HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: missouri gun control
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:46:00 EST
Reply-To: "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

I found the following press release, and thought that I should share it
with you.

 NRA and Gun Control Factions Join Forces in Missouri
 To: State and Assignment Desks
 Contact: State Rep. Sue Shear, 314-751-4163

   News Advisory:

   State Rep. Joe Driskill, the author of an NRA-backed amendment
allowing Missourians to carry concealed weapons, will endorse State
Rep. Sue Shear's legislation requiring adults to store firearms
away from children.
   The two legislators will announce their unusual coalition at a
9:30 a.m. press conference, Tuesday, April 14, in Hearing Room 9 of
the State Capitol building in Jefferson City, Mo.
   Despite their differences on the concealed weapons amendment,
Driskill and Shear will work together to pass House Bills 963 and
1389, making it a crime to leave a loaded gun where children can
gain access to it.  The bills also make it illegal to carry a gun
on school property.  This gun safety proposal, which has been
endorsed by the Missouri Chiefs of Police Association, is on the
House calendar and should be debated on the floor in the next week.
 -0-
 /U.S. Newswire  202-347-2770/
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: using guns to stop rapes
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<1992Apr2.214353.15425@athena.mit.edu>
	<LAMBERT.92Apr6025720@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Apr5.211207.5973@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<LAMBERT.92Apr10021033@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:37:09 GMT

>>>>> On Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:10:33 GMT, lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) said:

> I tried to find some more data on weapon use in defence against
> rapists and turned up "Rape victimization in 26 American Cities".  In
> this survey, guns or knives were used in defence in 2% of rapes and
> attepeted rapes, and the completion rate was 3% when these weapons
> were used.

I've just realised that this study is the source of the statistic
we've been discussing in this thread.  Here's the original reference:

>>>>> On Tue, 17 Mar 1992 17:25:55 GMT, booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth) said:
> o       A 1979 US Justice Department study of 32,000 attempted 
> rapes show that overall, when rape is attempted, the 
> completion rate is 36%. But when a woman defends herself 
> with a gun, the completion rate drops to 3%.

"Rape victimization in 26 American Cities" is indeed a US Justice
Department study, so I can correct all the inaccuracies in the above
paragraph.

1. 32,000 is the estimated number of rapes and attempted rapes by
strangers in the 26 cities surveyed.  The number of rapes and
attempted rapes by strangers in the sample was about 1600.

2. The completion rate for rapes by strangers was 32%.

3. The 3% completion rate was when the woman "used/brandished gun or
knife" (Response 1, Question 136 on the original survey.)

4. gun/knife was used for self defence in only 2% of the cases.  The
study marks the 3% statistic as "statistically unreliable" since it is
based on less then 50 sample cases.

To give you an idea of how unreliable the 3% statistic is,
the completion rate for white women who used a gun/knife is 14%, while
the completion rate for white women who "resisted without force/took
evasive action" was 6%.

Can we conclude that running away is better than resisting with a gun?

Tim
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: UK court approves use of shotgun
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:47:32 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr8.123752.3339@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>> >
>> I can think of loads of scenarios where running away is not
>> possible. I could not equal the champion of whatifs though!
>> But this thread was about people who were in a position
>> when they *could* run away. Just face it, you want to be
>> able to use your gun, otherwise why do you always try to 
>> say that non-violence will never work?
>
>No, what this read was about was an attempt to discredit self-defense and to
>blame the victim.  Certainly nothing new there.  What is apparently new for
>you and Susan is a refusual to accept such dehumanizing nonsense.
>
No Australian or American has posted anything along
the lines of blaming the victim. I don't know why you keep saying it.
Maybe you think if you say it often enough, someone will believe
it.

-- 
   "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
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:41:24 GMT

Under the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990 (part of the Crime Control
Act of 1990, HR 3757, signed by Bush on Jan 29,1991 and unopposed by
the ILA), it "shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor", punishable by 5
years and/or $5k*, for non-licensees to possess a gun within 1000 ft
of a school.  Unloaded guns in locked containers or in locked racks
are okay, but none of those non-locking long gun cases qualify.  It
will be expensive to figure out whether or not a locked trunk
qualifies.

That's independent of state law, although many states are considering
similar measures.

-andy

* - As I remember the red book, the relevant gun ownership term wasn't
"felony", but crime punishable by more than one year...
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 15:33:23 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <susan.702616434@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:

>	And so he responds yet again and in the same vein.....
>
>	So, are you that afraid of having some beer spilled on your addled
>brained pate?  Or do you like brawling for a living?

I certainly wouldn't let anyone get a bottle near enough my head to
pour it on me-- how do I know the guy isn't going to do something more
damaging with the bottle?

Of course, you probably wouldn't understand, as in Western society,
most low-lifes won't pick fights with women.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@m4-035-13.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
Subject: Re: Now it's what if car tyres catch fire! What next????
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 00:45:42 GMT

In article <2045@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.010419.15361@matilda.vut.edu.au>, db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>> I have a spare in the boot. It is the law here. 
>
>Thank heavens someone in Oz had the foresight to make it mandatory for
>you to carry one -- otherwise it would be forbidden, eh?

I bet they have a law that makes it a crime to eat without washing one's
hands. . . .  If daddy government didn't watch out for them, they'd all get
into a lick of trouble!
From: jimiii@mips.com (Jim Warford)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: NRA Elections
Date: 15 Apr 1992 15:54:54 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, California
NNTP-Posting-Host: electron.mips.com

In article <1992Apr15.105048.19524@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh) writes:
>
>Someone the other day semi-flamed me because NRA is acting cooly
>to congressmen who have voted against us and now want back in to
>good graces with NRA, but I think the lesson that NRA members do
>not forget who their enemies are might be more important. Good
>
 Of course they want back in the good graces of the NRA.  At least
until they are reelected!
 They lied before, why shouldn't they be lying again?

 After we get rid of the gun-grabbers we should start working on the
tax-grabbers and big-spenders!

 The average american now works for the government until May 5.  That 
is a 4 day increase over last year.  At the current rate we should be
paying all our income in taxes by the year 2041.

--jimiii@mips.com



-- 
 Faster horses
 Younger women 
 Older whiskey
 More money!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Aussies
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:24:36 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <kuk7fmINNs7c@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:
>In article <2238.29EA0C04@kennel.FIDONET.ORG> Clyde.Spencer@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Clyde Spencer) writes:
>>BR>From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
>>BR>> BR> More so in some cases, its climate is much
>>BR>> BR> harsher than the North American continent
>>
>>BR>>If total area of aridity is somehow important (most of your population
>>BR>>after all lives in coastal cities) than the point is well taken.
>>
>>BR>        So?  You have colder winters, we have much, much hotter summers.
>
>How much above 107C (136F) does it get there?  

Stupid English system...

OK, I added 32 rather than subtracting.  How about 57C?

Ross's email response was interesting, though (it's too hot for my taste
on the Nullarbor).












--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:10:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.rq0luINN2ns
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Apr06.131348.5533@convex.com> langston@convex.COM (Kevin Langston) writes:

>>Instead of watching these gun-slinging movies, I suggest you watch
>>a few Australian films

>    So of Mad Max, Crocodile Dundee, or The Man from Snowy River, which is
>    more of a "balanced perspective on the human experience"??

(An irrelevant asside from talk.politics.guns...)

I don't know if the last two were really "Australian" films: I think the
screenwriters and directors were American...
However, two Australian movies (I think written and directed by Australians)
that include both gun-slinging (of a sort) and an interesting "perspective
on the human experence" (and didn't do nearly as well in the United States
as they should have, if you ask me) are _Breaker Morant_ and _Gallipoli_.

						 Frank Crary
						 UC Berkeley
From: lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: NRA billboards
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:51:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.45818
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Apr13.232507.11897@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <44837@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes:
>>Give up your gun, just use 9-1-1 [picture of woman being raped, phone off-hook]
>Great idea. Completely over the top and hysterical. It certainly
>shows the mind-set of the RKBAers. 

Hmmm...seems like this "give up your gun, we'll protect you" idea
is fairly popular among those who have their own guns/guards.  Can
anyone think of a city where the RKBA is infringed by the local/
state gov't?  Ever hear an anti-RKBAer tell a woman to depend on
the police for help?

I agree that it's "over the top and hysterical".  Did you mean to
write "It certainly shows the mind-set of the anti-RKBAers." ?

--kyler
From: rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Susan, thanks for the email
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:36:19 GMT
Organization: AT&T

(Sorry for the wasted bandwidth, but I seem to have a mailer problem
sometimes.)

Susan - Thanks for the mail.  I sent you a reply this morning (06
April).  Please let me know if you do not receive it, and I'll try
an alternate way of sending it.

---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@            *
                                                    _ _ /|      *  *  *
                                Ack Pffft Thwerrp!  \'o.O'       * * *
                                                    =(___)=  * * * O * * *
Roberta Taylor  KB2OOA        | rlt@gummo.att.com      U         * * *
AT&T Bell Labs, Whippany, NJ  |                                 *  *  *
                              | Member, Unorganized Militia of     *
 NRA/CCRKBA/SAF - Life Member |    The People's Republic of        |
   GOA - Annual Member        |          New Jersey              \ |
                                                                  \| /
Would the last American to leave New Jersey please bring the flag? |/
                                                                   |/ 
@----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}   ______|______
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: wayne john warf <wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Salmon Rushdie's insight into America
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 10:44:07 -0500

In article <1992Apr10.024414.9517@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>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 ):

>>
>>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

OK, I get it now, Rushdie has those bodyguards so that when the Hezbollah
come through the door, they can *reason* with them, or, perhaps, the
bodyguards will follow David's advice of just not looking them in the
eye and otherwise ignoring them so as not to provoke them further.
Those bodyguards would never *shoot* anybody, now would they? The
Hezbollah probably has a lot of stress, who knows what pressures
they have in their life. Why would Rushdie's bodyguards want to
hurt them?
-- 
 *  WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu**I speak for me,OK?**sic semper tyrannis    *
 *   NRA LIFE* *NRA Certified Instructor* *Penna. R&PA* *Ind. SR&PA   *
 * Department of Decision & Information Systems, Indiana University   *
 * Bloomington, IN 47405 USA* *Pennsylvania CCW Lic.*Indiana CCW Lic. *
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Susan et al Are Government Plants
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:29:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.=h1j=+n.feustel
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

I have come to the conclusion that the dribble from Susan et al shows
that they are government agents trying to provoke us into wasting
our energy responding to their inane postings.
-- 
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
George Bush believes in the "carrot and stick" approach to social problems:
       - give carrots to the rich and stick it to the poor -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: wayne john warf <wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Constitutional Gun Banning
Keywords: HCI
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 03:34:49 -0500

In article <s0julINNqro@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1981@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>>FACT: No federal court in history has ever overturned a gun control
>>law on Second Amendment grounds

>This is out of date: A federal court in Illinois has overturned the
>National Friearms Act of 1934, on the grounds that Congress has no
>power to regulate firearms sales, except as part of enforcing a tax. 
>Since a 1986 law prevents further taxes from being collected, NFA 1934
>is viod, as it enforces a non-existant tax.
>
!!!Wait!!! Don't leave me hanging! What's the background of the case,
opinion, implications. How about Title II, still valid? I hadn't heard
about this one. 
-- 
 *  WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu**I speak for me,OK?**sic semper tyrannis    *
 *   NRA LIFE* *NRA Certified Instructor* *Penna. R&PA* *Ind. SR&PA   *
 * Department of Decision & Information Systems, Indiana University   *
 * Bloomington, IN 47405 USA* *Pennsylvania CCW Lic.*Indiana CCW Lic. *
From: jvh@nature.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Interesting Question (was pennykillers)
Date: 9 Apr 1992 19:54:29 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: nature.berkeley.edu

In article <23502@scorn.sco.COM> allanh@sco.COM (Allan J. Heim) writes:

[first part of article deleted]

>It seems to me that attacking innocent people is wrong--so wrong that it
>becomes almost a moral imperative to resist, so as to prevent an attacker
>from doing it again.  Do you feel that resistance is wrong?


	Well, Allan, it appears that the folks you addressed this question
to are not interested or too busy to respond.  

	I think your question was a good one.

Joan V
From: booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth)
Subject: Re: Stop Handguns Postcards
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 00:05:42 GMT

In <1992Apr16.210906.16755@ms.uky.edu> uk09365@nx03.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten) writes:


>right now.  My problem is that I also want to respond to another person  
>whose letter bitched about the County Council legalizing airgun sales to  
>adults ("Maimings and deaths going to be the sure result...").  I want to  
>combine the letters if possible.


In Canada, airguns that have a muzzle velocity of less than 500 fps are
not considered firearms. In most areas around here any way,
Greater Vancouver, B.C.,  you can fire air rifles with < 500 fps
on your own property with any problem, I have never, ever, heard of
any injuries or even complaints. As long as you don't frighten
your neighbours, you don't have a problem.


-- 
Greg Booth BSc                        | Diligentia-Vis-Celeritas
BCAA-PCDHF-BCWF-NFA-NRA-IPSC-BCFSS    |  	Incolumitas
Motorola Mobile Data Division         | 
booth@mdd.comm.mot.com CGB003 at X400MRP
From: jbs@egr.duke.edu (Joe B. Simpson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Article "TURN 'EM IN"
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:31:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Joe's Bar and Grill

In article <1992Apr14.135132.16873@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
>
>However, there is no reason why you couldn't advertise BATF's
>number in any number of, uh, salacious publications. After all,
>every call to the 800-number is money in the pocket of 800-service
>provider (Thanks for using AT&T!), and the more money drained from
>BATF's budget, the better!

I'm glad those aren't our tax dollars you're suggesting we divert to AT&T...

  -joe





--
                You spend the night
            Like you were spending a dime

                   - Lyle Lovett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Guns and Rape
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<raetfINNscb@agate.berkeley.edu>
	<LAMBERT.92Apr6023501@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<rob2fINNsab@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:37:13 GMT

>>>>> On 6 Apr 92 01:55:27 GMT, fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) said:
> (Tim Lambert) writes:

>>The actual number trained represented 5% of the female population of
>>Orlando city and 1.5% of metro Orlando.  This is a small number by
>>your definition below.  The publicity would have applied to the whole
>>metropolitan area, yet there was no reduction in other parts of
>>Orlando.

>>>  This is much different from the case of the United States
>>> as a whole (the datum you used) where a small fraction of women carry
>>> firearms (my guess would by a few percent) and this is fact is not widely\
>>> advertized.

> Actually, I wouldn't call 5% "a few percent". I was thinking more like
> 2 or 3% (e.g. half as much.) 

Well, earlier in this thread you suggested that percentage of armed
women in the US was "roughly 5%", so I assumed that that was what you
meant by "a few percent".  In any case, you would expect some of the
women in the training program to have come in from suburban Orlando
(after all the rapes that triggered the gun training program would
have been publicized just as much in the suburbs).  If a city woman
was three times as likely to take the course as a suburban woman, then
the percentage trained in the city would have been about 3%.

> But the real issue _does_ seem to be the publicity: The effects of the
> program lasted only for five years or so. Presumably, the women in
> question kept their guns for longer than this. The effectiveness of
> a gun as a deterent depends mostly on how the potential rapist _perceives_
> the risks. If the rapist _thinks_ there are lots of armed weapons out there,
> he may very well think twice.

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

Tim
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:11623 talk.politics.misc:18063
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: right to bear arms
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:01:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Apr13.210106.16475
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.

cl231519@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes
>A note about the constitution and the right to bear arms:
>
>1)it guarantees your right to own a musket.(that's all thefirearms they had
>back then)

Oh, what about a blunderbuss ?  The earliest sawed off shotgun if there
ever was one.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
"An unarmed people are slaves, or subject to slavery
at any moment." -- Huey P. Newton.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns