HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Kennesaw, 1986: Burglary Still Down 85%
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<1993Jan12.163635.21936@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>
	<LAMBERT.93Jan21011512@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1993Jan21.011403.21917@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:55:05 GMT

>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 1993 01:14:03 GMT, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) said:
> Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu

> In article <LAMBERT.93Jan21011512@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>> Why not use the 8 six month periods immediately preceding and the 8
>>> following the passage of the law in mid-March 1982?

>>Since this 8 years long, this is only a little worse than 10 years,
>>provided you choose this as the basis of your comparison *BEFORE*
>>collecting data.

> Eight years of biyearly data is sixteen datum, a significant improvement
> over ten.

In fact the study used 11 years of monthly data, 132 numbers.

>>> Because the big jump in burglaries ocuured in 1986 and without it
>>> the 10 year study you cite would have had a different outcome? (2)

>>Nope.  The authors repeated the calculation excluding 86 and found
>>that there was still no significant effect.

> From the data you posted, that's difficult to believe:
> The average number of burglaries from 1976-1981 was 29/year.
> The average from 1982-1986 was 26/year.
> And from 1982-1985 it was only 22.5/year.
> I haven't worked out a likelyhood rigorously, but if your
> figure for the 1982-1986 fit (p=0.51, by the way, I'm used to
> "p" refering to the chance the fit _not_ a coincidence, while
> you seem to have said the reverse...), excluding the 
> 1986 data should give roughly a p ~ 0.2. That's not too 
> dramatic, but papers have been published with worse data...

p ~ 0.2 is usually not considered a significant effect.  (And if you
start doing lots of tests you have to adjust the significance.)  Also
the authors used monthly data and interrupted time series analysis, so
would get somewhat different results.
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Text: New Brady Bill
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:25:57 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education

In article <1k48l9INN71b@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:

>Stephen D. Grant writes:
>
>>>            "(II) the transferor has received notice from the chief 
>>>        law enforcement officer that the officer has no information 
>>>        indicating that receipt or possession of the handgun by the 
>>>        transferee would violate Federal, State, or local law; 
>
>>     This is the same requirement almost word for word as it appears on
> >    Form 4 (for class III transfers). Here in Lexington Ky, the Chief
>  >   simply refuses to sign. The BATF blesses this position.
>   >  So, looks like now the Chief will be able to "not sign" for
>    > handguns as well. Oh well, maybe the next crazy will open up at the
> 
>It sounds like that if there is no law from preventing a citizen from owning
>an item, the refusal of the Chief to sign-- to do his job--- sounds like it
>could be the basis of a lawsuit.  Get a few people to be refused, and it could
>be a class action.  I don't know what grounds- denial of civil rights?  dereliction
>of duty?  I'm sure a lawyer could be creative.
>
>More chilling... supposing someone had legally applied, and been stonewalled.  Later,
>the applicant was unfortunately murdered by an intruder.  The surviving family
>contends that the victim could have defended himself, but had been deliberately
>denied his right to do so... wrongful death suit against the police dept.?

       The Brady Bill is bad news, but not that bad.  The text also says
that if the dealer does not recieve a response at all within seven days
he may release gun.  (Some will remember the previous version which
did allow the police chief to simply neglect background check requests.)
       As for lawsuits, they're a nice idea, but difficult to turn into
reality.  As for denial of civil rights, and possible hopes of getting the
Brady Bill overturned on Constitutional grounds if it does pass, consider
that the Supreme Court has said on the issue of abortion that while abortion
is a Constitutionally protected right, a short waiting period was not 
considered to be an unreasonable "burdon."  (You'll recall the 24 hour
waiting period on that issue.)  Bad news for all Constitutional rights.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
"For every action there is an equal, and opposite, government program"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Text: New Brady Bill
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:56:39 GMT

In article <DLB.93Jan27113457@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:

>In article <PA146008.654.728083556@utkvm1.utk.edu>
>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>
>   The Brady Bill is bad news, but not that bad.  The text also says
>   that if the dealer does not recieve a response at all within seven
>   days he may release gun.  (Some will remember the previous version
>   which did allow the police chief to simply neglect background check
>   requests.)
>
>I think you need to read the new version again.  Unless I am mistaken,
>it reverts to the old language: you must wait for a response, and
>there is no obligation to provide one.


Relevant portions of the Bill:

    (a) IN GENERAL.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, 
is amended by adding at the end the following: 

    "(s)(1) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, 
licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or 
transfer a handgun to an individual who is not licensed under 
section 923, unless-- 

        "(A) after the most recent proposal of such transfer by the 
    transferee-- 
	[First section deals with identifying the buyer and informing
the police.]
            "(ii)(I) 7 days have elapsed from the date the 
        transferee furnished the statement, and the transferor has 
        not received information from the chief law enforcement 
        officer that receipt or possession of the handgun by the 
        transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or local 
        law; or 

	Essentially, if seven days go by and there is no word from the
chief law enforcement officer, the weapon is released.

            "(II) the transferor has received notice from the chief 
        law enforcement officer that the officer has no information 
        indicating that receipt or possession of the handgun by the 
        transferee would violate Federal, State, or local law; 

        This section means that the waiting period may be reduced if the
police chief responds before seven days, but if seven days pass then 
according to the previous section, the gun may be released.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
"For every action there is an equal, and opposite, government program"
From: post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 00:23:46 GMT
Subject: Re: Virginia's proposed gun-a-month law
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

In talk.politics.guns, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:

 > >Commonwealth address last nite.  A survey (paid for by the Governor) shows 83%  
 > >support for a monthly limit on gun purchases.  This is an effort to rid  
 > >Virginia of the "gun-runner's capitol" reputation the Govenor claims we have.

The legislature does not care if one wishes to purchase a matched set.  (
There is a lot they don't care abaout, though.)

When are they going to fix the drivers licensing system such that you need
to show residency?

David Post  davep@hpfcpp.fc.hp.com  hplabs!hpfcla!post
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 43 Times more likely?
Date: 23 Jan 1993 20:30:24 GMT
Organization: Hand Held Products, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: dale.handheld.com

In article <C11ApB.C2y@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman  
) writes:
> but it stands to reason, possession of guns could not possibly
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Boy, I can't beat a powerful argument like that!

> reduce violence; never has, never will,

But removing them from honest folks increases violence, so best to leave well  
enough alone!

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave from the Land of Love
> 


Jim

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Bazooka for sale!
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:21:05 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

As quoted from <1jvd3iINN8l3@werple.apana.org.au> by speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose):

> >        Just what 6,000,000 Jews thought in Europe a generation or so
> >ago.  Of course, none of them have any opinions now.  They were all
> >murdered by what was arguably the most intellectually and
> >technologically advanced country in the world.  How about 2,000,000
> >Kulaks in Russia, or a million Azerbajanis, or a few million
> >Cambodians?  They are all dead too.  They had one thing in common:
> >They trusted their government.  When that trust was found to be
> >wrongly placed, they had no means to defend themselves.  Exit many
> >millions.
>  
> While not wishing to be pedantic, I cannot see how these people's
> trust/faith in their government caused their demise at the hands of an
> aggressor. In the case of Hitler, if the jews had more personal guns
> this may have given him a better excuse to kill them.
>  
It's very simple to see how.  They bet that nobody would do to them what was
done.  They bet wrong.  DEAD wrong.

As for your Hitler comment, that's nonsensical at best.  Are you saying that
the Jews were better off for having died in misery WITHOUT much of a fight?
I think logic and history would indicate that FEWER of them would have died
had they been able to put up a fight to enable more of the rest to survive.

> All those Iraqis sitting like ducks in a shooting gallery in their
> sand bunkers were all armed but were killed just the same.
>  
All those Iraqis SURRENDERED in large part.  If we'd been like the nazis, 
they wouldn't have gone home again the way they did.

> And this is where Stefan's logic fails - he fails to realise the
> "climate" in the USA. His situation doesn't dictate the need or want
> for a gun, so he believes people in the USA should also have no need.
>  
The danger of tyranny exists EVERYWHERE, at least everywhere there are 
PEOPLE.  To that extent, it's a UNIVERSAL problem.



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
"Read my lips, no new Haitians.  Ack!" - Bill the Prez
------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Christopher Morton
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Point By Point (Was: "The coming shootout over guns")
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:31:02 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan22093001@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
writes:
><   With possibly a wee bit of help from President Bush (oops, ex-President
><   Bush), whose brilliant plan to fill our jails with pot smokers forced
><   the release of violent criminals...
>
>	Agreed, as a contributing factor, but not overwhelming.
>	Baldwin knows, or should know, that people who call 
>	themselves liberal have made it all but impossible 
>	to put violent criminals in jail for long terms in
>	the U.S. 

Oh really, I'm liberal, yet I'd rather see the bastards snuffed than let them
out on the streets.

>	You see, after 6 years or so, the average murderer
>	is "rehabilitated"....so he's got to be let out.

In pieces, maybe...:)

>	And I wonder if Pres. Clinton will keep the promise he
>	made in at least one fund-raising letter I received;
>	to *WIN* the "war on drugs" by "fully funding the
>	agencies involved"....

The talk I've heard is that he'll change the focus of the WOD from punishment
to treatment.

    don
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Chris Luchini)
Subject: REPLY/NOSELF
Reply-To: cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
Organization: High Energy Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:44:41 GMT

I called the ILA too, and they are watching the Federal Register, where
the Executive Orders are printed. As of Friday, no EO having to
do with firearms imports has been issued. The staffer I talked to indicated
that the rumor mill is grinding at furious speed, and that something 
is likely to happen soon. 

Of course this may be a self fulfilling prophesy: All our catterwalling
about this back door gun ban may have given them the idea....
*1110 W. Green/Urbana IL 61801/217-333-0505/cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: 10% of all crimes
Date: 28 Jan 93 14:49:15 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


Just talked to the reporter, who claims she got this story from the
Washington Post today, who got the statistics from BATF.

"Assault rifles account for only 3% of owned firearms but 10% of
crime."

Needless to say, I registered my displeasure with her sources and her
attitude.

Anyone else who wishes to do so may.  The reporter's name is Barbara
Britt, and the number for WRQX is 1-800-727-1073.
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hmueller@orca.tamu.edu (Hal Mueller)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Basis of Federal Gun Control [was Re: Text: New Brady Bill}
Date: 27 Jan 1993 01:12:14 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: orca.tamu.edu

I was just musing over the question of what gives the FEDERAL government
the right to regulate gun purchases.  I don't want to involve 2nd amendment 
issues--let's assume that 2nd amendment does not prevent individual states
from enacting their own Bradyish bills.  I'm curious about how the
FEDERAL government derives the authority it claims for firearms
regulation, instead of being forced to leave that up to individual 
states.

The only basis I can come up with is that the FFL requirement for interstate
transfers is grounded in the federal government's charge to regulate
interstate commerce, and that the Brady bill is merely a regulation on
FFL holders.  Comments?

This does not give a basis for the proscription on guns within a school
zone, though.  Where does that come from?

Finally, I recall reading a claim somewhere that if you sold more than
a certain number of guns per year (4/year?), BATF considered you a dealer
and required you to be federally licensed, even if all of your sales were
intrastate.  Is this true, and if so how is it justified?

I do need to order Clayton's book.

-- 
Hal Mueller                     If guns are outlawed, only the government
hmueller@orca.tamu.edu          will have guns.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Usefulness of weapons (was Re: Galen Disarms)
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:43:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.223225.2749@dg-rtp.dg.com> meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:
>
>U.S. armed forces are removing guns from the populace
>in Somalia to prevent sniping at junketing Congressmen.
>
	Now that's a REAL shame.

	-Andy V.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: Text: New Brady Bill
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<PA146008.654.728083556@utkvm1.utk.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:34:57 GMT

In article <PA146008.654.728083556@utkvm1.utk.edu>
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

   The Brady Bill is bad news, but not that bad.  The text also says
   that if the dealer does not recieve a response at all within seven
   days he may release gun.  (Some will remember the previous version
   which did allow the police chief to simply neglect background check
   requests.)

I think you need to read the new version again.  Unless I am mistaken,
it reverts to the old language: you must wait for a response, and
there is no obligation to provide one.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
Subject: Re: On the eve of Bill's (not so) Excellent Adventure
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:13:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.223326.29135@igor.tamri.com>, donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
|> In article <-m_s3qp@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
|> >As for the change of us stopping government corruption today vs yesterday,
|> >a dead corrupt politician is as dead today as he was yesterday.  Consider
|> >the upheval after kennedy.  It is always a toss of the dice where 
|> >things will point afterward but I'm about ready to take a chance.
|> 
|> Yeah, good thing we got that evil John Kennedy out of the way.
|> 
|> What?  He was an NRA member?  Ooops...
|> 
|>     don

But then so was Bush...

				mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: TV and Movies are Promoting Gun Violence
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:17:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.041507.1180@cbnews.cb.att.com>
lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:

>In article <1993Jan22.223737.3635@dg-rtp.dg.com> meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bil Meyers) writes:
>>Hmmm, sounds like time to mention Centerwall again:
>>>If Dr. Brandon Centerwall's conclusion is correct, TV also has more
>>...
>>than doubled homicide rates in South Africa, adding to its other
>>problems.
>
>Did Centerwall do a study of violence on Japanese television and if
>that had an impact on violence in Japan ?
>
>The reason I ask is Japanese television, from what I understand,
>is pretty gory, yet violence in Japan is very low.  So, there's much
>more to the "cause" of violence than tv.

       I've heard some good arguments (so good I generally agree with
them) that it isn't the *amount* of violence, but the way it is
portrayed.  For all the *amount* of violence on U.S. TV, it's usually
portrayed as a quick and easy thing, without a lot of blood, etc.
       In essense, people die, but they don't really seem to die.  They
simply fall over and look like they've passed out.  Big deal.  Oooh.
Ah.
       I didn't actually see it, as I didn't watch the series, but
I was told there was a particularly graphic murder scene on Twin
Peaks, which produced a *lot* of outrage.
       One difference may be (I haven't seen much so this is a stab
in the dark) that Japanese T.V. violence may be much more *real*
than in the U.S.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal    Div. of Cont. Ed. Information Services Group  UT, Knoxville
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu   "Of course the government and the newspapers
                          lie.  But in a democracy they're different lies."
From: speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bazooka for sale!
Date: 25 Jan 1993 11:42:05 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

Original Message From: larryd@stein.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
 
>skronkvi@aton.abo.fi (Stefan Kronkvist INF) writes:
 .
 .
>>I dont need a gun to protect myself,I dont feel like "they" are after me.
>>We have gunlaws that makes it hard to get guns.Almost nobody owns handguns,
>>so if noone else have guns,why should I need one?
>
>Well, it depends.  What you are advocating is a return to the jungle
>where the most physically powerful and/or gangs run things.  A lot of
 
I can't see how he is advocating any such thing; or am I missing
something?
 
He obviously comes from a country where the amount of personal
violence does not dictate the need for a weapon. Good for him. I also
come from such a country. His real "failure" is to recognise the
difference in the society he lives in and the other society he
compares it with (in this case the USA).
 
I dare say that if I lived in the USA I would also arm myself (with a
handgun) - something I would not even contemplate in Australia
(besides the fact that they are illegal).
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cottle@prism.sps.mot.com (Rick Cottle)
Subject: Re: "The coming shootout over guns"
Organization: SPS
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:28:23 GMT

The discussion about police protecting us is misplaced.  The
police have the responsibility to protect the public.  However,
they have no legal responsibility to protect an individual.  This
is to say that they cannot prevent a crime from happening, only
become involved after it has happened.  For evidence of this, 
note things like stalking cases, estranged spouses, etc., where
people had good reason to believe that they would be harmed, but
the police were unable to intecede because no crime had yet 
occurred.

The conclusion, we should be prepared to defend ourselves and not
be so naive to believe that the police can or should do it for us.
--
R i c k   C o t t l e         
Email:cottle@prism.sps.mot.com 
"Just my thoughts..."
From: grant@bluemoon.use.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: Felons and the Restoration of Rights
Organization: Blue Moon
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 06:50:15 GMT

osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:

>	sitting on the floor!!).  What do you folks thinkg of this?  Personally,
>	I think this has no place in such matters, but even so, to call the
>	wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of civillians "Gods' work"
>	is so unfathomably obscene to me as to be nearly beyond comprehension.

 Wholesale slaughter, torture and needless suffering have always been
religion's products. Why would that be any different now?

>	I've also noticed that Slick Willie has been making fast with the
>	proverbial Mexican hat dance regarding many of his campaign promises.
>	It never ceases to amaze me how endlessly stupid people are.  

 That fateful night in November:

 "they actually fell for that middle class tax cut crap! Hahahahahahaha!"
                                   -- Bill Clinton


-- 
\   Grant DeLorean  - IHMSA & NRA Life Member -  (grant@bluemoon.use.com)   /

        Good leaders being scarce, following yourself is allowed.