HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:36:42 GMT

>"Joe Doe" was arrested and convicted under Bartley-Fox because he was
>carrying on a license supposedly valid only while he was working. The
>conviction was overturned when the court was made aware of Chapter
>511 of the acts of 1990.  The story does not necessarily have a happy
>ending, however.  I'm now convinced that the cops here in
>Massachusetts are more the problem than the solution.  It seems they
>would rather enforce the laws they WISH were on the books, and ignore
>those which ARE on the books, court orders notwithstanding.  What's
>worse, they get away with it.
>
>Massachusetts folks who are members of GOAL can read the details in
>"Another Case of No Justice" in the next issue of /The Message/.
>
>Rich Benedict

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?

Also...

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".

                                        rob b.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Guns and  Boston Crack Dealers (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:30:19 GMT

In article <9301021305.12@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>   In article <1993Jan1.003233.6757@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) 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.

What is that benefit?  I've cited evidence showing that there is no
such benefit, so if Kelly wants to argue that there is, he gets to
demonstrate it.

Surely he's not going to make an "I'd feel better" argument.  My
neighbors think that there's some benefit in going to their church.
That doesn't translate into an obligation for me.

-andy
--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: TIME is on the ropes, asks for forgive
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 10:12:24 GMT

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?

	Not at all.  I support the right of the Somalis to keep and
bear arms.  Indeed, I figure these arms, in the hands of the people,
are the best deterrent against aggression.

	However, in this case the UN, and the USA, are the aggressors,
and those who would use their arms against us might also be said to be
aggressors against the people of Somalia.  This is politics, of course,
and quite a bit of Marines not wanting to be shot at.  I can hardly
blame them for not wishing to go through this ordeal.

	I think the question is this: when we leave, will we give them
back to the people, destroy them, or what?

< 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 >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Always wear your safety equipment, kiddies.
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 18:21:28 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <16B522E4D.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <9301092205.48@rmkhome.UUCP>
>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>>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.
>
>      Though I'm willing to be Rick doesn't know it, he just answered his
>own question.

Ok.  If shootings in my community were happening with the same frequency 
as car accidents, I would probably be damn sure to arm myself every time
that I left the house.  

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 12:00:38 GMT

rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>There is nothing wrong with public defense.  I just don't think that
>anyone should be able to buy a gun and carry it around the street.  At
>least in this town, there are drug dealers who would love to be able to
>go in and buy what they want off the shelf.

	Do these drug dealers now go unarmed because of the law
in your state?  If not, then what good has the law done wrt to
them?  How many of them are willing to carry and sell drugs, 
but also refrain from carrying guns because they don't want to
break the law?  Not many?

>>Just concealed.  Indiana has concealed carry permit system, and quite
>>a lot of people do carry, and we have a very low rate of violent crime
>>(except up in the corner of the state near Chicago.  Could this mean
>>that availablility of guns has nothing to do with violence???

>So how come the carry permit system doesn't work up in the corner of
>the state near Chicago?

	How come you never answer a direct question?   How come
you answer each question with a question, or merely switch the
topic?   Now, to answer _your_ question, as you should be doing
to the questions in the posts you respond to, nowhere has he 
stated that the Indiana permit system doesn not work near Chicago.
It works fine in all of the state:  the intention is to give a
vehichle for law abiding citizens to carry within the law.  The problem 
near the IL boarder is that criminals from Chicago come over and make
trouble.  These criminals buy guns in IL, where they are legally
forbiden to have them (but they don't care because they are 
criminals, remember).  It is a spillover problem of "undesireable"
people from IL.

>>Once again, I ask, do you have a point?

>Yes, I don't feel safe if anyone can just buy a gun even if they are
>crazy, or drug dealers, or car jackers.

Do you deny that this is the case in Boston, or anywhere in MA, or
anywhere in the US?   Do you deny that anyone can just buy a gun
where you live, even if they are car jackers?   

Is there anywhere where your precondition for a feeling of safety
is met?  Where?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Carrying in San Francisco and in general
Organization: Western Washington University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:16:09 GMT

kato@leland.Stanford.EDU (Daniel William Roth) writes:

>Well, I think it is 'reasonable' to expect a citizen who wants to
>carry a firearm to be able to pass the relavent written and proficiency
>tests that a police officer must pass to graduate from the academy.  

	What about an illiterate, or a non english speaker, should
they be barred?

>It seems to me that a group like the NRA could take the lead and 
>develop such a program and then lobby to get CCW licensing
>authority from the federal or state government, kind of like the 
>AMA has done for some types of medical licensing.  This may be a
>radical suggestion (or perhaps a naive one), but the government is
>never going to take the initiative to get CCW permits to those
>responsible citizens who want them.

	You just live in the wrong state, that's all.  Here in WA
CCW permits cost $23 for 4 years.   The only people who are not
eligible are those with a criminal record.  It takes about a month
for the permit, and the police are required to issure the permit
if they can't find a record of conviction in that time.

Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Originator: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu
Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science
	<JGREELY.93Jan6111850@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu>
	<9301061627.25@rmkhome.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:24:56 GMT

In article <9301061627.25@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>But your not worried about felons having guns?

How you got from what I said to this baffles me.  *Yes*, I'm worried
about felons having guns; I've never said otherwise, and I strongly
support laws aimed at preventing them from acquiring firearms.  The
debate in this group is not "should there be gun laws", but "who
should they be aimed at".  It turns out that laws that make it more
difficult for law-abiding citizens to buy guns do not affect
criminals; as long as these people are on the street, a complete ban
wouldn't stop them (although it might slow them down a little,
briefly).

  If you have references to solid evidence that reducing gun
availability to law-abiding citizens reduces violent crime (or even
with-gun violent crime), post it.  If not, stop playing posting games.
In the US, at least, the burden of proof is on the side that wants to
impose the restrictions.

[side note: we seem to be able to communicate in e-mail. Several
people whose opinions I respect have tried to communicate with you on
the net, and it doesn't seem to be working.  Why not?]

>I know several.  One of them made the grave mistake of buying the poor
>excuse for a gun that Walther sells these days.  His PPK liked to jam
>at frequent intervals.  He tried to clear a jam by tapping it on a gun
>rest at a range, and shot himself in the foot.

Stupidity is evolution's way of telling you to slow down.  By the way,
what are your criteria for deciding that the Walther PPK is a "poor
excuse for a gun"?  Surely not this story, which was an obvious case
of user error.  Is there some production or design flaw I've
overlooked in recent-production PPKs?


		"There are going to be situations where people have to
		 go without assistance.  That's just the facts of
		 life."
			-- LAPD Chief Daryl Gates, when questioned
			   about police assistance to Reginald Denny
			   and others being beaten on live TV.
-- 
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
From: anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Flag burning and term limits
Date: 9 Jan 1993 10:47:31 +1030
Organization: PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide,South Australia) - Anonymous Service
Reply-To: anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: flash.pax.tpa.com.au


Chris Bartz defends the NRA on the grounds that when it shot down
what's-his-name in Colorado (sorry, I forget who Neal Knox said it
was) by ragging on his vote to protect flag burning, it wasn't
sincere, it was cynically exploiting an issue that it doesn't care
about.

With moves like that it's no wonder the NRA is viewed as right-wing,
because there are people in this world who will take them at their
word.  Personally I think they're happy see flag-burning outlawed.  But
he's got a point about cynically exploiting the issues, as I noticed
myself in the battle over term limits.

In California, as was repeated about 5E8 times in talk.politics.guns,
the NRA supported term limits.  But in Washington State (the first time
term limits was on the ballot in the 1990's, not last November), the
NRA opposed them.  How do I know?  Front page of the New York Times.
They described the NRA as an "unlikely opponent" of term limits, but I
disagree.

Some people say that term limits are a necessary expedient to keep
autocratic incumbents from dominating the political process.  Other
people say that term limits are a dangerous interference in democracy
that restrict people's choices.  To the NRA, it's apparently one in
California and the other in Washington State.

Either that or it's because Tom Foley is in Washington and he isn't in
California.

I thank Public Access Unix for making this posting possible.


--
** Anonymity & Privacy by PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide,South Australia) **

anon.admin@pax.tpa.com.au (a human)   anon.info@pax.tpa.com.au    (for help)
anon.ping@pax.tpa.com.au  (get alias) anon.key@pax.tpa.com.au     (register key)
anon.###@pax.tpa.com.au   (reply)     anon.post.grp@pax.tpa.com.au (post to grp)
anon.list@pax.tpa.com.au  (to mailing list about anonymous mailers)
anon.subscribe@pax.tpa.com.au         anon.unsubscribe@pax.tpa.com.au

For dialup Unix access phone +61-8-235-9010 - online registration.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Originator: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu
Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science
	<pa142548.600.726243641@utkvm1.utk.edu> <9301051928.44@rmkhome.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:18:50 GMT

In article <9301051928.44@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <pa142548.600.726243641@utkvm1.utk.edu> pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>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?

They don't want people to own handguns either.

>>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.

More to what?  Shooting, or not having a gun accident?  Certainly
training someone to shoot with any accuracy requires more training
than "don't point it at people", but basic safety is, well, basic, at
the level of "don't stick your hand into the blades of a running lawn
mower" or "don't mix bleach and ammonia".  Oddly enough, I know people
who've failed to obey both of these rules (with the obvious
consequences), but I don't know anyone who has been injured in a gun
accident.


		Accidental deaths of children aged 0-4 in 1984:
		    firearm: 34
		    cigarette lighter: 90
-- 
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Tuesday, 12 Jan 1993 12:56:31 MST
From: <ICDLJ@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
 <JGREELY.93Jan7132456@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu>
 <9301092315.08@rmkhome.UUCP>
 <1993Jan12.004636.13664@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>

From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)

:No, the question is "since the state can't close illegal channels that
:are, by usage, capable of supplying felons, what benefits are there to
:restricting legal channels?"  Kelly wants to argue about the
:properties of a valve on the end of a leaky hose.

  Andy's question begs introspective response from all who favor in-
  fringement of our right to keep and bear arms.  The rational person
  is once again asked to support the restrictions on this bbs.

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 15:16:50 GMT

In article <9301092258.38@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <ARCHER.662.726428493@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>In article <9301061637.45@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>>       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.
>>
>>WELL DONE!  Criminals can circumvent ANY gun control scheme you care to put 
>>in place.
>
>Except for one that requires taking of finger prints as a basis for
>identification.

Nope, that's relatively easy to circumvent too.


-- 
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: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: CCW permit for Columbus, Ohio.  Huh ?!?
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:28:02 GMT
Keywords: ccw, columbus ohio

A complaint was filed against Ohio State roundball star
Jimmy Jackson alleging that Jackson waved a gun a some folks
that he knew.

The talking head on the news stated Jackson has a concealed carry
permit for the city of Columbus!  "What the heck ?!? " do you say ?
Very strange.  Jackson is a student, can't be much over 21 if that.
Does he live on campus ?  Where does he keep the gun ?

I'm going to make some calls Tuesday and see what I can find out
about the Columbus concealed carry permit.  Ohio state law says you
cannot carry concealed, except in your own home or your own place of
business or if you can provide a "affirmative defense" which means
you are guilty until proven innocent -- i.e., you can convince
someone in a long black evening gown that you were carrying where
"a prudent person would go armed."

How can Columbus issue CCW permits ?  They must apply only to Columbus.
I'd like to know exactly what the city ordinance on this says.

I wonder if other Ohio cities have CCW permits as well.

I wonder if any of the Columbus city council scum who voted for the
Columbus "assault weapon" ban and waiting period a few years ago
have a Columbus CCW.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Carrying in San Francisco and in general
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:26:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.031609.25808@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>	You just live in the wrong state, that's all.  Here in WA
>CCW permits cost $23 for 4 years.   The only people who are not
>eligible are those with a criminal record.  It takes about a month
>for the permit, and the police are required to issure the permit
>if they can't find a record of conviction in that time.

On the other hand, hasn't WA banned Class III's entirely?  (Due, I think to 
Canadian pressure.)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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 04:14:48 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <JGREELY.93Jan7132456@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu> jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes:
>In article <9301061627.25@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>But your not worried about felons having guns?
>
>How you got from what I said to this baffles me.  *Yes*, I'm worried
>about felons having guns; I've never said otherwise, and I strongly
>support laws aimed at preventing them from acquiring firearms.  The
>debate in this group is not "should there be gun laws", but "who
>should they be aimed at".  It turns out that laws that make it more
>difficult for law-abiding citizens to buy guns do not affect
>criminals; as long as these people are on the street, a complete ban
>wouldn't stop them (although it might slow them down a little,
>briefly).

The question, then, is how does the state govern the sale of weapons
to law-abiding citizens while keeping felons from not having them
and at the same time not infringing on anybodies rights?

>  If you have references to solid evidence that reducing gun
>availability to law-abiding citizens reduces violent crime (or even
>with-gun violent crime), post it.  If not, stop playing posting games.
>In the US, at least, the burden of proof is on the side that wants to
>impose the restrictions.
>
>[side note: we seem to be able to communicate in e-mail. Several
>people whose opinions I respect have tried to communicate with you on
>the net, and it doesn't seem to be working.  Why not?]

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.

>>I know several.  One of them made the grave mistake of buying the poor
>>excuse for a gun that Walther sells these days.  His PPK liked to jam
>>at frequent intervals.  He tried to clear a jam by tapping it on a gun
>>rest at a range, and shot himself in the foot.
>
>Stupidity is evolution's way of telling you to slow down.  By the way,
>what are your criteria for deciding that the Walther PPK is a "poor
>excuse for a gun"?  Surely not this story, which was an obvious case
>of user error.  Is there some production or design flaw I've
>overlooked in recent-production PPKs?

After this particular accident, I disassembled the Walther.  It was poorly
machined and had burrs and rough edges where there shouldn't have been any.
I went back to the gun dealer with him, and the dealer claimed that Walther
had been shipping a lot of junk like that.  I took his word for it, as he
is a fairly large dealer who sells in bulk to the police, etc.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns