HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: BATF failures (Was: 20/20 to crucify FFL holders)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Dec14.121100.24936@watson.ibm.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:29:41 GMT

<In article <1992Dec14.121100.24936@watson.ibm.com> mjp@austin.ibm.com  (Michael J. Phelps) writes:

<   My wife and i watched the 20/20 show.. it seems that the claims made were:

<a. the NCIC database is not well maintained.  
 
	Interesting, this is the same database which the Brady
	Bill is to use for background checks....
	one must wonder if the problem is in NCIC or in the
	BATF-NCIC interface; bureaucratic infighting isn't
	a new thing between the Treasury and Justice Departments.
	
<b. the BATF is not doing thorough background checks - even given 1.5 months
<   to perform them
 
	And yet Sarah Brady assures us that the local police can
	do a good background check in 7 days....with fewer resources
	than BATF.


<c. the BATF is not using its current powers to examine the FFL's books, nor
<   tracing back from recovered firearms to the FFL who sold them.

	But BATF has more than enough time and resources to carry
	out "forward traces" in Ohio, Florida and who knows where
	else?

<    our suggestions?

<   a. fix the NCIC database.  The ramifications of this extend well beyond the
<   issuance of FFLs.

	Yup. For one thing, it's the "mother of all background
	checks".

<    b and c: BATF already has plenty of power to enforce the law; its simply
<  failing to do so!  Adding yet another law (that will not be enforced) is not
<  going to cure anything.

	BATF agents have shown that they would rather bust "Joe
	Average" (or John Lawmaster....) than go after the big
	time gun-runners. The proliferation of FFL holders in the
	1980's had one interestng side effect; it created a bigger
	set of people for BATF to check on as a routine matter.

	During the last Democratic Presidential administration,
	BATF apparently had a goal of reducing the number of FFL's
	in the country by some significant percentage and used
	harrassment as a means to that end. 

	This dog-and-pony show of 20/20 is just an opening shot;
	expect more exposes' on the evils of gun shows, for example,
	in the coming months...anything to make it more difficult
	to legally buy a firearm.

< IOHO the show failed to stress that the failure is at the BATF.

	Of course it did; since the obvious goal of the show
	is to convince viewers that BATF needs *more* power,
	it wouldn't do to point out the misuse of that agencies
	*existing* power.

<We have our letter written; now we just need an address for 20/20 - anyone have
<one?
 
	Yes, please post this address, someone.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: New Libertarian Gun Control Book
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:23:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.091446.20391@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.173115.295@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>>
>>I don't understand why you call this book libertarian.  Kopel closes the
>>book with the comment that gun controls should be left up to the states
>>and not the federal government.  Huh ?  That's pretty unlibertarian IMO.
>>A libertarian would say, there should be no gun control laws federal,
>>state or local.  He says other countries laws are okay for those countries.
>>Excuse me ?  If the RKBA is really valid it should be valid elsewhere,
>>not just the USA.
>
>While I haven't finished it yet, I can see it being moderately libertarian.
>It's theoretically possible to have some sort of gun policy which could
>be constitutional;

I don't mean to be glib but what does the US constitution have to do with
libertarianism ?  Granted there is some intersection in the US constitution
and one that would govern a libertarian society but the US constitution is
very non-libertarian.

>certainly you don't think that Israel's armory-libraries infringe upon
>the RKBA!

That's an interesting question.  On the one hand, you could argue
that having to pay the taxes to support the government armory reduces
your ability to arm yourself with weapons of your own choosing, so that
could be interpreted as an infringement.

On the other hand if you believe, as I do, the government should be
responsible [whatever that means] for the national defense it is
going to have to collect money somehow to pay for it, and it is certainly
arguable that the government should provide training and equipment on
demand to citizens if the situation, as in Israel, supports it.

Another problem with the armory-libraries is that only the "right people"
are allowed to sign out weapons.  I bet you won't see many Palestinians
(sp?) in there.

>And if some policy meets takings clause constraints, then BINGO!

Okay, the policy should be "leave the people alone" in every way shape
and form.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: Interstate Gun Sales By Individuals (Was: "out of state" sales?)
Organization: "Well, a head on top, an arm on each side, two legs...."
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:51:04 GMT

In <1992Dec10.134613.13433@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> bobd@marune.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:

>Incidently, while we're on this one, what constitutes adequate
>proof of residency for a handgun sale between individuals (non FFL
>holders)? Is asking sufficient? Is viewing a drivers license enough? 
>Who is the onus on? The buyer or the seller? If the seller asks if the buyer
>is a resident, and the buyer lies, is the fault with the
>seller (who was acting in good faith apparently) or the
>seller?
[cutting a lot of good questions...]

I believe this is a situation where the "reasonable man" doctrine would
apply.  I would think that a court would think that a reasonable man would
reasonably expect that a person would be carrying a driver's licence, and
that it is reasonable to at least look at such a thing (if only for your
own protection) when selling a firearm.  Thus the sign, or just asking,
would not be considered sufficient by a "reasonable man", but seeing
a driver's licence would.  (Not that the courts have been paragons of
reason in the last few years, and the second derivative is waay too high
for my liking....)

-- 
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: jaf@a2.cim.cdc.com (James Foster x2197)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: For gun control? No not really.
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:54:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.205106.9329@u.washington.edu>, larryd@stein.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto) writes:
|> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
|> 
|> [...]
|> 
|> >He got 9 clips off, 10 rounds per clip, in under an hour.
|> >The weapon was not modified by Wayne so it was semi-automatic.
|> >Killing two wounding four. He put the gun down and surrendered.
|> 
|> Please!  Clip != magazine.  I know it is picky but the correct name for
|> that little thing you fill with cartridges and insert into the 
|> weapon is a magazine.  Lets see now..  (10*9)/60 is approximately 40
|> seconds/round.  This is a sustainable rate of fire for a muzzle loader.
|> 
|> [...]
|> 


Now, now, let's not get too picky.  Though it is not really a "clip" in
the M1 Garand sense, the SKS is usually reloaded with "stripper clips".
Since it doesn't come with a detachable magazine, we can assume this
SKS had the integral 10 round magazine which, of course, you don't fill
with cartridges and insert ito the rifle.  So, while I don't think that
it's the _best_ wording, Sean's phrasing can be considered accurate.  When
I originally read it I did indeed picture someone thumbing in 10 rounds
from a stripper clip when reloading.

I agree, though.  The clip/magazine substitution happens all the time.  I'm
not sure why I sometimes still say clip when I _know_ it's a magazine.

Jim
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 07:42:18 EST
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: HIAA and Reform
 <50388@shamash.cdc.com> <1992Dec13.125454.10756@genie.slhs.udel.edu>

In article <1992Dec13.125454.10756@genie.slhs.udel.edu>,
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) says:

>Here we have the great welfare-statist contradiction: no one can afford
>the free market, so we must have statism.  How statism will make us able
>to afford the same costs is left unexplainable.

We also have the free-marketeers blind faith that markets always cost less
than or equal to public solutions.

Contrary to Tony Cox's comments on how government interferes with the
private insurance market, I think the real source of problems in the
private insurance market come from difficulties that private markets
have in insurance when there is asymmetric information.  Private health
insurance markets result in private insurers risk rating, rather than
community rating.  To do risk rating in health insurance requires
extensive and expensive data and management systems because insurers
have to try and prevent adverse selection (attracting a sample of the
population who is sicker than average).  The normal operation of an
insurance market when there are such difficulties looks just like what we
have today---pre-existing condition clauses, incredible administrative
costs, costs far beyond the means of those most likely to need insurance.

Neither in theory nor practice do you have to resort to exogenous
government interference to explain the difficulties of a private health
insurance market.

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
From: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: HIAA and Reform
Date: 13 Dec 92 03:11:34 GMT
Reply-To: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes)

In article <1992Dec8.171033.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu>,
tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105) writes:

|> > I find it perfectly fair to pay today my share of whatever it takes to
|> > cover each American, regardless of my level of risk, so that I can rely
|> > on having medical care later, when I really need it, for the same price.
|> 
|>    This sounds good. So you have found a health care plan which
|>    meets you needs. Fine. How much are your premiums?

You misinterpreted me.  But I am not surprised.  Since you obviously
are only able to think about yourself and your narrowly defined self-
interest, you can't understand that someone would care about the fate
of the poor, the elderly, and the ill.  I have definitely not found a
plan that meets my long-term needs.  As is the case for most Americans.

My health care depends on my employment.  It has been steadily
deteriorating for the last ten years.  I pay higher premiums, more
and higher "copayments", and more and higher percentages of the cost
of certain services.  At the same time, I don't have much of a choice,
because I can only select from within a rather limited "network of
health providers".  And I don't want to talk about the process of
second opinions and pre-approvals that are a real bureacratic
nightmare.  

I have seen may people being laid off after 10, 20, 30 years
of service who find themselves and their families (after a limited
period under COBRA) without any health care coverage.  I know people
who lost dependent health care through divorce and now have to pay
over $500.00/month for very limited coverage when they can hardly
afford it.  I know of poor people who did not have health insurance
and were denied attention at various hospitals to be finally admitted
at a public hospital when it was too late.  The treatment at this
place was more expensive than it would have been if started earlier
and did not succeed to save their lives.  And you know what?  You,
Tony Cox, I, and our fellow taxpayers ended up paying MORE for this
useless treatment when we could have save these people for less money
if they only had had coverage to get medical attention as soon as 
they really needed it.

Fortunately, the American people are sick and tired of the health care
crisis and have elected a president who is committed to do his best to 
take care of it.  Under the Clinton administration, a health care plan 
that meets the needs of the American people will become a reality.  I 
will continue to do my best for this to happen sooner rather than later.

|> 
|> Tony Cox, Stanford, CA
-- 
+-----------------------------------+------------------------------+
|     Rene J. Valdes                |     rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com       |
+-----------------------------------+------------------------------+
From: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Objections to National Health Plan (Was: HIAA and Reform)
Date: 13 Dec 92 05:08:23 GMT
Reply-To: rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes)

In article <1992Dec8.171033.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu>, 
tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105) writes:
|>
|>    What makes you think that federal health insurance will work...?

The fact that it works rather well in Canada, in France, in Germany,
in Great Britain, in Sweden, etc.  In fact, all industrialized countries
except the USA and South Africa enjoy some form of national health
care system.  All of them spend a lower percentage of GNP than the
USA and have higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality.  In
all of these countries the population is much more satisfied and
less concerned with their health care system than Americans are.

As Perot put it, if these countries have a health care system that
works better than ours, that yields better results at lower cost,
why don't we just copy their system?  Sure, we need to adapt some
details to specific American conditions, but the gist of his thought
was that we should stop pretending that we can find our own better
way of doing everything when good solutions are staring us in the eye.

|>    By the way, were I involved in your national health plan, I
|>    would be extremely worried, when approaching old age, that the
|>    state didn't start to change the rules on me.

Heck!  Millions of Americans are extremely worried NOW with the
system we have and that's one of the reasons they voted for Bill
Clinton.  They want our government to start to change the rules
immediately so that the system is fair and reliable.  Many Americans 
are ashamed of the dismal performance of our health care mess.  We 
sure can do better.    

|> 
|> Tony Cox, Stanford, CA
-- 
+-----------------------------------+------------------------------+
|     Rene J. Valdes                |     rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com       |
+-----------------------------------+------------------------------+
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 11:53:23 EST
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: HIAA and Reform
 <1992Dec13.125157.10613@genie.slhs.udel.edu> <92349.073208DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Dec15.094035.28683@genie.slhs.udel.edu>

In article <1992Dec15.094035.28683@genie.slhs.udel.edu>,
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) says:
>
>In article <92349.073208DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>}>}>   o - Drug licensing, FDA, etc. etc.
>}>}
>}>}Less than 10 percent of national health expenditures
>}>
>}>Including opportunity costs?
>}
>}You have the complete data on all costs including opp. costs for all
>}aspects of health care?  If not, then you are just playing games.
>
>An honest request for information is now game-playing?  What have I done
>to earn such disrespect from you?

Sorry, Tim but no one, to my knowledge, has published a complete
estimate of the opportunity
costs of different health care systems.  When you asked if the figure I
gave included opportunity costs, I assumed that either you had some knowledge
of these data that has not been published or were yanking my chain.



>}>}Tony, I know the history of American health insurance.  Go back before
>}>}Medicare.  Go back before the IRS ruling on tax deduction.  When have
>}>}private health insurers ever shown themselves able to provide a product
>}>}which provides significant risk reduction to a large portion of
>}>}the population at reasonable cost?
>}>
>}>Definitions of "significant," "large," and "reasonable," please?  Their
>}>justifications?
>}
>}The thread is discussing whether or not private health insurance can
>}and does work.
>
>And if we leave "work" undefined, then opponents of private health insurance
>can merely answer any claims with implicit redefinition of their terms, as
>is done all too often on the net.  Establishing the criteria beforehand
>would prevent this regression.

Tony wants me to define "private market" and you want me to define "work".
Who am I, Mr. Webster? :)

Seriously, by "working", I would be happy to use a definition that relied
on consumer satisfaction.  Most studies that ask consumers if they are happy
with their health insurance coverage find widespread dissatisfaction.  That
will be my first shot.  Go ahead and clarify it if you want.

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: AIDS
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:06:52 GMT

    Seeking comments on UCal-Berkeley retrovirologist Peter Duesberg's claim
that the long-term hard drug "lifestyle" causes chronic tension, sleeplessness,
and malnutrition which causes AIDS. HIV benign, old disease and stable since
1985 at one million. AIDS is group of old diseases which has increased since
1985. HIV cannot be cause.
    Politically, Duesberg's NAS grant not renewed after he denied politically
correct HIV-AIDS link. Panel which denied renewal included opponent Gallo's
mistress(!) and maker of an HIV test. Gallo, say NAS stole research from
Montagnier, who discovered HIV. M now says HIV insufficient. Duesberg says no
scientist can cite paper which proves HIV causes AIDS.
    D says retrovirologists had much research w/o "popular" disease and AIDS
gives them prestige, grants. Also, homosexual activists wanted HIV-AIDS link to
deny self-destructive lifestyle. Homo. activists got prestige from political
egalitarianism, in which all groups are equal. Dishonest media claims all groups
at equal risk but risk group is homosexual druggies (esp. poppers for anal sex).
    Also, homosexuals "benefit" from Am. Psychiatric Assoc. claim that homo. is
psy. healthy. But APA lobbied, intimidated by homo. activists bet/late 60s and
early 70s to change science. Politically correct egalitarianism. APA not
scientific any longer. Like Church using political power to deny Galileo. Back
to Dark Ages for a vital human method of survival.
    Much corruption, many sources, irrational, deep doo-doo if science
corrupted. Like Somalia: clan first, reason last: good-bye reality.
    Tomatoes, catcalls, applause, booking agents...
================================================================================
	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
================================================================================
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASS.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca (Bill Garland)
Subject: Re: Palestinian collaborators
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:03:12 GMT

In article <1728700006@igc.apc.org>, cpr@igc.apc.org 
	(Center for Policy Research) writes:
> Here is center for Policy Research.
> Due to an error in posting, some topics destinated for
> talk.politics.mideast
> were posted to:   talk.politics.midea
> and the network posted them to the next conference: talk.politics.medicine
> without informing me.
> If someone would know how to delete the current topic, I would be happy.
> Soory for the inconvenience.
> Elias Davidsson

I knew I should have waited until at least Monday before jumping on
that. It had to be an error, but I must have needed to flame someone
for something. 
			Sorry. 
|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| If we had an index file, we could   | In fact, except for protecting |
| look it up in the index file under  | individual rights, no valid    |
| "Index File".                       | reason for government exists." |
|           -- Tegan in "Castrovalva" |      ... Dr. Frank Wallace     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Bill Garland = bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca |Commercial : Send me your money.|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Objections to National Health Plan (Was: HIAA and Reform)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 13:10:14 GMT

In article <50392@shamash.cdc.com> rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes) writes:
}In article <1992Dec8.171033.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu>, 
}tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105) writes:
}|>
}|>    What makes you think that federal health insurance will work...?
}
}The fact that it works rather well in Canada, in France, in Germany,
}in Great Britain, in Sweden, etc.  In fact, all industrialized countries
}except the USA and South Africa enjoy some form of national health
}care system.  All of them spend a lower percentage of GNP than the
}USA and have higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality.  In
}all of these countries the population is much more satisfied and
}less concerned with their health care system than Americans are.

See "Why We Spend Too Much on Health Care" for the problems with these
sorts of international comparisons.  More apples and oranges.

As for sound comparisons, the USA's standard of living, measured by
purchasing power, is still the highest in the world; we must be doing
something right.

}Heck!  Millions of Americans are extremely worried NOW with the
}system we have and that's one of the reasons they voted for Bill
}Clinton.

This assumes that we libertarians are mere craven apologists for the
status quo.  We aren't.  Agree with us or disagree, we propose truly
radical solutions to problems.  Unlike the "pay-or-play" micromanagement
tinkering likely to be loaded onto the US economy by Billary (which plan
has been critiqued by everyone from Reason magazine to the Utne reader).

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire