HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun control laws proposed in Colorado
From: ehorne@zeus.calpoly.edu (Eric T Horne)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:38:45 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

In article <22271@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
>
>
>There were some recent tragedies here in Colorado.  In separate incidents,
>two teenagers and a state trooper were shot and killed.

Heard about this one... very sad. very stupid. very meaningless...

>
>As a result, State Senator Regis Groff and a few others are pushing for
>state wide gun control laws -- specifically a waiting period on handguns
>and a ban on so-called "assault weapons".  Governor Roy Romer said, "I
>feel we need something like the Brady Bill in WHATEVER FORM IT TAKES"
>[emphasis mine -- dlo].

Unfortunatly, there are priorities that a politican follows. The first
is "GET ELECTED". The second "GET RE-ELECTED". This guy wants to get
re-elected, and he is going to try to do it by playing on the fears of
his constituents (sp?). Currently, I would imagine that most people
would favor some kinda (any kind of) gun control in the (false) hopes
that it will prevent something like from happening. So whats the 
best way to get around this? Write to him and tell him that you and the
people you know (only if it's true, mind you ;-) feel that they suffered
a great loss at hearing the news about the officer, but you also feel 
that imposing gun control would not do anything. Or something like that.
If you can give him the idea that the people do not fear guns and do
not see them as the problem, then he most likely will not push the
legistlation (see priority number 2). 

>
>When these people were killed, I felt a combination of outrage and a
>sinking feeling in my gut.  But similar laws have done nothing to reduce
>such crime anywhere else; why should anybody believe they will do so
>here?  Dammit, Colorado already has one of the lowest crime rates in the
>country, and they want to do something that will not only be ineffective
>in lowering it further, but will likely make things worse.

See above.. Priorities..

>
>I'd like to think that Groff, Romer, et.al. are just ignorant of the
>effects of such laws rather than using these incidents for their own
>aggrandizement.  In either case, it is obvious that people are being
>swept up in the emotion of all this, but I am hoping cooler heads will
>prevail.

Yep, that is exactly what he hopes for. It is bad news.
>
><sigh> I wanted to spend some money on some ski stuff, but I guess I'll
>have send it to the NRA instead.

Only $20 for a year, thats a pair of ski gloves. You didn't need those
ski gloves anyway ;-)

>--
>David Olson   dlo@druwa.ATT.COM
>"Keep in mind that I am speaking from Cambridge Massachusetts, which is
> about as far out as you can get."  Robert Reich, economic advisor to
> Bill Clinton, on "This Week with David Brinkley" 11/08/92

-Eric

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Was Jesus a carnivore?
Date: 10 Nov 1992 15:51:55 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BxHAIu.Gu1@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> So you say.  Let's not forget that medieval and renaissance clerics 
>rl> also proved that witch-killing was also mandated by the christian
>rl> faith.   Or maybe not.

>From article <1dmujcINNaod@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> Yeah, maybe not.  You can bring up all the nasty deeds throughout 
>ml> time that you care to Russell but, I *dare* you to prove that 
>ml> what they *claimed* was mandated by the Christian faith actually 
>ml> was.  If isn't in the Bible you can claim whatever you like but, 
>ml> that don't make it so.  

>      "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".  Exodus 22:18

>ml> Then, in Matthew, chapter 26 Jesus is quoted when instructing 
>ml> the disciples to prepare the passover and that he and they would 
>ml> eat the passover (lamb)

>rl> Does it really say this?

>ml> Of course it does.  What, do you think I'd lie?  Don't worry 
>ml> Russell, I can't really gloat too much since as I said I really 
>ml> don't consider it to be of great importance since hunting and 
>ml> meat eating is *clearly* moral throughout the Bible.  

>So is witch killing.


Russell you never fail to display your ignorance of the Christian faith.
How many times have you been informed that your now famous quote is from
the Old Testament and while a good reference for history, it came before
the time of Christ and the laws of the New Testament.  I don't expect you
to accept this though seeing as how it isn't convenient to your argument.

Just tell me one thing.  Wasn't it you who asked the question if Jesus 
had eaten meat in the Bible?  If so, why did you ask the question if you
were only going to ignore or criticize the answer?  So there it is, Jesus
ate meat in the Bible.  Do you have anything to say since you were so 
curious as to whether he had or not?


>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


Mike Linan
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Using lab animals for flea-breeding
Date: 7 Nov 1992 00:01:35 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

Here's another disgusting thing the animal researchers
are doing.

It turns out that there is a great demand for fleas
for use in research.  There isn't any really good way of
breeding fleas other than on a host.

So what these guys do is raise them on, typically, cats.
These host cats have no other function than to sit in some 
cage and live out their normal lifespan while being miserably
flea-ridden.

What I want to know is, just why do these researchers
need fleas in the first place?  Would the world come to
any great harm if research fleas were unavailable?

If there's any flea-researchers out there on the net, I'd like
to hear why you think you should be allowed to exist.


Steve
From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 16:22:58 GMT

In <BxA2ts.253@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence backpedals desperately:

>From article <1992Nov5.204603.1998@pixel.kodak.com>:
>
>ry> Please, in a series of numbered statements, present your position 
>ry> regarding the ethics of non-human food choices and the process by 
>ry> which you implement those ethics in making those dietary choices.
>
>I don't understand your question, Rich.   In particular, I'm baffled
>by your demand for a "series of numbered statements".

[...]

	We'll give you the benefit of the doubt...although, for the life of
	me, I can't think of a good reason why we should at this point.

	A series of numbered statements (PLEASE NOTE - the words used here
	are for illustrative purposes only; actual word choice is at the
	discretion of Russell):

	   1. I [Russell Lawrence] believe that killing animals for food
		is morally [acceptable/not acceptable/right/wrong] for the 
		following reasons:

		a. [......]

		b. [......]

		.
		.
		.

		n. [......]

	   2. I [Russell Lawrence] believe that .......

	   .
	   .
	   .

	   X. I [Russell Lawrence] implement these beliefs in the following
		manner:

		a. [......]

		b. [......]

		.
		.
		.

		n. [......]

	Is this sufficiently clear, or do you need a more detailed
	explanation of "a series of numbered statements," Russell?

	Actually, ANY format will do, as long as your beliefs in this area
	are clearly and concisely stated, and the process by which you apply
	these beliefs to your everyday life is described step-by-step so
	that those of us who may not understand can follow it and learn.

	The request has been reproduced for your convenience, and thank you
	in advance for your answer(s).


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Subject: Re: Prop 200 in Arizona??
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 14:24:25 GMT

rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:

>Does anyone know the results on Proposition 200 in Arizona?  It was
>billed as an anti-leghold trap measure but would have banned all
>hunting, fishing, and trapping on state lands (83% of the state).

Proposition 200, the famous Anti-Hunting/Fishing/Trapping measure, went down
in flames, with a final tally of 62% against, 38% for.  It appears that at
least one state in this country has some people with sense living in it.

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject:  Re: Anti-hunters issue death threats in Ohio
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:49:38 GMT

Some reactions to jhoskinss@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)

>The people who are set against the deer kill offer some of the following
>arguments:

>1)  The deer should be relocated.  A man from a rural county offered his
>    acreage for the deer to be removed to.  Apparently there are problems
>    with expense and about 50% deer mortality during relocation.

I'd suggest that the people opposed to the hunt get a fund together for the
relocation of the deer and then let them give it a try until their money runs
out.  And I'd like to see plenty of attention given to any attendent deaths
in the name of such "mercy".  Of course, the fellow who volunteered to take
the deer must be required to erect a ten foot high deer fence, to ensure that
his new guests don't overrun his farmer neighbors. After the whole grand
experiment has been completed, let everybody take a look at the cost versus
the result.  And if the ROI shows that it's worth doing, let the ARs put
their money to good use for a change.  I don't need to hunt in parks.


>2)  All the bucks should be removed from the park--no more should be allowed
>    to enter.

Fine - let the people opposed to the hunt finance a ten foot deer fence all 
around the park, and pay for guards to watch the gates, letting in only does
and humans.  That would work. (Or let me stand watch with my slug gun - I'll 
stop those ol' bucks from sneaking back into that Odocoileus Virginianis'
version of a harem!)


>3)  The wildlife officials should recognize that the Sharon Woods Park has
>    become a big petting zoo.  Feed the deer, continue birth control
>    attempts on the females, and get the population in check that way.

Aw, that's cute.  Turn 'em into pets.  While we're at it, let's teach the
does that "no means no!", explain that the rut is sexual harrassment,
and set up abortion clinics for those that don't listen.


>4)  The killing of any non-human animal species by a human is ethically
>    and absolutely wrong.

Excuse me, but this is where I came in before, and it was boring the first 
time...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.politics.guns
From: watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt)
Subject: Re: Animal Rights and Gun Control
Originator: swatt@mickey.CS.Yale.Edu
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:07:19 GMT


In article <1992Nov12.031637.22197@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> >>saying that 'Take away guns and only outlaws will have guns' is 
|> >>nonsense.  Every time you catch someone with a weapon, take it
|> >>away and destroy it.  Viola. One less killing machine.
|> 
|> In the same way the National Firearms Act of 1934 eliminated
|> all criminally owned machine guns, submachine guns and assualt
|> rifles? Criminals seem to still have fairly good access to such
|> weapon. The primary sources, according to the LAPD, are smuggling
|> into the country, illegal manufacture (which is much easier than
|> you might think) and theft from the police and military. These
|> are sufficient to make the National Firearms Act (from the
|> point of view of preventing criminal use of these weapons)
|> worthless. A ban on handguns would face the same problem
|> in addition to the over 65 million handguns currently in 
|> circulation. To remove 65 million guns from circulation in
|> the "short" time of 100 years would require 650,000 arrests
|> per year (If memory serves, that's making an arrest in _every_
|> gun related crime that occurs... I don't think the police 
|> do even half that well...)

It's even worse than that.  Suppose you do pass a national handgun
ban.  There will suddenly be *LOTS* illegally-possessed handguns.
If recent California and New Jersey "assault weapon" acts are any
indication, many current owners will refuse to dispose of or register
their handguns.

So what happens 10-15 years later, as some of these owners get older,
can't shoot their guns anyway, or die and leave their surviving spouses
with a pile of contraband worth several years in the slammer?

	"pssssst, I got a friend who would take that stuff off your
	 hands for good cash money, guaranteed no hassles ...."

Don't laugh.  A national handgun ban would likely *increase* the handguns
in criminal hands, since they would suddenly become a liability for
anyone but criminals.
-- 
  Alan S. Watt
  Yale University			Computing and Information Systems
  Box 2112 Yale Station			(203) 432-6602
  New Haven, CT  06520-2112		Watt-Alan@Yale.Edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:10:35 GMT

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

`From article <swood.721018223@vela>, by swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG):

`-- that Jane Fonda was a "traitor" in the fight against world communism
`-- that you disapprove of government support for health care
`-- that you consider anyone who voted for Bill Clinton to be a "loonie" 

don't ever let me hear you yell netiquette....

swood
-- 
  Nov. 08   Closing day of Duck/Waterfowl season (upper L.P. of Michigan)
  Nov. 11   Closing day of Michigan Quail hunting
  Nov. 12   Closing day of early Waterfowl season (lower L.P.)
 Currently  Rabbit, squirrel and bird season are still alive and well!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 05:36:43 GMT

Russell Larwence writes:
rl> If you have any evidence to support the claim that PETA, as an 
rl> organisation, is absolutely opposed to all animal research, 
rl> please post it.  If you have any evidence to support the claim 
rl> that the leadership of PETA is absolutely opposed to all animal 
rl> research, please post that as well.  

From article <1992Nov3.170733.1016@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
gp> Excerp from UNC Daily Tar Heel (Jan. 24, 1990) 
gp>    "We are opposed to ALL animal research." said Jon Tracy
gp>     spokesperson for the national organization People for the
gp>       Ethical Treatment of Animals. (Stress on All is mine.)
gp>       
gp> I also wish to stress the use of the word" we" in the above
gp> statements. This indicates to me that not only are these people
gp> speaking for themselvs but for some selected group of people.
gp> The NRA? No The Society for Neuroscience? No The G.O.P.?No.
gp> I wonder who? ...

Your quotations seemed convincing to me.  Be that as it may, I 
decided to contact PETA for confirmation.  I faxed a copy of 
your article to them yesterday afternoon, but haven't received a 
response from their public relations officer.  

I was immediately successful, however, in making contact with Joel 
Newman at PCRM who made the following statement:

    PCRM promotes alternatives to animal research and encourages
    higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in animal 
    research.  We also oppose unethical use of humans in medical
    research.

This reconfirms the prior statements made by Ted Robinson and Bob
Black, and negates the claim made previously by Martin Hulsey.

gp> I brought these points up before but I was out of town for the 
gp> last week.  Were 14,000 neuroscientntist got together to pledge 
gp> to be as inhumane as we possibly can.  (This is sarcasm) What we 
gp> did do was to discuss the many new advances we have made as a 
gp> result of animal researc and the implications for improving the 
gp> lives of thousands of afflicted patients.) 

I have three questions:

1) Do non-human animals have any personal worth that ought to be taken
   into consideration?  Or, are they merely "automata", as many 
   behaviorists still believe?
2) Would you be inclined to support any use of animals that satisfies
   some human need or desire, eg for fur, food, amusement, etc?
3) Among the many thousands of projects that your cohorts have proposed
   over the years, have you come across any that you would consider to be
   wasteful in terms of animal suffering?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Universal ethic and HUNTING
Date: 10 Nov 92 03:20:52 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

I still haven't seen any ethics in support of hunting. Let's try again:

 
Though some might question the precise wording, most people seem to be in 
basic agreement with the following ethic:

  The less unwanted pain I inflict, the better.

 When you shoot an animal, you inflict pain on it. The gunshot itself 
inflicts physiological pain, and any resultant death falls into the more 
general definition of pain (i.e. anything that impedes the individual's 
efforts to increase his/her happiness).  Given this, it would seem that 
either:

1. There is a second ethic that comes into play, overriding the one stated 
above
            or

2. Shooting animals is less ethical than not shooting animals.

Assuming you believe #1 to be the case, what is this ethic?  Can you 
formulate a crisp definition of it?

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: PCRM. Was Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 05:51:24 GMT


Robert Black writes:
bb> The examples go on and on.  I simply don't have confidence that a
bb> treatment will work on humans until it's been tried on humans.  This
bb> leads me personally to believe that a much higher percentage (than
bb> probably many others would say) of animal research could be safely
bb> dropped.

From article <1992Nov7.225630.23776@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
gp> I would also like to point out that all human studies of drugs 
gp> are done in animals first and then they are tried in humans.  
gp> Never has a drug been tested in animals and then dropped out on 
gp> the market without some human studies.  

Is this completely true? 

To the best of my knowledge, the concept of staged human trials 
wasn't instituted in the US until 1962 when the Harris-Kefauver 
Amendment to the Pure Food and Drug Act was passed in the 
immediate wake of the thalidomide debacle [not the only failure 
of animal models by any means, but certainly one of the most 
notorious.]   For several years thereafter, the folks at the FDA
were so doubtful about the reliability of "lower" animal studies 
that they campaigned for non-human primate studies as a replacement.

bb>     1.	My lack of confidence in the underlying logic and fundamental
bb> premise of the animal research philosophy, which claims that we can,
bb> in many cases, test on one species and then extrapolate the results
bb> directly to other species. 
bb> 
bb>     2.  Writings of those who have studied the history.  Men like
bb> Reines, Sharpe, Ruesch, Croce, Rollin, Ryder, Rowan and groups like
bb> PCRM, MRMC, CIVIS, DBAE (Doctors in Britain Against Animal Experiments),
bb> ILDAV (International League of Doctors Against Vivisection). 

gp> These aren't biased opinions are they?

I hope Bob Black will put together a reading list for all of us.  I'm
unfamiliar with the authors that he's cited with the exception of
Bernard Rollin, and the impression that I gathered from reading one of
Rollin's books was that he had arrived at his conclusions after 
studying the facts.  A biased person, on the other hand, may start out
with his conclusions... having no facts whatsoever.

Question:  Is it reasonable to suggest that a man is biased when we're
unfamiliar with the facts and arguments that lie at the foundation
of his opinions?   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: animals in research.
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:46:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.210634.755@halfab.ka.sub.org> me@halfab.ka.sub.org (Udo_Meyer) writes:
>
>I think that general public should be concerned about the harm to humans
>by medicine that has been tested with animals!
>
>Like in the one of the last cases about some medicine where many people died
>(*I am sorry but I do not remember the product name just now) because of the
>fact that the animal tests had shown the dangerous potential of the product
>but it was sold allover the world even though it was dangerous, for years!
>How can you trust people which do such things?
>What are their arguments worth?

i don't think your argument belongs here.  This sounds like a discussion on
the ethics of the particular company.  If the drug had proved harmful in
animals and was still sold for human treatment I believe it to be
unethical.  But, it supports the fact that animal research gave the
correct conclusion regarding the harzards of the drug, and supports my
argument for the use of animals in research.  We as scientist cannot be
held responsible for the unethical actions of others.  We can, however,
voice our
objections to such actions in the political arena (and many do).
If the drug had not proven to be dangerous in animals I doubt the the
results would be all that differerent.  The drug would have been tested on
directly humans also resulting in a number of deaths.
But, as I have said before and will say again(probable to the point of
nauseating some of you), the number of times animal research has given
correct data with regard to human applications vastly out numbers the
times that it hasn't.
"Trust",  "what their arguments are worth" ?  Are you suggesting Einstien
was untrustworthy or his arguments unvalid. He was involved in some
aspects of the developement of the atomic bomb.  Does it demonstrate that
he is untrustworthy because others choose to misuse his ideas?

>Animals died without any reason again. And many humans died also. :-(

More animals die for a reason than not.  And many humans are give an
opportunity to live.

ANIMAL RESEARCH SAVES LIVES!!    DOES ANYONE DISAGREE?

                                         Greg Poken  

					 The opinions expressed here are
					 my own.  That is they belong to
					 me etc....
P.S Next posting please include references.  I don't doubt you word. But,
I prefer to assess primary liturature myself. Thank you.




Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals