HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:04:44 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <pa142548.605.726245230@utkvm1.utk.edu> pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <9301041848.46@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>Please consider the following questions seriously.  It is my attempt to
>>>to understand whether what you advocate has a chance at success.
>>>
>>>
>>>What criteria would you use?
>>
>>Whether the applicant enjoys a healthy social relationship with his
>>family, community, and society.
>
>I'm a loner few friends.  Define "healty."  What if you're new in town and 
>being stalked?  How do you prevent the local gun banners like yourself from 
>defining anyone who wants reasonable means of self-defences as "violently 
>undstable."

I have nothing to do with the decision to issue a gun permit.  The chief of
police does that.

>>>How would you obtain the data you need to make a decision?  
>>
>>FBI report
>>State police and court report
>>verifiable references of friends and/or neighbors
>
>So citizens should ask the state and their friends and neighbors before 
>exercizing basic civil liberties.

So you see nothing wrong with allowing ex-cons on parole from buying
guns, even if their crimes involved guns.

If you want to become a police officer in Massachusetts, they also check
FBI and state records, and talk to your friends and neighbors.

>>>How fast could you get the relevant information?  
>>
>>The first two in probably 72 hours.
>>The last would probably take a couple of weeks.
>
>Unless you decide to arbitrarily deny the permission you are not permitted 
>under the constitution to require.  In this case, you can just fail to 
>return the paperwork.

Obviously, the federal government doesn't protect the constitution,
considering the laws that all these states have enacted.

>>>What training or qualifications do you need to make a decision?  
>>
>>The ability to understand police and court records, and the ability
>>to understand basic psychology.
>
>Don't forget the politically correct social outlook to get the job denying, 
>I mean approving, permits.

I don't think that is a requirement for being hired as a police chief.

>>>What would be the probability of making the wrong decision?  
>>
>>20% or less?
>
>Any denial of means of self-defense is too many.

It could also go the other way.  A guy could buy a gun, and then go home
and shoot his wife.

>>>If you make the wrong decision, what would your responsibility be?
>>
>>None, under current laws.
>
>So you can freely deny civil liberties with no penalty.

That seems to be how it works for the police.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Identifying felons (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:07:01 GMT
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma

>(Except in Massachusetts, where these ID's are NOT accepted by liquor
>stores as proof of age -- nor are "replacement" duplicate licenses --
>because they are too easily forged!  Irony of the week: the official
>term for this card is the "Liquor ID.")
>-- 
>

I believe the reason for this is the state liquor laws - a merchant
selling liquor to an underage person can only use the "Although he was 
underage he presented a Massachusetts driver's licensing proving he was of 
legal age" with a driver's license.  A merchant cannot get off the hook for
selling to an underage person who presents any other form of forged 
or inaccurate ID, no matter how convincing.

One frequently sees signs in MA liquor stores reminding customers that 
such identification as US passports and military ID papers are not
accepted.

                                        rob b.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 4 Jan 93 16:24:51 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan3.010157.18096@ncsu.edu>, hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:

> >And, of course, untrained idiots who bought a gun at K-Mart would never
> >hurt themselves or anyone else by mistake.
> 
>   Does this mean that you are in favor of training?  Welcome to the
> crowd!  I think that firearms safety training should be a mandatory
> course in high school.  Of course even that wouldn't guarantee that
> there never would be a "mistake" or accident - but there are very
> few guarantees in life.

Well, ALMOST everyone is in favor of it.  I read in a recent HCI mailing
that the NRA is promoting an education package that includes the (gasp)
"handling and firing of live firearms!"

Do they still teach chemistry in labs, or is it all out of books now?  
Wait, don't answer that -- I took one of those frigging chemistry
"courses" in high school myself.  Ah, modern education.

At least the kids still get to roll condoms down cucumbers.
-- 

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: speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Coal. to Stop Gun viol.sent me a SURVEY/PETITION
Date: 10 Jan 1993 12:20:48 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

G'day Kevin,
 
>7 AMERICA IS THE WORLD'S MOST VIOLENT NATION, BY FAR.
>       Other industrialized mations have virtual bans on handguns sales.
>That explains why the chance you will be gunned down in america is 55 times
>higher than if you lived in Great Britain - while almost 7 times higher
>than in Australia and more than 5 times higher than in Canada.
>
>        ERROR: Great Britain is not a valid comparision to the USA,
>        socially, economically, or culturally.
>
>        Question: why is the chance you will be gunned down in Canada 11
>        times higher than if you lived in Great Britain?
>
>        TRUTH: America is a violent nation. People kill each other more
>        often, and the people who are likely to kill people will do so no
>        matter how many restrictions are put on the rest of us, who frankly
>        are almost all people who will never kill anybody in their lives.
 
Now you can call what I am about to say bullshit or whatever, and I
may be totally wrong, but:
 
1. England police do not carry guns which could lead the crims to
   perceive no need to carry them either (bank holdups would be the
   exception). Flame away on that one; I don't really believe it
   myself. :-)
 
2. English tend to use bottles of petrol and flaming rags! :-)
 
3. The English have far more respect for their police (even compared
   to Australia, which has a very good relationship with their
   police).
 
3. As you rightly point out the society and culture of England is very
   different to (what I imagine) is evident in the USA. A more closely
   linked comparison would be Australia. You only have to compare
   Australia and its absorption of all things USA to see that they are
   closer (culturally) to the USA than Britain. Why then doesn't
   Australia have a high rate of "gun violence"?
 
     a. We have never had the need to carry arms.
     b. We have never had an internal war.
     c. Most people feel no need to possess a weapon for defensive
        purposes.
     d. The rate of violent crime (whether with a gun or not) is less
        than in the USA.
 
 
4. Australians don't have to put up with Presidential elections! Could
   this be a cause of much pent up hostility??? :-)
 
 
5. Finally, and again this is my own observation so don't ask for some
   proof - I haven't got it, but the USA seems to have a history based
   upon the "need" or "want" to arm oneself. This is something that is
   ingrained in the ethos. This is fine but the problem occurs when
   the criminal and undesirable elements use this "freedom and right"
   to arm themselves against the good of the majority.
 
 
 
 
Cheers,
Mark.
 
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to reply [why would you want to do that? :-)] then please
email me a copy, thanks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fight the bastards (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Date: 6 Jan 1993 01:00:08 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301041848.46@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> > >I believe there is some benefit in determining if a person is
> > >psychologically able to take on the responsibility of owning
> > >a handgun.

> >What criteria would you use?

> Whether the applicant enjoys a healthy social relationship with his
> family, community, and society.

The last two alone would have been sufficient for keeping "uppity"
Reconstructions blacks securely "in their place."  The first could
have been used to disqualify Ronald Reagan and, for at least a time, 
Bill Clinton.  

Certainly Teddy Kennedy, Donald Trump, and Howard Stern (all people 
with current discretionary gun permits) shouldn't be let anywhere 
NEAR a gun.

Not to mention Batman (who is currently stumping for the anti side
in Virginia, at any rate).

And J. Edgar Hoover, for heaven's sake.

Norman Bates, however, appears to be a good risk.  At least his
mother thinks the world of him, and none of his neighbors has
ever complained about him to anyone.

Keep going, this is getting entertaining.

> >How would you obtain the data you need to make a decision?  
> 
> FBI report

Woops!  There goes Martin Luther King's RKBA!

> State police and court report
> verifiable references of friends and/or neighbors

Woops!  Well, you wanna paint yer house purple?  Give up your guns.

> >What training or qualifications do you need to make a decision?  
> 
> The ability to understand police and court records, and the ability
> to understand basic psychology.

So, like, this is a suitable job for ANY politician's nephew.

> >If you make the wrong decision, what would your responsibility be?
> 
> None, under current laws.

America.  What a country!
-- 

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: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:55:33 GMT

amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) writes:

>Not that I'm proposing anything, but how about this.  A system in
>which a gunstore owner can enter a persons name and pertinant data
>into a database that then searches to see if that person has ever been
>convicted of a violent felony.  If no, then an ok to sell is given.

	There is one problem I see: the use of an alias may allow a
given person to purchase a gun even if he is a criminal, and an honest
citizen may be flagged as a criminal because his name is being used as
an alias, or even because somebody with the same name is a criminal.
Formal requirements should be made for each instance.

	ISU students a few years ago stole a machine from the DOT that
allowed the making of drivers licenses.  They passed muster even under
the flashlight of a policeman.  I also know of a criminal type (child
rapist) who went by the alias of Mike Gnu. What scares me is that a
real Michael Gnu attempts to purchase a gun and is arrested and held
until a fingerprint ID proves he's innocent.  SSN's aren't too secure
either; I used to use Richard Nixon's SSN when registering for my
computer accounts at ISU simply because I didn't think ISU had any
need for my SSN being recorded for this purpose.  Since I was never
contacted about it, I assume they really had no need.

	In any event, comp.risks provides much more insight as to how
such a system can cause false information to be collected against an
individual.  I suspect the incident rate would be incredibly low, but
when implementing such a system it is imperative that the computer not
be seen as de-facto evidence of a person being a criminal, but rather
that the person deserves a bit more checking upon, perhaps by an
appeals process.  The gun dealer is out of the loop here, but the
sheriff's office and the courts offer one (albeit biased) appeals
route that might be considered.

	Just a word of paranoia...

< 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: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:10:22 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats

In article <1idohvINNt9a@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <9301042000.28@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>> >Don't ask me.  Ask your newspaper.  And demand an answer.  And turn on
>> >your bullshit alarm first.  Then come back and tell us.
>
>> The Framingham edition of the Middlesex News reports extensively on
>> the comings and goings of the police.
>
>Not the Ludlow police.

No, the Framingham police.  They have different additions for different
communities.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: A Gun in Hand is Worth Two in the Bush (something like that)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:52:07 GMT

In article <9301101246.30@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> Ok.  So what is the RKBA gun lobby doing to rectify this disparity
> between the US Constitution and the state laws?

Where did this obligation come from?  Does Kelly really think it is
the RKBA lobby's obligation to get rid of unconstitutional laws?

wowsers!

-andy
--
From: csjohn@watson.mtsu.edu (J Wallace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: communists + anarchists in the NRA
Date: 5 Jan 1993 18:10:55 -0600
Organization: Dept of Comp Science, Middle Tenn State Univ, Murfreesboro, TN
NNTP-Posting-Host: watson.mtsu.edu

In <1993Jan5.161623.9558@uvm.edu> 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!

>	autonome forum
>	aforum@moose.uvm.edu

Is this a joke?
Do you have a name, or are you just another cowardly crackpot?

-- 
John Wallace   ||   INTERNET: csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu
> > We have just the government that we deserve < <      
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 03:34:22 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <ARCHER.650.726425410@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <9301051937.44@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>I wonder how this would be treated in the workplace.  I suspect that
>>companies would be able to ban guns from the premises.  So you leave
>>your gun out in your car for the crooks.
>
>Your gun maybe.  Mine would be concealed, and unless my employer cares to 
>search me on a daily basis, and get sued, mine would not.

One of the amusing rules of the Massachusetts carry permit for the Protection
of Life and Property requires that it MUST be concealed.  A friend of mine
had a hard time with this, as you tend to have to overdress in the summer.

It's pretty hard to conceal an average size handgun unless you wear a
sportcoat all the time or baggy pants.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
From: vtessier@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Vince Tessier)
Subject: Jan '93 article in _The Atlantic_
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:01:08 GMT

The January 1993 _The Atlantic_ has a cover story titled "The Story of
a Gun; The Maker, The Dealer, The Murderer:  Inside the Out-of-Control
World of American Firearms" by Erik Larson.

This is a substantial (19 page) story about the Cobray M-11/9.  The 
writer tells about the convoluted manufacturing history of this pistol,
the fights the manufacturers had with ATF, and the procedures involved
with firearms purchases in the US.  Many references are made to ATF
regulations and their effect on the distribution and sale of firearms;
the writer also attended gun shows and obtained an FFL.

The writer is not totally anti-gun but is unhappy about the current
regulations:

"In writing this article I deliberately avoided including the predictably
angry voices of traditional pro- and anti-gun forces, such as the National
Rifle Association and the Violence Policy Center, in Washington, D.C.,
which occupy opposing poles in the debate.  Where my views run counter
to those of the NRA is in my belief that people should be allowed to 
acquire guns only after going through procedures at least as rigorous
as those involved in getting a driver's license.  As the laws are now
written, a blind man can buy a gun."

This posting is for informational purposes only -- followups belong
in talk.politics.guns.

[Originally posted in rec.guns by Vince Tessier, vtessier@vela.acs.oakland.edu]
-- 
	Vince Tessier (vtessier@vela.acs.oakland.edu)
Mort Sahl: General, aren't you supporting Castro by smoking that Havana cigar?
Alexander Haig:	I prefer to think of it as burning his crops to the ground.
(from an interview of Mort Sahl on National Public Radio, 23nov91)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<pa142548.609.726246231@utkvm1.utk.edu> <9301052017.35@rmkhome.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:59:38 GMT

<In article <9301052017.35@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (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.

	False. The police are paid to investigate crimes and keep
	public order. There is absolutely no obligation on the
	part of the police to protect any individual person,
	with the exception of certain dignitaries, witnesses to
	crimes (but generally only during the trial) and so forth.

	If Kelly disagrees with this statement, let him take
	it up with the Supreme Court of the United States.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum)
Subject: communists + anarchists in the NRA
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:16:23 GMT


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!

	autonome forum
	aforum@moose.uvm.edu
From: reb@cup.portal.com (Richard Earl Benedict)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 19:07:22 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa

In article 32/1523 rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) writes:

> The article in the message mentiones that Joe Doe was "arrested" under
> Bartley Fox, not convicted, and that the court action was not an 
> "overturning of a conviction" but a 1 year continuance wihtout a finding
> (charges remain pending for 1 year and are dropped), and an ordered
> destruction of the gun.  Are we talking about the same case here?

No Rob, we're not.  That case was "John Smith."  "Joe Doe" is another
case, which will be in the NEXT issue of the /Message/, which is not
out yet (I proofed it last night).  He WAS convicted, and his case
WAS overturned.  As you will read in the story, the cops make up the
laws as they go along.

> I've read a police training memo on act 511 put out by the attorney
> general's office.  The memo discusses the importance of charging the
> suspect under the correct subsection (mostly having to deal with the
> difference between a carrying charge and a posession charge), but NO
> WHERE in the memo does it mention that act 511 removed the
> restriction imposed by the "Reason for issuance".

Chapter 511 of the acts of 1990 supposedly removed the difference
between simple posession and carrying.  The law also clearly states
that anyone having a licence to carry is not in violation of this
section regardless of reason for issuance.  But like I said, the cops
enforce the laws they WISH were on the books.

Rich Benedict

reb@cup.portal.com | "Those who beat their swords into plowshares
dick@dragonsys.com |       will plow for those who don't."
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Posting Email Without Permission Is Unacceptable (Was: The Ninth Not Dead Yet)
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:54:04 GMT
	<ATAYLOR.92Dec27173334@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1hqmadINNif9@transfer.stratus.com>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1hqmadINNif9@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
<   In article <ATAYLOR.92Dec27173334@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

<> <   Ah, I remember the discussion now.  It was not here -- it was in e-mail.

	The discussion was both in this newsgroup AND in email;
	Tavares displays yet again his inability to differentiate
	between the two forms of electronic communication.

	Hardly surprising...


<> <   Since none of the e-mail was particularly personal, I hope you have no
<> <   objection to me excerpting some of it.

<> 	Yes, I do most strongly object, on the grounds that you did
<> 	not ask prior to posting it.
<> 
<> 	Please cancel the posting immediately. 

<Done, for reasons of etiquette and not legality.

	Thank you. Frankly, I'm surprised.


<> 	I shall discuss the issue of the 9th in a separate posting.

<Discuss it with yourself.  I'm not going to get into a pissing contest 
<with you where you can selectively quote your own e-mail, but I can't.


	I was paraphrasing the postings of others, not my own email.

	But it's interesting that Tavares yet again displays
	an inability to distinguish between a posting on a newsgroup
	and email. 


<> 	I normally would take it to email, but Tavares obviously
<> 	would just post any email I send to him anyway, so....

<Poor beleaguered Nosy.  Take a pill, and get your perspective back.
 
	
	Be sure, when you post this email, that you don't
	edit it, say, with an eye towards changing the
	meaning.