HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kato@leland.Stanford.EDU (Daniel William Roth)
Subject: Re: Carrying in San Francisco and in general
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 23:52:02 GMT

In article <1iq6unINNpd@cae.cad.gatech.edu> vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox) writes:
>In <1993Jan10.200933.6461@leland.Stanford.EDU> I write:
>>...
>>someone that ran a stop sign.  You could even have a law which would
>>give police powers to temporarily revoke a person's permit for recklessly
>>handling a weapon.
>
>Sorry Daniel, got carried away in my previous post and didn't address
>this well. The basis of such a test as you describe it is that
>citizens will defacto be considered unworthy of self-protection and
>must PROVE they are responsible enough. In such a situation, lawsuits
>being and lucrative as they are, the city will write the test so as
>to make it nearly impossible. Because if they are wrong and get sued
>for it enough times by hotshot lawyers the city could be bankrupted.
>

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.  

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.


Daniel Roth
kato@leland.stanford.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:38:36 GMT

In article <9301061208.19@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan5141848@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>><In article <9212311212.23@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>><
>><   >Disarming most people is, at best, complete waste of time.  How many
>><   >people who we don't want carrying obey this law?  None?  Then why are
>><   >we threatening other people with jail?
>>
>><   The police would like to know who has guns.
>>
>>	The police would like to know a lot of things; that's
>>	why we have a Constitution that was designed to limit
>>	the powers of the government.
>
>So convicted criminals shouldn't lose ther constitutional rights?

       If you have some proof that I am a convicted felon, please present it 
before you discuss taking away *my* rights, which is what you've been 
talking about.  (Anything you have to ask permission to exercise isn't a
right.)

>><   >Yes.  As Kelly points out, even MA police will grudgingly admit that
>><   >guns are useful for self-defense.  (Note that the statistics had to
>><   >become overwhelming before they did, and as soon as the heat drops,
>><   >they'll go back to their old "we'll protect you".)  Since rapists
>><   >don't restrict themselves to people the police favor ....
>>
>><   >A number of states have decided to issue permits to most anyone who
>><   >applies.  They haven't had the horrible experience that Kelly assumes.
>><   >Are Bay Staters different?
>>
>><   In Arizona, I believe, there is now a move to restrict the current laws
>><   that allow children to carry concealed weapons, as many parents are
>><   concerned that it has become fashionable for junior high students to
>><   carry concealed weapons.
>>
>>	So what? Florida, Georgia, Oregon, Washington, Idaho and
>>	Vermont all issue concealed carry permits to pretty much
>>	anyone (actually, Vermont has no permits; the state
>>	constitution allows concealed carry by anyone who does not
>>	have criminal intent). The experience in those states suggests
>>	very strongly that Kelly is wrong.
>
>How do they determine criminal intent?

        They assume people without a criminal record don't have criminal
intent.  You remember, innocent until proven guilty?

>><   It is a failure, but I don't know that there is a high rate of illegal
>><   searches.
>>
>>	If it is a failure, why is Kelly defending it?
>
>I'm not defending it.  I'm just saying that, in my experience, there isn't
>a high rate of illegal searches.  A legal search is declaring someone is
>under arrest, and then reading them the Miranda warning before the search
>is conducted.

       If that's your criteria, the rate of illegal searches is staggering.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
From: anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: How many gays are there in the NRA?
Date: 9 Jan 1993 07:16:25 +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


Rod Anderson replies:
>Homosexuals are welcome to join the NRA.  I am sure that the NRA respects
>the gays right of self defense.

Technically, you are correct.  The membership form for the NRA doesn't
actually ask you if you are gay.  However, I'll go by what Jeff Cooper
says in his column in Guns and Ammo, assuming this is the same Jeff
Cooper who is a director of the NRA.  I think he and his colleagues
would say that homosexuals are perverts who would be bad for the NRA's
image, but since the NRA consists of right-thinking, upstanding armed
citizens, there can't be any of them in it.

In fact, he might say that that morally homosexuals are criminals,
it's just that not all jurisdictions have made sex between two
men a legal crime.

But I see that you are a doubting Thomas.  Ask Neal Knox and Jeff
Cooper and Leroy Pyle what they think.  Better yet, spread the word if
you're an NRA member that you're gay (whether or not you actually are)
and see what happens.

>>Brought to you by the Society for Preservation of Human Life.
>Am I correct that this is an anti abortion organization?

No, you're not.

>>Anonymity & Privacy by PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide,South Australia) *
>I am glad you showed the courage of your conviction by signing your post.

I'm glad you were brave enough to reply.  Thanks for playing.

And I thank Public Access Unix for making this posting possible.

Brought to you by the Society for Preservation of Human Life.


--
** 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
Subject: Re: What Problem Is Supposed To Be Solved, Here? (Was: Dressed for Rape)
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:59:09 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <1993Jan6.030357.23201@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>
>ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>< rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>><   And if you believe the recently published statistics, you wife is in
>><   the greatest amount of danger from you, and my SO is in the greatest
>><   amount of danger from me.
>>		Which statistics would those be, please, and where were 
>>		they published?
>><   And, of course, untrained idiots who bought a gun at K-Mart would never
>><   hurt themselves or anyone else by mistake.
>>		Can Kelly show where anyone asserted this?
>
>
>	I'd be suprised if we see an answer for these.   The pattern
>established so far, no matter how polite or reasonable the questioner, 
>is that Mr Kelly seems to ignore any question that could put him on 
>the spot, 
>
>Not any way to sustain a news debate for very long.
>
>I was hoping he'd last longer.

The statistics on the murders of women was reported by the state attorney
general and printed in the Boston Globe and the Middlesex News.

I'm unsure about the second question.  Is it saying that people are all
born with the genetic ability to handle firearms like a pro, or is it
saying that the people who have flatly said here that everyone should
have the right to buy arms assumed that buyers would get training, but
just didn't bother to mention it?

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 11 Jan 1993 18:32:41 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301091947.12@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> 
> >>>Because most newspapers subscribe to the philosophy of advocacy journalism:  
> >>>pick a side in a issue an be a cheerleader.  Since most news organizations 
> >>>suffer from paternalistic statism, they are anti-civil liberties.
> >>
> >>The local paper here reports arrests, which are a matter of public record.
> >
> >Not all do, and a seizure doesn't have to have an associated arrest.
> 
> In Massachusetts it does.

Nope, you obviously haven't a clue how things work in Massachusetts.

I assume you know what a restrainng order is.  Well, any woman (probably
anyone, but let's discuss the specifics I know about) can get one against
her husband or boyfriend or ex-either with no trouble, and without having
to PROVE anything.  Now, after a while, these expire unless they are
followed up (by legal action, evidence, arrest, etc.).  BUT, at the time
the restraining order is being issued, all the complainint has to say is,
"He has guns," and the police will be out to your house lickely-split to
seize them.  No arrest, no charges, no due process.

If you don't believe me, ask your local police.

> Do you carry a gun every day?
> 
> How often do you have to pull it out and demonstrate that you are armed?
> 
> How often do you have to fire that gun due to the fact that your life is
> in danger?

Do you have a fire extinguisher in your home, Rick?  How often do you
have to discharge it to demonstrate that you're safe, or to put out a
fire in your home?

What does this have to do with anything?
-- 

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: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:15:47 GMT

In article <9301061611.29@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.150757.23200@Firewall.Nielsen.Com> jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson) writes:
>>In article <9301052017.35@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>[snip]
>>>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.
>>
>>So he managed this without using a gun?  Think about it...
>
>
>And if his wife had owned a gun for self-protection, she'd still be
>dead, since he got her while she was asleep.

  I've also noticed that guns don't provide much protection against
mud-slides, avalanches, forest fires, or lightning.  They are
especially poor at providing flotation if you fall overboard.
So those readers who thought that a gun was a magical protective
device which protects against every sort of harm really do need
to rethink things.

--henry "always glad to point out the obvious" schaffer
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<PA146008.603.726338593@utkvm1.utk.edu> <9301091923.58@rmkhome.UUCP>
	<1ise6cINNo3f@transfer.stratus.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:30:10 GMT

Mr. Tavares's articles are usually of the highest quality.  This one
startles me.

In article <1ise6cINNo3f@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C.
D. Tavares) writes:

   > Ah, but if you are carrying an illegal weapon, then you are a criminal.

   Nope, sorry.  It's a civil, not a criminal, infraction -- like a
   traffic ticket.

Huh?  Traffic tickets, like any other summons, are criminal matters;
the fact that they are tried in traffic court (NOT civil court) is a
matter of local convenience.  If you are tried for a traffic
violation, you are found guilty or not guilty; judgement is not for
the plaintiff or defendent.  If you lose, you may go to jail.  The
government is not suing you if you get a traffic ticket --- it is
charging you with a crime.

   > And if you kill someone with an illegal weapon, self defense or not,
   > then you are a murderer.

   Nope, you've got that one wrong, too.

And this varies depending on the local jurisdiction.  See my previous
post.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:39:39 GMT

In article <9301051928.44@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>There is slightly more to it than that.

What?  I've been handling firearms for over two decades and I have yet to 
put a hole in anything that the barrel wasn't pointed at.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Clinton's Intentions?
Date: 8 Jan 93 00:08:49 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <1992Dec30.001556.1234@newsgate.sps.mot.com> rrbk50@email.sps.mot.com (Rick Cottle) writes:
-I've heard that Hillary's old man will attack the gun 'problem' by
-trying to outlaw many kinds of ammunition, thus by passing the 
-current strategies like the Brady Bill, etc.  Supposedly this
-will be easier to do than outright banning firearms.

The NRA sent out a request for donations for the polical initative fund
I send mine in today.  I urge all members to make the 29.15 donation.

I think it is important for all of us who are members of the NRA to give
all that we can.  Clintoon will be in office very shortly and the 
attact on gun owners will begin.  

starbuck 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 15:03:31 GMT

In article <9301061611.29@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.150757.23200@Firewall.Nielsen.Com> jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson) writes:
>>[snip]
>>>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.
>>
>>So he managed this without using a gun?  Think about it...
>
>
>And if his wife had owned a gun for self-protection, she'd still be
>dead, since he got her while she was asleep.

Lemme see if I got this straight: a gun wouldn't have been useful in one,
particular situation, so Kelly extrapolates this to imply that guns are
not useful in any situation?  Five years ago, a good friend was hit head-on
and killed by a drunk driver; she was wearing her seatbelt, but was killed
anyway.  Under Kelly's rules, we all might as well stop wearing seatbelts...

+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
|      John Kapson      | "1935 will go down in history!  For the first time, |
| NRA               ILA | a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our   |
| jkapson@nis.naitc.com | streets will be safer, our police more efficient    |
|                       | and the world will follow our lead into the         |
|                       | future!"  - Adolf Hitler                            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
|                  PGP Public Key available via email                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Subject: Re: communists + anarchists in the NRA
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: who knows
Date:  6 Jan 1993 12:16 EST  

>Autonome Forum is an autonomist information collective that disseminates
>information about liberation struggles in advanced capitalist countries and
>in the so-called "Third World". Our focus is on armed struggle and other forms
>of militant/left-radical resistance, but we do not limit ourselves to this. 
>We come from an internationalist perspective that is anti-capitalist and 
>anti-imperialist, but we do not separate the struggle against patriarchy,
>racism, and homophobia from the struggle against capitalism and imperialism.
>The development of a coherent revolutionary praxis is, for us, not rooted in
>dogmatic ideologies, but in an anti-authoritarian practice that draws upon
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>many different strands of revolutionary theory.

Does that mean that they have resistance groups in Cuba, PRC, Vietnam and the
former USSR?  Not likely.  These countries may fund these loonies in order to
provide them with the opportunities to oppress the 'masses'.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 5 Jan 93 23:53:17 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

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.
-- 

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: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 22:53:07 GMT

In article <9301092018.07@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
[snip]
>>Note how Kelly avoids the question and attempts to change the subject.
>>Can Kelly show some old posts where people suggest that "there should be
>>no laws governing the sale of weapons"?  Or is Kelly confusing "no laws"
>>with "fair, effective, non-intrusive, non-abusable laws"?
>
>Define "fair, effective, and non-intrusive".  Obviously, all laws can be
>abused.

Fair ->          applied equally to everyone.

Effective ->     shows the desired result, i.e. a drop in violent crime; if
                 the law can't accomplish this, why have it?

Non-intrusive -> applicants shouldn't have to jump through arbitrary hoops;
                 applicant should be considered innocent until proven guilty;
                 burden of proof should not be on applicant, but on the govt.

+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
|      John Kapson      |                                                     |
| NRA               ILA |      "...to disarm the people (is) the best         |
| jkapson@nis.naitc.com |      and most effective way to enslave them..."     |
|                       |      George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380         |
|                       |                                                     |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
|                  PGP Public Key available via email                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:31:29 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

>In article <9301092149.44@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>|> >
>>>|> >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.
>>>
>>>What else would you suggest as basic training to avoid the problem you mention
>>>above?
>>
>>3. A complete understanding of applicable state laws.


This one could take years, depending on the jurisdiction in question.

>>4. And most important - how to engage and disengage the safety.

Hmmm...still looking for the safety on a Colt Single-Action Army
revolver. Or on a Winchester Model 92 or 94 (not counting the new
Model 94's).  A large number of firearms have no "safety" mechanism,
other than the user.  Doesn't mean that they can't be used safely,
although some government critter might see it as a reason to ban
the sale/possession/use of any number of well-known (and not so well
known) firearms.

I think I understand what you meant, it just wasn't exactly what you
said.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: US priorities changin in Somalia (big surprise... DUH!)
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:27:42 GMT

I was watching the news last night when it was reported that a big cache of 
arms had been confiscated by the Marines in Mogadishu.  I saw lots of 20mm
and recoilless rifle ammo.  Then, to my big surprise, the reporter states
that some US muckety-muck made the statement that US priorities are likely
to be changing from those purely humanitarian, to now include disarmament of
the people of Somalia, per UN orders.  Welcome NewWorldOrder!  Hail UN!

Naturally I was flabbergasted... taken completely by surprise.  I never could
have IMAGINED that this would ever have taken place.

Well folks, it's to Hell in a handbasket for us all.  See y'all there where
it's nice and toasty all year long!

	-Andy V.