HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 10 Jan 93 03:53:37 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
> >rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> >
> >|> Would it make you feel good inside to know that ex-cons who 
> >|> were in for murder or armed robbery could legally buy guns?
> >
> >If they're still violent, then why, oh why, are they out on the 
> >street?
> >
> >If we have "rehabilitated" them, then their rights should not be 
> >restricted.
> 
> Be serious, criminals are not rehabilitated.  The state lets them 
> out of jail because they need room for the new prisoners coming in. 
> In Mass, the jail census has been raised 10 % just by people who 
> were jailed for drunk driving.

ok, you've outlined a problem. now what's the matter with fixing the
root problem instead of patching it with ineffective "solutions" 
that will take away the rights of those they were supposed to protect?

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,`        Practice random acts of kindness and senseless beauty        `,` 
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
From: bressler@iftccu.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 05:56:41 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

>> How does a person who would endure hardship by being robbed of $10
>> acquire a gun.  I own several guns, and they all cost $200+.
>
>Well then, better make sure no Massachusetts judge gets her hands on them.

Thank your law makers for that one.  I recently returned from a trip to 
Germany.  It's a bitch to get the paperwork to own a handgun there, but
once you get approved, there are many new, decent all steel revolvers for 
under $60.00!  Autos start at around 150, at least in this one store. 

I understand that the import duty on Tarus is around 100%.  If so, that 
would place their prices on par with the ones I've mentioned above.  Decent
quality guns don't have to be terribly expensive.  Our law makers have 
made them so as part of their gun control efforts.  We let them.

Rick.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:07:01 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <C0Cox6.Ivt@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>In article <9212311212.23@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>|> >BTW - Did you ever wonder why the AMOUNT of property carried is
>|> >considered relevant?  If Trump loses his watch to a mugger, he's out
>|> >pocket change, while losing $10 can be a real hardship for a poor
>|> >person.  Considering who gets useful police protection, restricting
>|> >the poor's ability to take care of themselves is a cruel joke.
>|> 
>|> How does a person who would endure hardship by being robbed of $10
>|> acquire a gun.  I own several guns, and they all cost $200+.
>
>For about 20 years, I have been donating used, low cost, but reasonable quality
>firearms (mostly revolvers) to acquaintances (and relatives) of mine that could
>not otherwise afford to defend themselves.
>
>That's how.

Do you have to go through a procedure to transfer gun ownership?

>Being poor doesn't mean you have no right to defend yourself.
>
>And charity isn't just money, food, or clothing.
>
>|> >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.
>
>In a police state, this is a valid argument.  In our Republic, it should be
>repugnant to anyone who understands that:
>
>1.  Persons have a guaranteed right of privacy; and
>
>2.  The government exists at the whim of the governed.

When you have state governments that seem to release convicted murderers
and armed robbers on a whim, then you have to have some means of keeping
them from buying weapons.

>|> >A number of states have decided to issue permits to most anyone who
>|> >applies.  They haven't had the horrible experience that Kelly assumes.
>|> >Are Bay Staters different?
>|> 
>|> In Arizona, I believe, there is now a move to restrict the current laws
>|> that allow children to carry concealed weapons, as many parents are
>|> concerned that it has become fashionable for junior high students to
>|> carry concealed weapons.
>
>You are WRONG - no one in Arizona, except police, is allowed to carry concealed
>weapons.  Those kids were breaking a law that's been on the books since the
>1950's, at least.
>
>The argument in Arizona is basicly over whether the state pre-emption law is
>worth the paper it is written on.

However, kids can carry, but not concealed.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Kelly's Straw Hobby Horse (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<PA146008.601.726336489@utkvm1.utk.edu> <9301061637.45@rmkhome.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:55:51 GMT

<In article <9301061637.45@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
<   In article <PA146008.601.726336489@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

<   So you're advocating that all people with the money in hand should be 
<   able to buy guns?

	Isn't Kelly tired of this strawman *YET*?
	He's like a child with a new toy.....
<
<   >       Besides, you were talking, as well, about checking peoplfor a 
<   >subjective psychological readiness for a gun.  Instant checks have been 
<   >instituted to check someone for a criminal record.  What happens it what 
<   >always happens when you try to control a commodity that people who don't 
<   >obey they law want.  They find a way around it.

<   That's right.  I'm a criminal.  I steal your wallet and use your SS number
<   and other pertinent information to make myself an identity that will
<   allow me to pass the spot check.  The spot check is now worthless.

	The same argument shows the uselessness of the licensing
	system Kelly is defending; or are FID's somehow impossible
	to steal?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: TIME is on the ropes, asks for forgive
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 06:12:28 GMT

In article <C0q084.A9r@matilda.vut.edu.au>
db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:

>In article <1907@esl.ESL.COM> drm@esl.com writes:
>>
>>I noticed that a recent (post-New Year's) issue of Time had an editorial
>>cartoon in which the "Somalian Rifle Associaiton" asserted their rights to
>>deep and bear rocket launchers in the face of Marines bent on confiscating
>>arms used in thuggery.
>>
>Time makes a good point! I thought you lot would support
>the right of the Somalis to keep and bear arms. Is it one
>rule for citizens of the USA and another for citizens of other
>countries?

        Most people object to being innaccurately caricatured.

>>I haven't noticed any pro-gun articles or cartoons, though I am not a
>>reader of the magazine. (Just happened to flip through it in the check-out
>>line.)
>
>Sure!
>
>Cheers,

        You, too.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:55:06 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <pa142548.604.726244364@utkvm1.utk.edu> pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <9301021347.42@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>So, do you carry a gun 24 hours a day?
>>
>When I was a Georgia resident I did.  Here in Tennessee, private citizens 
>can't get carry permits.

When you were living in Georgia, how often did you have to pull a gun and/or
shoot at somebody?

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:58:49 GMT

In article <9301092315.08@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>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.

You can't get rid of a black market anything.  People have tried as
long as there has been governments.  They've all failed.  The best way
to get rid of a black market is to legalize the material, and then
make it's cost reflect the true cost of manufacture.  Even then, there
will be a black market for stolen goods that can be had cheaper than
legitimate ones.  

-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:31:04 GMT

In article <9301091923.58@rmkhome.UUCP> 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.

Wrong.  If you kill someone in self defense with an illegal gun, then
you are only guilty of possessing an illegal gun.  

-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Homosexual topics in this forum
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:01:13 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

As quoted from <DENNIS_.6.0@NCSU.EDU> by DENNIS_@NCSU.EDU (DGA):

> I beg all involved in this forum to resist allowing this group to be 
> CONSUMED by discussion related to homosexuals, heterosexuals, nosexuals, or 
> any other sexuals.  There are many newsgroups that exist for the purpose of 
> airing Internet user's feeling concering sexual orientation.  I hope anyone 
> whose reason for being is having sex with whomever or whatever will find a
> better forum for expressing their views than this one.
> 
> Personal view:  I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU DO SEXUALLY UNTIL IT AFFECTS 
> ME OR MINE, YOU INSIST ON DOING IT IN MY FACE, OR YOU ATTEMPT TO FORCE ME TO 
> CONDONE IT.
> 
While I agree with the basic concept of not meddling in other people's 
adult consensual sexual activity, we aren't talking sex here.  We're talking
POLITICS.  The political climate veritably DEMANDS that the NRA (and gun
owners in general) be MUCH more sensitive to the possibility of forming 
alliances with groups who have a vested interest in the availability of the
means of effective self defense.  This includes Blacks, Jews, women, gays
and other groups who are the victims of violence, especially violence directed
specifically at them AS A GROUP.  The NRA ought to be putting out TONS of
promotional materials in KOREAN.  The Koreans of LA KNOW that the LAPD doesn't
give a damn about them.  Why isn't the NRA helping them tell their story to
other Korean-American communities across the country, especially in places
like Chicago and New York?

Gays are often the subject of criminal assault both in their homes and on the
street.  They have a RIGHT to self defense when they are engaged in lawful
activity.  You don't have to LIKE what they do.  You just have to acknowledge
that they ought not to be killed for doing it legally.  I'm neither a 
homosexual nor a country music fan.  That doesn't mean that you don't have a
right to defend yourself from murder BECAUSE you're a homosexual or a Moe and
Joe fan.  That right to self defense involves the right to bear arms.

You don't have to like gays to point out their legitimate rights to them.  They
don't have to like you in order to vote accordingly.


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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
From: post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 20:01:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Killing Machines Easily Bought In Boston (Was: Guns and  Boston Crack Dealers (Was: Dressed for Rape))
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

In talk.politics.guns, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

 >So where do you get your information from?

To make intelligent decisions about gun control and violence, one needs to
examine independent sources like "Guns, Murder and the Constitution" by D.B.
Kates, (Pacific Research Institute, 1990) or _Under the Gun:  Weapons,
Crime, and Violence in America_ by Wright and Rossi (Aldine, 1983), _Point
Blank_ by Gary Kleck, ( Aldine de Gruyter, 1991) and, of course, the annual
_Uniform Crime Reports_, by the US Printing Office.  None of these have
anything to do with the NRA or Handgun Control, Incorporated.

David Post  davep@hpfcpp.fc.hp.com  hplabs!hpfcla!post
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<LAMBERT.92Dec22034830@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Dec31.195834.11342@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:10:00 GMT

>>>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:58:34 GMT, oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary) said:

> (Tim Lambert) writes:

>> And don't believe everything you read in this newsgroup.  According to
>> the National Crime Survey, there are 80,000 crimes each year where
>> guns are used in self-defence (not always successfully), and there are
>> 800,000 crimes committed with guns each year in the US.  I'm not sure
>> that the ratio (used against criminals)/(used by criminals) makes much
>> sense, but it seems to run about 10 to 1 against the good guys.
>> 
>> Sources?  Why Kleck's Social Problems 35:1 paper, of course.
>> Strangely Kleck gives a larger estimate based on a smaller, less
>> accurate poll greater emphasis :-)

> Well Mr. Lambert and I agree - I don't believe everything I
> read in this newsgroup.  However, when I check sources
> the gun controllers are usually the ones that don't come off too
> well.

> Others have pointed out that the 80,000 is the number of reported
> defenses in a given year.

No, it's from the National Crime SURVEY.  That's a validated large
scale survey designed to measure crime and attempted crime and victim's
responses to it.

> Additionally, the gun controllers seem to be unaware that Kleck
> cites (in Point Blank for instance) several surveys all yielding 
> estimates of around one million defensive uses of firearms each 
> year in the United States.

None of these polls were designed to measure the frequency of
defensive uses of firearms.  The only one that Kleck could even use
for this purpose was the Hart poll, and it has methodological problems
when used for this purpose.

> So there is nothing strange about Kleck giving a larger emphasis
> to a smaller, less accurate poll - because it isn't true - he
> uses several polls to support his estimate.  

Even if those other polls were constructed in such a way as to measure
the frequency of defensive uses, their total sample size would still
be less than that for the NCS.

It may be that there are 1M defensive uses of firearms in the US each
year, but Kleck's data does NOT support such a conclusion, and I do
find it strange that he would make such an error.

> By the way, readers may want to ask Mr. Lambert what happened to
> the population weighted residential burglary rate in Kennesaw,
> Georgia when the mandatory gun ownership law was passed.
> (Hint: It didn't stay the same)

Don't tease us, if you have some data, let's see it.

Tim
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 00:34:21 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <C0Fz6n.CLB@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:
>In article <9301052017.35@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>>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.
>>
>>And the police are paid from the taxpayers money to protect her.
>
>Ah ha!  A blatantly wrong statement.  The Supreme Court has determined
>that police have *no* obligation to protect *anyone*.

In what case?

>>>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.
>>
>>Why doesn't any press the Supreme Court on the issue?
>
>Gotta get there first.  If things are squashed down so they can never
>reach that level then it's obviously not going to happen eh?  

Has that been happening?

>>>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.
>>
>>So you take the responsibility away from the police, and put it on 
>>the poor bastard who owns a gun store.
>
>This is false logic as well.  How is this different from making the
>person wait a time period so a "background check" can be made?  It
>isn't, it merely automates the process.  No shift in responsibility
>from what exists today.

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

>>There is a guy on trial right now, Kenneth Seguin, who comes from the
>>next town.  He strangled his kids, and chopped up his wife with an
>>axe.  He was a "seemingly" mild mannered vice president at a local
>>high tech firm.
>
>He was such a quiet boy.  
>
>>Cases like this have been happening all during 1992 in Mass.
>
>Pardon me for being blunt Rick, but whates the HELL is your point?  SO
>far, you've successfully avoided answering most questions presented
>you by changing subjects slightly, and going on a different tack.
>What opinion are you trying to present?  Or are you playing devils
>advocate?  What's the deal?

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.  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.  If the laws change
to a system where gun dealers get there info from a computer terminal,
then privacy laws in this country will have to change.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:50:11 GMT

In article <9301092205.48@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!cs.utk.edu!gatech!rutgers!ub!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!alliant!merk!rmkhome!rmk
>From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
>Message-ID: <9301092205.48@rmkhome.UUCP>
>Date: 10 Jan 93 03:05:47 GMT
>References: <pa142548.604.726244364@utkvm1.utk.edu> <9301051955.18@rmkhome.UUCP> <4zyr59q@dixie.com>
>Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)
>Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
>Lines: 28
>In article <4zyr59q@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>
>>>>When I was a Georgia resident I did.  Here in Tennessee, private citizens 
>>>>can't get carry permits.
>>
>>>When you were living in Georgia, how often did you have to pull a gun and/or
>>>shoot at somebody?
>>
>>
>>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.

Good. Now, suppose the state decided that you needed thier permission to 
wear it?  Wouldn't that upset you?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:24:15 GMT

In article <ARCHER.718.726787155@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <C0p3s2.DAt@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:
>>>Except for one that requires taking of finger prints as a basis for
>>>identification.
>>
>>Nope, that's relatively easy to circumvent too.
>>
>I'll bite?  How?

You think I'd give away trade secrets :-)  Just kidding.   
Ok, painful way.  Burn them off.  The scar tissue won't have
fingerprints. 
One fairly easy way.  Make a fingerprint mold* (easy to do if one has
the right stuff. Dental clay works well).  Then there are a number of
substances that will then take the mold impression, rubber cement is a
field expedient way, but easily detectable.  Other latex compounds
work a lot better and are harder to detect.  

My point was that there is no foolproof system.  There are folks who
specialize in identification bypassing, I'm sure they have many more
tricks than I can even dream of.

*of course, don't use *your* fingerprints.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jbs@rti.rti.org
Subject: Re: The Story of a Gun by Erik Larson, part 8 (last)
Keywords: atlantic, anti-gun rubbish
Organization: Joe's Bar and Grill
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 18:52:58 GMT

>
>WHAT NICHOLAS DID
...
>   "All of a sudden, there he was again," Marino recalled.  Nicholas aimed a
>bit lower this time.  The "gun that made the 80s roar" roared again.  There
>was an elliptical flare.  The bullet penetrated Marino's abdomen and catapulted
>him bacward into the room.


I just HATE those bullets that catapult people backward on impact.  They should
outlaw those damned things.


  -joe
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns