>
>Stun guns - even the police can't have them
>
>Saps - requires a pistol permit
>
>nightstick - requires a pistol permit
>
>Double edged weapons longer than 1.5 inches - banned
>
>Switch blade knives - banned
>
>nunchuks - they fall in some gray area
>
>brass knuckles - banned

       Pardon me.  I forgot that People's Democratic Republic of Massachusetts
was the place we were dicussing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns