HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: clary@iastate.edu (Jeffrey S Clary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: In a few months this will be denied too
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:02:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: pv031e.clary.703350124
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In <1992Apr14.234626.23640@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:


>We have had pro-gunners post saying they would kill for a penny,
>that Australia should be nuked, and then we have had Chris Morton
>falsely claim that Susan and myself want gays to die. You mob must be
>desparate, resorting to such pathetic tactics. Now we have
>Brian quoted out of context in a .sig and Terminator encouraging
>murder. And I have been asked, am I a cleaning lady. I am not BTW
>a lady and I am not a cleaner, but unlike the person who asked,
>I can't see what is so terrible about being one. Oh yes, there
>was the guy who emailed Susan and told her to put chili powder on her tampons.
>What a rabble you are. I didn't really appreiate the term "redneck"
>till I read this group.

>I repost Terminator's charming posting. 

>>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?
>>
>-- 
>   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
>    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
>    was swatting at flies.

I usually try to stay out of this kind of drivel, but I have some extra
time this morning and I couldn't resist.  I'm sorry you (and perhaps
Susan and Brian) feel you have been mistreated.  I'm sorry you have
found _some_ pro-gun posts offensive and/or threatening.

However, _I_ have not been involved in these exchanges, and I agree with
_most_ of the pro-gun argument on tpg.  I resent your trying to discredit
opinions I hold by discussing irrelevant disagreements you have with 
other people who happen to hold those opinions.

I would also offer (please take this in the helpful spirit it is intended)
that in reality it would be difficult to find someone who would kill for
a penny, and that Termie would not actually send money to the Hezbollah.
Perhaps I am seeing satire where it doesn't exist, but I rather think you
are allowing people to pull your chain and get a rise out of you.  Even if 
such unlikely things true of these individuals, what does it do for your 
argument?

BTW, I couldn't care less whether Susan is David, Brian, or Mickey Mouse.


-- 
**************************************************************************
* It is better to be a live mouse than a dead lion.  * Jeffrey S. Clary  *
* It is better still to be a live lion, and usually  * clary@iastate.edu *
* easier.  -- (Paraphrase from memory of L.L.        *                   *
From: Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clyde Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Manhood, talking toug
Date: 9 Apr 92 08:03:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:143/223 - The Paul Revere Net, San Jose CA

SM>From: susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald)
SM>Date: 7 Apr 92 23:04:21 GMT
SM>Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
SM>Message-ID: <susan.702687861@coombs>
SM>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

SM>>> Are you proposing that wymmin should shoot their husbands?  Don't you
SM>find
SM>>> it interesting that the majority of victims in Australia who are killed
SM>with
SM>>> guns are in fact wives?

Assuming that the situation in Australia is somewhat similar to the
U.S., the following may shed some light on your above comment.  In the
U.S., 4.3% of the murders are wives killed by their husbands; 2.1% of
the murders are husbands killed by their wives.  Assuming equal use of
guns by both sexes, approximately twice as many women would be killed by
guns as would men.  One thing should be clear however, without access to
guns, more women would die.  Further, should all guns melt tomorrow,
because of the greater average physical size and strength of men, fewer
men would die.  Whether more women would die is more problematic.  There
might be a tradeoff between fewer successful attempts on women and
fewer successful defenses by women.  Clearly the ratio of men to women
would be less favorable to women. You claim to be a feminist, yet you
are arguing to take power away from women.  I don't think you are doing
yourself or other women any favors.  There is a saying in this country,
"With friends like you, who needs enemies?"  Your "wymmin" friends
should examine carefully what you propose to do to save them.  The life
they save may be their own.

 * SLMR 2.1a * What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.


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: susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald)
Subject: Re: Salmon (sic) Rushdie's insight into America
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:31:29 GMT

sybok@m4-035-8.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:

>>  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?

	T(w)ermie strikes again..................

	Oh, well, if the Hezbollah do ever get Rushdie (which I do pray
never happens) we know who should be investigated as an accessory before
the fact, now don't we?



--
|  *   |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 Stanton____________________________________|
Newsgroups: 1,talk.politics.guns,fido.rtkba
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Manhood, talking tough, posting in t.p.g., life, universe and
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:16:24 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

As quoted from <susan.703122943@coombs> by susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald):

> malloy@NPRDC.NAVY.MIL (Sean Malloy) writes:
> 
> >In article <susan.702687861@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au writes:
> >>	Wanting equality does not mean that we want to become the _same_ as
> >>men.  We don't want the male (violent) solution to our problems because all
> >>it causes in the long run is just more grief and suffering.  Wymmin seek an
> >>alternative _peaceful_ solution.  
> 
> >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,"?

A typical American feminist response too.  I guess THEY have too much 
testosterone too.

It's perfectly possible already for someone to not have to "lie back and grit
their teeth".  They can carry a gun for self defense.  But you've already 
imposed a duty to die on gays and minorities attacked by neo-nazis.  Why
shouldn't you impose a similar duty to be raped on women...?

> 	Why should we as wommin have to control the behavior of men who
> can't control their dicks?

You don't.  You can spread you legs and take whatever comes.  Most women would
probably prefer to exercise control over their own destiny.  I'm sure you 
consider this a hideous perversion.

By the way, should a Black lesbian allow herself to be raped THEN murdered?


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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: n352cb@tamuts.tamu.edu (James Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: The Consitution
Summary: Date
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:42:43 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: ~/lib/organization

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

for ICDLJ@ASUACAD.BITNET

The U.S. Consitution was written in 1787 and was officially 'ratified' in 1788
when New Hampshire became the 9th state to adopt it (it required 9 of 13 states)
From: cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Summary: having at David again
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:22:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.32297
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz; Open Access Computing


In article <1992Apr7.045843.7079@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>Well I have to dosagee with you. 
You also have to check your spelling , but that's a petty flame.
>I don't think I should waste my
>time thinking such things. They are so unlikely. If we worried
>about all these whatifs all the time, life would be so unpleasant.
>Personally I have better things to do.
Of course it's unlikely. So is your house burning down. Do you own a fire
extinguisher or a smoke detector? (PS your suggestion on the previous post
about not needing such things in the city is spurious and ignorant, and I
am treating it as such. Fire departments in the USA tend to be overworked
and underappreciated by the general public, as are the police. Saying that
"I would do something about the services my counrty provided" is useless.
What're you going to do, send 'em a complaint letter?) Preparedness for any
eventuality is a good idea, and IMHO that includes home defense. It's not
something I'm going to worry about 24 hours a day, but it's good to be
prepared.
>> I feel safe. :).
>You feel safe but you have lost your freedom!
See the little thing that looks like ":)", David? it's called a "smilie"
and is generally used to indigate that the preceding statement is
sarcastic. "It's a joke, son, a joke!" And as far as my freedom goes, I
feel free to leave my belongings in an appropriately locked room, and I
feel free and safe in sleeping there, because I have protection (though not
of a firearm variety: I simply always have a baseball bat within easy
reach. :).
>>>   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
>>>    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
>>>    was swatting at flies.
>>
>>And while you preach tolerance for one's fellow man, your signature seems
>>quite contradictory.
>
>No, it is just that you don't understand it. Maybe if you worried
>less you would gain humour.
Humor? _you_ are lecturing _me_ about humor? now _that's_ funny. I realise
that it's some sort of Aussie pride thing, that this Pommie cricketer
wasn't even fit to touch an Australian fly. BFD. It doesn't seem that funny
to me.

Marc Reeve
cmraman@ucscb.ucsc.edu cmraman@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Rape and Statistics
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<1992Apr2.220500.2635@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<LAMBERT.92Apr7004356@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Apr7.220220.19894@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 13:38:34 GMT

>>>>> On Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:02:20 GMT, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) said:
> (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>Knives are 14% "better" than unarmed and guns
>>are 21% "better", so a gun is a 50% more effective weapon than a knife
>>for a rapist.

> That's a dishonest measure of "more effective".  (X-Y)/(Z-Y) depends
> on not only X and Z, but on Y, yet Lambert insists that it tells us
> only about the differences between X and Z.

The usefulness of any tool is measured by the difference it makes.  If
we could drive nails into pieces of wood just as easily without
hammers, then hammers would be useless.  What Andy is attempting to
obscure with his algebra is the relationship between X and Y above.
If I wanted to play the game: Let P = availability of personal force
to the rapist, G = availability of a gun, K = availability of a knife.
Then 
P = 28%  (completion rate with no weapon)
P+K = 42% (completion rate when a knife is present)
P+G = 49% (completion rate when a gun is present)

>   (The interested reader is invited to look at how the value depends
> on Y given X and Z.  For example, consider X = Z+7 and observe how
> Lambert's effectiveness measure increases as Y approaches Z from
> below.)

It gives an entirely correct measure.  If the unarmed completion rate
was 42% and the with-knife completion rate was 42%, we would say that
knives were totally useless to the rapist.  If the with gun completion
rate was 49%, then indeed, guns would be infinitely more effective than
knives.

>>>   (I've repeatedly posted references to data contradicting Lambert's
>>> "criminals will just start using guns more often if they think that
>>> defenders are carrying" theory.  Yes, some do, but the overall
>>> effect is different.)
>>
>>I guess I must have missed it.

> Don't worry, I've posted it AGAIN.

Where? When?

>>All I've seen is you twisting yourself in knots, arguing that a gun is
>>not useful for self defence against someone armed with a gun.

> Huh?  I claim that guns ARE useful for self-defense against someone
> armed with a gun.

So it would be sensible for a criminal to carry to defend against an
armed victim.

Tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Ross Perrot *for* gun control
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:18:40 GMT


|> [H. Ross Perot] said that he'd pole the American people

Truer words were never spoken.

-- 
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: kossack@rice.edu (Jordan M Kossack)
Subject: Re: Susan is still only thinking about herself
Organization: Rice University, Houston Texas
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 06:22:49 GMT

In article <susan.702616935@coombs>, susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
> 
> 	Well, then why do they loot after a storm in America then?

	I don't know.  You'll have to ask "them" why they loot. 


> 	How likely are you to encounter such a "petty" criminal in the
> US?  Whats the chance you will be robbed, raped, assaulted, murdered?

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


-- 
Jordan M Kossack  | You're so vain, you probably think this .sig is about you.  
kossack@rice.edu  | You're so vain, I bet you think this .sig is about you. 
 +1 713 270 9056  | Don't you?  Don't you?  Don't you?
From: Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clyde Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Aussies
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:52:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:143/223 - The Paul Revere Net, San Jose CA

DB>From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
DB>Date: 9 Apr 92 23:16:45 GMT
DB>Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia
DB>Message-ID: <1992Apr9.231645.6450@matilda.vut.edu.au>
DB>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

DB>In article <2133.29E48754@kennel.FIDONET.ORG>
DB>Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clyde Spencer) writes:
DB>>
DB>>The Australians on the other hand, were forcefully removed to a penal
DB>>colony against their will.  There they found themselves being controlled
DB>>by their captors, who told them what they could do and what they
DB>>couldn't do.  If they went along with the program they survived.  If
DB>>they didn't they may not have.  It seems being taken care of by their
DB>>captors has become institutionalized there.

DB>Wrong, wrong wrong. Most Australians living todaydid not have convict
DB>forefathers. Australians are descended from English, Irish, Europeans
DB>and Asians. It is true we are not descended from Puritans.
DB>Maybe that is the difference you should be looking at.

Again, my final note about being somewhat tongue-in-cheek has been
edited out.  Yes, our puritan heritage has undoubtedly influenced us in
ways different from your own country.  However, with respect to the
major point of contention on this net, it seems not to be an important
influence.

 * SLMR 2.1a * To this people I owe all that I am. Abraham Lincoln


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."
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Guns and Rape
Date: 10 Apr 1992 16:11:20 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: locusts.berkeley.edu

In article <LAMBERT.92Apr10023713@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>Well, earlier in this thread you suggested that percentage of armed
>women in the US was "roughly 5%"

I think I said that I was sure it was less than 5%, and used 5% as a 
consevative number.

>Which does not explain why there was no change in the suburbs, where
>there was just as much publicity.

Presumably, the publicity was about women in Orlando carrying guns, not
women in the suburbs of Orlando carrying them. Similarly, the New York 
Times may very well have picked up the story, and publicized the fact
that many women in Orlando were armed. However, I wouldn't expect this
to have any impact on rape in New York.

						   Frank Crary
						   UC Berkeley

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lpb@STRATUS.SWDC.STRATUS.COM (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: WILL THE GVT IMPLANT OUR CHILDREN???
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:05:36 GMT

Perhaps .... but I figure an empowered populace is a dangerous populace!
Upper case comments are mine!

Samurai_Writer



----- Begin Included Message -----
Article 93648 of talk.politics.misc:
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: LA LAW FAIR TO GUN OWNERS?  NOT!
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:58:11 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Apr10.032749.720@athena.mit.edu>, sybok@m4-035-8.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
> a smear on all gun owners.  This really takes the cake, and not
> a week after a "redneck" wearing an "NRA-type" cap walks into a restaurant
> on "Beverley Hills 90210" and threatens some lead bitch on the show with
> his shotgun.  At one point she said, "All I saw was a monster with a gun."

My, you are paranoid.  The "redneck" was a wired-up, strung-out kid (17 years
old), a street punk with a plain baseball cap and a trench coat, who stuck a 
sawed-off in the girl's face.  He looked pretty ugly and snotted-up to me, too.
-- 

cdt@pdp.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: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Salmon Rushdie's insight into America
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:44:14 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr9.135316.29321@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>As quoted from <1992Apr7.032205.5971@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):
>
>> >>Who said that everyone in England has a bodyguard? Do you think
>> >>that the police should just ignore the threats against SR? Or
>> >>do you think he should be left to defend himself?
>> >>
>> >Nooooo, I just can't understand why he simply doesn't run away when
>> >someone threatens him instead of relying on men with *gasp* GUNS.
>> >He could rely on non-violence, you know, but I guess he just doesn't
>> >want to reason instead of force. I can't see how a situation like his
>> >could come about in an enlightened, civilized country like England
>> 
>> I really suggest you do some reading. Salmon Rushdie's life is
>> endangered due to fanatics from Iran. Nothing to do with England.
>
>Oh, so the dispositive factor is whether your assailant is of the same 
>nationality?  In that case, are you saying that if the gentleman who poured

No no no Chris, your little tricks are not working. Read what was said.
*You* said that the problem in the SR case was the state of England.
I pointed out that the threat to Rushdie is from fanatics in Iran.
It was you who introduced England, not I.

>a beer on your head had been say, Iranian, you would have cheerfully inflicted
>upon him a savage and inhuman beating?  That seems odd, but given the racial

I did not mention the nationality of the beer-purer as I think it irrelevant.
I still think this. Why do you postulate the above? It is not
from anything I said. Please try to be rational.

>and ethnic attitudes abroad in Australia in the past, perhaps that's exactly
>what you mean.  

Nope. That's what you want to think.

>
>Or is the controlling factor whether your assailant is a fanatic?  If for 
>instance he'd been a Helen Reddy fanatic festooned with picture buttons of that
>entertainer, would you have made him eat the beer bottle?  Perhaps he wouldn't
>have been the only fanatic involved....

Nobody deserves to be injured by anyone else, it doesn't matter who is
the fanatic. The guy at the picnic was overwrought. He didn't
do much harm...he probably had stress...who knows what pressures he
had in his life? Why do you want him hurt, after all, he didn't 
do much to me. It was *his* beer.
-- 
   "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