HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: archer@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: The real gamble of self-defense with a gun
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:15:06 GMT

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


>An argument has erupted with a one Richard Kelly on the question
>of the risks involved in using a gun for self-defense against
>a criminal.  No one has yet mentioned the greatest risk of
>all in such circumstances:

>Your opponent is not actually a criminal.  If you use a gun
>against him, you will be the criminal.

Not necessarily.  In most jurisdictions you must only be in a situation 
wherein a "reasonable person" would assume your life or health to be 
threatend to act in self-defense.  If it turns out that you were wrong, it's 
tragic, but not a criminal act.

One reasonable situation would be the "fraternity kidnapping."  Frat 
brothers burst into the room in the middle of the night and drag you out of 
bed.  You grab your beside pistol and shoot your assailant.  A reasonable 
person should be able to assume that someone who drags you out of bed in the 
middle of the night has intentions other than benign.

>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.

If you THINK you are acting in self-defense, you ARE acting in self-defense.


>No doubt most of you here will poo-poo this unhappy fate as an
>extremely remote possibility.  That might be acceptable as far as your
>personal business is concerned.  (Of course, if it turns out that you
>can't handle this responsibility, it will become everyone's business.)
>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.

>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.

That is your choice, and an ethics scholar may even cede you the moral high 
ground on that basis.  My life means more to me than that of a potential 
attacker.  Don't strive to deny me that choice.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: I will only threaten the proven guilty
Date: 12 Jan 1993 23:47:19 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1iviuuINNq3s@flash.pax.tpa.com.au>, anon.49@pax.tpa.com.au writes:

> > Hi guys.  I used to be anon.526, now I'm not.  I will respond briefly
> > and generally to some of the numerous responses I got:

> No, you're not, I am the former anon.526 - this anon.39 fellow is an imposter!

> What rot - anyone can tell you are a sad, pale imitation of me.

> Ignore this anon.49 idiot - he's not me!!!!!

You forgot the part about:

>         I think its time that anon.49 was esposed.  She is a lesbian bitch
> who really needs a good FUCK and then she will be OK.  The REAL REASON why
> she keeps attacking all the MEN in this group is because she really HATES
> men.  I would have thort that was obvious.
-- 

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: wes@boi.hp.com (Wes Nielson)
Subject: Re: TIME is on the ropes, asks for forgive
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:26:34 GMT
Reply-To: wes@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Grizzly Amber (richa@grizzly.CNA.TEK.COM) wrote:
: 
: On boycotting Time-Warner,  note that one of their products is a
: sportsman's magazine (Outdoor Life?) that appears to contradict
: Time's stand on gun issues.
: 
: Does Time-Life / Time-Warner have an anti-gun stand, or is it
: just Time Magazine?

I believe Outdoor Life is published by Time Mirror, not Time-Warner.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 09:17:01 GMT

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

>She shouldn't have to.  This is my point.  That no one should have to
>justify why they want to defend themselves.

	Just a point, but about the only way you can justify that you
need (not want) to protect yourself is after the fact, when it does
little good.  In this case, rights were stripped and you were left
defenseless.  I'd be suprised if the police didn't think a cruiser
driving by every hour or so wasn't "sufficient protection," if they
didn't want to issue the permit.  In addition, protective custody
has a nice ring to it should that permit be taboo in your area.

< 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: Dressed for Rape
Date: 11 Jan 1993 19:30:57 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301092348.49@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

> >Some havens of political stylishness let convicts, even those in for
> >violent crimes, out on weekends; now, that's just plain stupid.
> 
> Yup.  Who can forget good, old Willie Horton?

Not even.  In the past year I have heard of at least two cases in the
state where criminals who have done prison time for violent crime get
arrested for another violent crime, let out on bail, and get caught 
commiting ANOTHER violent crime while awaiting trial on the last one.  
This is a pretty stupid way to run a crimnal justice system.
-- 

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: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:44:10 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301061611.29@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

> >>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.

> And if his wife had owned a gun for self-protection, she'd still be
> dead, since he got her while she was asleep.

And if my cousin had owned a fire extinguisher, his house still would
have burned down, because he was out when the fire started.

So what's your point?  If a defense isn't perfect, it's worthless?
-- 

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: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:49:48 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <1id71dINNm8l@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <9301051207.02@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>> >|> 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.
>
>Ha ha ha!  You say this as if the means were EFFECTIVE!  If you think 
>criminals can't get firearms regardless, you haven't been... uh, reading
>the Middlesex News.
>
>Here's what we actually have in Massachusetts:
>
>"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
> their potential victims from buying weapons."
>
>God forbid we should do something about "releasing convicted murderers and
>armed robbers on a whim" instead of screwing down on everybody ELSE'S guns.

Or perhaps we should let the police shoot more criminals.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:43:37 GMT
Subject: Re: What Problem Is Supposed To Be Solved, Here? (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) / 12:37 pm  Jan  7, 1993 /

>	Why? It probably derives from an incorrect reading of
>	the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics (UCR), which for the last
>	10 years has reported that around 50% of persons murdered
>	are killed by an "acquaintance", i.e. someone they know.
>
>	However, "someone they know" includes gangland hits,
>	old women being beaten for their Social Security checks
>	by neighborhood thugs, shopkeepers being stuck up by
>	neighborhood hoodlums and so forth....but the gun-
>	grabbers brush the latter part under the rug and claim
>	that "someone known by the victim" only means friends
>	and relatives.

I seem to recall a stat but don't know if it was only local or applied 
nation wide.  The stat was 66% of all murders (maybe only WA as I said) 
involve criminals killing other criminals.   I don't see criminals killing 
each other as a big problem.

If only the other 34% were good guys killing criminals, I wouldn't consider
that a problem either. 

Rick.
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Criminals And Guns (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:20:50 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats

In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan6083555@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>In article <9301051207.02@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
><   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.
>
>	Then deal with this on the supply side; stop releasing
>	unrehabilitated violent criminals.

Unfortunately, in this state they are going for early release so they'll
have room in the prisons for new inmates.  Every time they try to build
a new prison, the "not in my backyard" people come crawling out of the
woodwork, and get some lawmaker to side with them.

>	Note that it is a Federal felony for some convicted criminals
>	to buy firearms, yet they seem to ignore this law. Perhaps
>	one definition of "lawbreaker" is "one who ignores laws, 
>	including gun laws"?

I can't argue with this.

>	Note also that there is *no* legal way for the average 
>	Washington, DC resident to buy a handgun, yet the criminals
>	in that Congress-run city seem to have no problems whatever
>	in obtaining them. 

And it won't change until John Hinckley is long forgotten.

><However, kids can carry, but not concealed.
>
>	So what?

I don't consider junior high aged kids to be mature enough to handle
the responsibility of owning a gun.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: random@cbnewse.cb.att.com (David L. Pope)
Subject: Re: Guns and  Boston Crack Dealers (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:24:05 GMT


> Under Mass law:
> 
> Mace - requires a FID card

Fill a nasal spray bottle with formaldehyde. It's amazing how effective
an extra carbon atom can be.

> Pepper gas - requires a FID card

Carry raw cayenne (sp?) pepper. Makes a corrosive cloud.
Mix it with black pepper. Adds sneezing, and can be used
as trail cover.

> Stun guns - even the police can't have them

When the perp asks for your valuables, hand him that charged 500 
microfarad capacitor. Jump when the perp does.

> Saps - requires a pistol permit

Better than a sap. Fishing weight on a nylon line. Takes a little
practice, but one of my favorites.

> nightstick - requires a pistol permit

Don't need to carry one, just break off a nearby car antenna.
Are canes also outlawed?

> Double edged weapons longer than 1.5 inches - banned

Too much special training required.
 
> Switch blade knives - banned

Handy for the toolbox, but too unreliable for defense. Also need
special training.

> nunchuks - they fall in some gray area

Only a Bozo would use this weapon. Real Men (tm) usr Tonfa.
[Honest officer those are handles for my windlass.]

> brass knuckles - banned

I prefer stainless steel. 8^)

> Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP

David L. Pope
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Firearms article in Jan '93 _The Atlantic_
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:25:33 GMT

In article <199301100248.AA09417@vela.acs.oakland.edu> vtessier@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Vince Tessier) writes:
>This is a substantial (19 page) story about the Cobray M-11/9.  The 
>writer tells about the convoluted manufacturing history of this pistol,

Actually, much of that "history" is irrelevant, the author's
suggestions notwithstanding.  The writer thinks that outward
appearance means far more than it does.  I knew a guy like that once -
he thought my family had a car just like Richard Petty's race car.

-andy
--
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 6 Jan 93 00:28:23 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats

In article <pa142548.600.726243641@utkvm1.utk.edu> pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <9301021305.12@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>Since there don't seem to be any benefits to policies other than that,
>>>what's so unreasonable about it?
>>
>>I believe there is some benefit in determining if a person is
>>psychologically able to take on the responsibility of owning
>>a handgun.
>
>Why? There is no way to prevent someone who is not "psycologically able" 
>from getting a handgun.  All you can do is place a political tool at the
>hands of people who think that no one should own a handgun.

And what about people with felony records?

>>Most of the gunshots that are fired in Boston are crack dealers
>>shooting at other crack dealers.
>
>Funny, Boston is the heart of Dukakis-Kennedy country, I used to be a 
>resident.  A law-abiding civilian can't get a carry permit in that city for 
>love or money.  Yet the criminals are still shooting at each other.

True, although it is not evenly applied.  If you are rich you can get a
permit.  If you are determined, you can get a job as a part time armed
security guard, which gets you a plp, and then quit after a month or so.
If you are a cab driver, you can't get a gun permit at all, even though
cab drivers get the same FBI/police investigation that is done for gun
permits.

>>And, of course, untrained idiots who bought a gun at K-Mart would never
>>hurt themselves or anyone else by mistake.
>
>It takes one minute to train even an idiot to not hurt themselves or 
>others:  don't point the end with the hole in it at anything you don't want 
>a hole in.

There is slightly more to it than that.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: "Ethics" Courses, etc. & the R.T.K.B.A
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:54:35 GMT

In article <92366.170343GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET> Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes:
>
>We asked all our E-Mail I.D'd Philosophy Dept. faculty what they thought
>about orienting a discussion in their Ethics class to the Right to Keep
>Arms.
> ...
>
>Has anyone else tried a different tact in eliciting interest in the
>Second Amendment ?   We are amazed at the indifference
>with which the Second Amendment is held here at ASU.  We are not talking
>about international students, but incoming ex high-school seniors who
>supposedly had a 'Civics' class in their junior or senior year.

Contact Preston K. Covey, his email address is: covey+@andrew.cmu.edu
He is a professor of philosophy specializing in ethics, and may be
able to help you out.  He invited Maassad Ayoob to talk at CMU on
"The Ethics of Lethal Force" or something like that.  Anyway, I think
the people in the audience liked the talk pretty well.  Maas was all
decked out in his dress uniform; pretty intimidating actually, and the
colorful language was classic Ayoob.  Maybe Ayoob could come to ASU
as well if he has the time and you picked up the tab ...

>How are college level students learning firearm marksmanship, safety

Freshman gym class when I was an undergrad 15 years ago.

>and basic Constitutional issues like this at your schools ?

Never studied this in school.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good
men to do nothing -- maybe Edmund Burke ...
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 19:57:34 GMT

In article <9301092234.38@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!cs.utk.edu!gatech!udel!wupost!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uunet!psinntp!alliant!merk!rmkhome!rmk
>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)
>Message-ID: <9301092234.38@rmkhome.UUCP>
>References: <pa142548.602.726243954@utkvm1.utk.edu> <9301051937.44@rmkhome.UUCP> <ARCHER.650.726425410@utkvm1.utk.edu>
>Lines: 19
>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.

Not really.  I can conceal a full-size S&W 9mm pistol in shorts and a t-
shirt.  You need the large fanny pack/holster available from US Cavalry. 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:22:41 GMT

In article <9301091950.12@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (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?
>>
>>What kind of question is this?  I've never had to pull my gun, much
>>the same as I've never had a claim on my automobile insurance, my
>>medical insurance, had someone break into my house, etc.  Since I
>>obviously don't need insurance, I shouldn't carry it right?  Is that
>>your point?  Since you didn't state one, we must assume. ^
>>							 |
>>Heavy, heavy sarcasm--------------------------------------
>
>Why did you decide to start carrying a gun?

Did I say I carried one? Nope, didn't say that. Not saying I don't
either.  In fact, it's none of your damn business if I do or don't. 
How about this, if you're really curious, try assaulting me and find
out.  Even then, that might not tell you, because I might decide that
that particular threat can be met without the use of my firearm if I
were carrying one.

Warning, the above may be hazardous to your health whether I'm
carrying or not.
-- 
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: vtessier@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Vince Tessier)
Subject: Re: Firearms article in Jan '93_The Atlantic_
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:58:38 GMT

dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams) writes:

>-> as those involved in getting a driver's license.  As the laws are now
>-> written, a blind man can buy a gun."

> And why not?  As long as they're not mentally incompetent or a
>convicted felon, any American adult can own a firearm, subject to local
>laws.  A blind person might not be able to shoot at targets, but there's
>no reason they can't buy or sell, collect, or just have one because they
>want to.

Certainly, why not?  A magazine writer (Ayoob, I think) recommends a 
big-bore handgun loaded with blanks as a self-defense weapon for the
blind.  Fine with me ... the victim can blast away, knowing he can't
hurt anyone, while the perpetrator is wondering what the hell's going
on, or is mightily surprised if he knows his victim is (supposedly)
defenseless & unarmed.
-- 
	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: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: Toy guns
Organization: BNR Inc. RTP, NC
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 12:54:52 GMT

>Richard B. Schwartzman wrote:
>I'm inclined to agree from the standpoint that a toy gun may diminish the
>respect due a real firearm.

 I thought the same thing and didn't want my kids to have toy guns. Then my son
got one from someone else, and I used it to teach gun safety. Now at 6 years old
he knows where the barrel is pointing at all times, and his finger is off the trigger
until he lines up his sights. He's not perfect, but it's fast becomming habit.
 
	 
	Myron Petro
	NRA, USPSA
        DVC y'all
	**************************************************************************
	 The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
	 And are protected by the First Amendment and guarnteed by the 
	 Second Amendment.
From: richa@grizzly.CNA.TEK.COM (Grizzly Amber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: TIME is on the ropes, asks for forgive
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:24:38 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Redmond,  OR.


On boycotting Time-Warner,  note that one of their products is a
sportsman's magazine (Outdoor Life?) that appears to contradict
Time's stand on gun issues.

Does Time-Life / Time-Warner have an anti-gun stand, or is it
just Time Magazine?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape