HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: "Ethics" Courses, etc. & the R.T.K.B.A
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:12:02 GMT

In article <92366.170343GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET> Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes:
>Has anyone else tried a different tact in eliciting interest in the
>Second Amendment ?   We are amazed at the indifference
>with which the Second Amendment is held here at ASU.  We are not talking
>about international students, but incoming ex high-school seniors who
>supposedly had a 'Civics' class in their junior or senior year.
>
>How are college level students learning firearm marksmanship, safety
>and basic Constitutional issues like this at your schools ?

I hold a liberal arts degree from the University of Tennesee, and I cannot 
recall a single mention of the US Constitution or civil liberties outside of 
a few social sciences courses wherein the First Amendment was touched on 
while discussing public demonstrations.

I went to high school on the coast of South Carolina, where we were taught

rkba = militia = national guard

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: howard@Metaphor.COM (Lee Howard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fight the bastards (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:50:10 GMT
Reply-To: howard@Metaphor.COM (Lee Howard)
Organization: m4

In article <1993Jan2.220954.13644@ncsu.edu>, hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
|> In article <+vsr!p_@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
|> >miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
|> >>  I have what my lawyer called an "clear case", but I can't afford to 
|> >>  pursue it. For over a year I contacted pro-RKBA people for help. And all
|> >>  I got was a bunch of lip-service (some useful, most not).
|> >>  Anyone with lots of money want to finance a sure-win case against Class III
|> >>  signiture discrinination in Lexington Ky.? 
|> >
|> >First I'd heard of your case.  You still interested in fighting the fight?
|> >I can't finance the whole thing right now but I would contribute to
|> >the cause.  I think a number of other gun rights activists in this
|> >group would too.
|> 
|>   One of the big problems is that (IMHO) there is no precedent 
|> established even if you win.  The police chief is not in the
|> least inconvenienced by your fighting the case (appearing in 
|> court is one of his normal duties and he is paid by the
|> taxpayers to do this, and his attorney is supplied too) and
|> then if he loses, he simply signs your form and only your form.
|> 
|> --henry schaffer
=========================================

 What about "Class Action" suits?  I don't know anything about 'em
 except that they seem to work in environment and affirmative action
 cases- at least from reading the papers.

--- lee KC6KXI  NRA-Life ---
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Statistical Analysis
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<LAMBERT.92Dec18025613@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Dec19.231932.3652@mtu.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 14:50:12 GMT

>>>>> On Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:19:32 GMT, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) said:
> (Tim Lambert) writes:

> False...  The posting I flamed (the only one I saw, in fact) referred
> only to "degree of freedom", no qualifiers were added...  And I knew
> one could least square fit an elephant with that many parameters. ;-)

Not so.  Here is what I said:

  In my goodness of fit calculation I used 19 degrees of freedom (21
  data values less two fitted parameters) in the Chi square statistic.
  Should I have use 18 df?

Not only did I say "degrees of freedom in the Chi square statisitic",
I explained how it was computed.

And here is your flame:
]]]]] On Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:02:44 GMT, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) said:
] (Tim Lambert) writes:

]>(21

] Huh!?  19 degrees of freedom!  That's enough to least-square fit an elephant!

]> data values less two fitted parameters) in the Chi square statistic.
]> Should I have use 18 df?

] I suspect you're drawing meaningless conclusions from your pseudo-
] scientific method...

>> Try looking up "degree of freedom" in a statistics book, or an
>> encyclopedia of science or mathematics.

> OK, Let's try the "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" (70th, 1989-90):

> degree of freedom: "The number of variables determining the state of a
>                     system to which arbitrary values can be assigned".

> Gee, that doesn't sound like what *you* used, Tim...  It sounds more
> like the number of variables required to span the space (you must span
> the space, if you wish to completely determine a system's *state*)

So you don't understand the definition.  It does describe what I used.
I refer you to any elementary statistics book for an explanation.

Perhaps you will find the "Academic Press Dictionary of Science and
Technology" easier to understand:

degree of freedom: _Physical_Chemistry_ 1. Any of the... [this one
                   obviously does not apply]  _Mechanics_ 1. any of
		   .... [nor does this one] _Statistics_ the excess of
		   the number of data points over the number of
		   parameters. 

Tim
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 6 Jan 1993 21:17:06 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <9301052244.31@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <VEAL.597.726250033@utkvm1.utk.edu> VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>
>>       Under this "definition" you will never, ever have to worry.  So long 
>>as one person does not go down to "Fred's" store, not "everyone" will have a 
>>gun.
>
>Except in Kennesaw(spelling?), Georgia.  

Even in Kennesaw.  You are exempt from owning a firearm in Kennesaw if you
have religious or ethical compunctions about such ownership.  (But unless
someone tells you, you can't tell by looking who does or doesn't own a
gun.)



--
-------------------------------------------------------
| 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
Subject: Re: Kellys Strawman (Was: Dressed for Rape)
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:22:32 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan7140344@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><In article <9301061202.15@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
><   In article <1993Jan5.224957.837@Firewall.Nielsen.Com> jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson) writes:
>
><   >Note that Kelly ignores the fact that it is already illegal most (all?) places
><   >for "convicted murderers and armed robbers" to purchase firearms (as well
><   >as simple possession being a parole violation in that case).
><   >
><   >Does Kelly contend that "convicted murderers and armed robbers" would not
><   >have easy access to 'alternative' weapons sources should conventional gun
><   >shops require background checks, letters of reference, fingerprints,
><   >waiting periods, and a kiss on the cheek from the local police chief?
>
><   Ah, but what I have been hearing here is that there should be no laws 
><   governing the sale of weapons.  That the sale of a weapon should only
><   hinge on whether the buyer has the money in his/her hand.
>
>	No, that's the strawman that Kelly has chosen to fight.
>	His strawman has little to do with what the rest of
>	us are writing about, however.

Then what are you saying?

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:07:02 GMT

In article <9301051952.18@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>

>>No, that's injustice, ethically bankrupt, and a direct and immediate 
>>violation of her Constitutionally protected civil liberties.
>
>The government doesn't tell her how to pick her friends.

What is your point here?  That she should have the right friends in
order to protect yourself?

>>>>Probably so; but since having a gun isn't a crime, it's frankly none
>>>>of their damn business.
>
>Unless they are criminals or are on parole.

What's your point?  The police, by nature, will have records on
criminals.  They should *not* be keeping records on law abiding
citizenry!

>>proven.  Any other approach is termed "prior restraint," and is 
>>unconsitutional.
>
>So therefore, prosecuting criminals is unlawful, since it takes away
>their rights.

No, it's part of "due process".  What the hell is your point?


>>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, you are more likely to have someone break into your home,
>than have someone threaten to shoot you on the street.
>
>Perhaps I've been lucky, but I haven't been through experiences that would
>make me want to carry a gun at all times, except when I lived in Boston.

So, exactly what is your point?  That just because you have a warm and
fuzzy feeling walking the streets, we all should?  Listen, as long as
you are going to insist on not stating your points, we're not going to
have an effective dialog.

-- 
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: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:20:35 GMT

In article <9301092346.39@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>> A friend of mine got his sporting license 3 years ago.  He joined a gun
>>> club for less than $100 per year, got the three references, and was given
>>> a permit.  No hassle.
>>
>>So you approve of policies that restrict gun ownership to the relatively
>>well-off.
>
>I don't see $100 per year as excessive.

To many people, 9$ a month means missing two meals a month.  I don't think 
that anyone should be required to miss meals for the right to exercise a 
constitutioanlly protected civil liberty.

>>And though I am resigned to being checked at sale time to see if I am 
>>an ex-felon, I maintain that after I have passed that check, the police 
>>have no need to know that I HAVE a gun, because it's none of their
>>damn business.
>
>Mostly true.
>
Completely true.

>>Note that even the Brady Bill requires the police chief to destroy 
>>all records of purchase if the purchaser checks out clean.  Meanwhile,
>>a few anal-retentive states like Massachusetts still think they have 
>>to keep a pin-map of every firearm in the state.
>
>That's interesting.  So the Brady Bill isn't interested in using serial
>numbers on guns to find out who owned it last, when it was used in the
>commission of a homicide?

That is correct.

>>...which is about the hardest place in the state to get exactly that kind
>>of "permission."  Sorta makes "Massachusetts-sense," doesn't it?
>
>There aren't many large, densely populated cities where it is easy to get
>a gun.

Chyenne Wyoming is one.  Charleston SC is another. 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: mireley@arnou.cem.msu.edu.brewery (John D. Mireley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The homophobia question comes to a stoppin
Date: 11 Jan 1993 13:52:37 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University Department of Chemistry
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mireley@arnou.cem.msu.edu.brewery
NNTP-Posting-Host: arnou.cem.msu.edu


Excuse me, but how many gay activist organizations have a stated
pro-gun position? 

John Mireley
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 5 Jan 1993 22:45:53 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301041935.22@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

> I may have a strange sense of humor, but I find it amusing that someone
> who wants to buy a gun has friends that are all anti-gun.

She has lots of pro-gun friends -- where she grew up, and then where we 
lived for a decade.  But this is neither place, nor have we been here
very long.  For my references, I was able to use locally-based employees
I have known for years.  She doesn't have the same network base.  And, of 
course, as her husband, I don't count; nor do the people at the gun club
because "they haven't known her long enough."

> When you apply for a gun permit, you are neither on trial nor under
> arrest. 

Who cares?  The very term -- "permit" -- clashes with the term "right."
The whole permit process is a mockery of constitutional guarantees.

> It is a case of determining if the prospective gun purchaser
> is a criminal or not, something which the gun store owner can't do.
> And it probably, in this litigous society, protects the gun store
> owner and the manufacturer from being sued in some cases.

Crapola.  If the state was AT ALL interested in having the gun store 
owner do it, for whatever reason, they would institute a Virginia-type 
instant check system and voila -- he could do it.

> And it's a gamble to assume that you can pull out a gun and fire before
> the mugger, who already has his gun pointed at you.

It's no more a gamble to assume that if you don't have a gun, the mugger 
still won't shoot you.  According to Kleck,

   "Victim resistance with guns is associated with lower
    rates of both victim injury and crime completion for
    robberies and assaults than any other victim action,
    including non-resistance."
-- 

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: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fight the bastards (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Date: 7 Jan 93 04:39:28 GMT
Organization: "Well, a head on top, an arm on each side, two legs...."

In <1993Jan2.220954.13644@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>>miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
>>>  I have what my lawyer called an "clear case", but I can't afford to 
>>>  pursue it. For over a year I contacted pro-RKBA people for help. And all
>>>  I got was a bunch of lip-service (some useful, most not).
>>>  Anyone with lots of money want to finance a sure-win case against Class III
>>>  signiture discrinination in Lexington Ky.? 
>>

>  One of the big problems is that (IMHO) there is no precedent 
>established even if you win.  The police chief is not in the
>least inconvenienced by your fighting the case (appearing in 
>court is one of his normal duties and he is paid by the
>taxpayers to do this, and his attorney is supplied too) and
>then if he loses, he simply signs your form and only your form.

Would it be feasible for the suit to be both for the signature on his
form, *and* for a writ of mandamus (I think that's the correct term) 
requiring that the chief sign off on future forms?


-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:47:29 GMT
Subject: Re: Guns and  Boston Crack Dealers (Was: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

>Whether one "needs" a gun is irrelivant.  The right to self-defense is a 
>natural right.  The right to keep and bear arms is a consitutionally 
>protected civil liberty.

- And another way of looking at it -

Most people don't need polio vaccinations either.   Sure is nice that 
you can get them though.

Rick.
From: csjohn@watson.mtsu.edu (J Wallace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: pro-gun TV?
Date: 5 Jan 1993 10:37:30 -0600
Organization: Dept of Comp Science, Middle Tenn State Univ, Murfreesboro, TN
NNTP-Posting-Host: watson.mtsu.edu

In <1993Jan4.151238.814@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:

>i turned on the TV the other day & caught a scene with Mariel Hemingway
>(Civil Wars?). her character was trapped in an elevator with someone who
>was making unwelcome advances ("Oh, you like it rough eh?"). she then 
>proceeded to pull a pistol from her purse, at which point the 
>agressor started talking -really- fast. anyone else see this? could it
>be the start of media showing handguns as useful for something besides
>slaughtering innocent children?

>jason

Don't believe it.  They will show ONE scene like this for a HUNDRED
others that are clearly anti-RTKBA.  This is what THEY call showing
both sides.  This is what I call throwing you a bone.
-- 
John Wallace   ||   INTERNET: csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu
> > We have just the government that we deserve < <      
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: CCW permit for Columbus, Ohio.  Huh ?!?
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:46:13 GMT
Keywords: ccw, columbus ohio

In article <1993Jan5.042802.7073@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>
>I'm going to make some calls Tuesday and see what I can find out
>about the Columbus concealed carry permit.

I called the Columbus PD, and asked about getting a CCW permit, and
was told "Those are issued through city hall"; I called City Hall and
they switched me to the License dept. and they said, there is no such
thing, they only have applications for buying guns, not carrying
concealed.

The talking head said "concealed weapons permit" which could just be
the name of the piece of paper Columbus issues when you want to buy
a handgun in the city.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:44:17 GMT

In article <9301051928.44@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

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

What else would you suggest as basic training to avoid the problem you mention
above?

-- 
Kirk Hays - NRA Life.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing."  -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Orlando, Florida - Gun training offered, rape rate drops
Organization: none
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 12:51:50 GMT

>>>>> On Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:38:54 GMT, oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary) said:

> In Point Blank, Kleck relates several instances of crime rates 
> dropping after defensive training or a defensive event.

> "From October 1966 to March 1967, the Orlando Police Department trained
> more that 2500 women to use guns.  Organized in response to demands from
> citizens  worried about a sharp increase in rape, this was an unusually
> large and highly publicized program."

> "An interrupted time series analysis of Orlando crime trends showed
> that the rape rate decreased by 88% in 1967, compared to 1966, a 
> decrease far larger than any previous 1-year period.

Comparing 66 and 67 is not an interrupted time series analysis.  For
an interrupted time series analysis see Criminology v29p548. The
decrease was well within the range of normal variation - 26% of the
time we would expect to see a change as large.  The training *may*
have caused the decrease in rape reports, but this cannot be
distinguished from chance variation.  (By the way, the rate decreased
100% in 1963, which strikes me as a number larger than 88%.)

> In Kansas city, retailers were trained and a rising robbery rate leveled
> off while continuing to rise in the rest of the state and country.

Again, interrupted time series analysis shows that the change was not
statistically significant (p=.24).  The training may have caused the
change, but so could chance.

> In Detroit, grocery robberies dropped after grocers were trained.

> In Highland Park, retail robberies dropped after merchants were trained.

These are anecdotal.  No actual crime figures have been presented.

> In New York, subway robberies were down 43% the week after the Goetz
> incident. (2)

More data is needed here to evaluate the significance of this.  In any
case, there was a greatly increased police presence during this time.

> Coincidence every time?

Crime goes up and down.  If cases where it went down following
defensive training are collected, it is not suprising that a pattern
emerges.

Tim
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: communists + anarchists in the NRA
Date: 7 Jan 1993 18:38:32 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <viking.726308417@vincent1.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
> >aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum) writes:

> >Is this a joke?
> >Do you have a name, or are you just another cowardly crackpot?

This "forum" posts all the time over on alt.revolution.

> 	Finger provides nothing from my site.  Anybody else have any
> information?  In any event, I noticed something interesting in his
> posts.  Governments murdered people, guerilla's "executed" people.

Yeah, it's the same thing over there.  Some of the most BORING militant
socialist propaganda ever written.  Their flooding the newsgroup was the
main reason I stopped reviewing it.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The NRA has an image problem with gays
Date: 11 Jan 1993 17:54:30 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan8.172059.20253@mic.ucla.edu>, mdeering@agsm.ucla.edu (Michael Deering) writes:
> In article <1il3orINN480@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:

>>  [various drivel]

> You obviously don't know how the US is supposed to work...
> Again, thanks for the display of courage in your anonymous posting.

Despite the posting originating in Australia, do not assume the poster is 
an Ozzie.  This is an "anonymous posting service" accessible from anywhere
on the network.  I don't even know that one exists in the US (the other I 
know of is in Finland) so it's possible that anonymous tripe will ALWAYS
carry an overseas postmark.
-- 

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