HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wayne john warf <wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 06:42:31 -0500

In article <1992Apr7.090454.10224@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <9204062113.AA03617@skinner.nprdc.navy.mil> malloy@NPRDC.NAVY.MIL (Sean Malloy) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr3.233526.8883@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au writes:
>>A house fire is going to burn for a long time; the fire crews show up
>>to prevent it from spreading to nearby houses as much as they do to
>>put it out. An assault or robbery happens quickly; it's usually over
>>by the time the police can arrive. At least in the US, the government
>>encourages citizens as a matter of common sense to purchase fire
>>extinguishers -- and more is better -- in order to defend themselves
>>and their property against fire before the fire department can arrive.
>>The same common sense applies to purchasing firearms in order to
>>defend yourself and your property against criminals before the police
>>can arrive, but the government is apparently scared of what might
>>happen if its citizens accepted the responsibility for their own
>>protection -- they might decide that they don't need a huge,
>>economy-strangling bureaucracy, and put lots of government officials
>>out of work.
>>
>OK. Then how come the police are against private gun ownership
>for self-defence. After all firefighters encourage people
>to have preventative equipment.
>
In frequent polls in the United States around 80-90% of police are very
much in favor of private gun ownership. Police officers often counsel
crime victims to arm themselves. Police CHIEFS, on the other hand,
are politically appointed and are against gun ownership to a great 
extent. They are not on the line and their views have to match the
politicians on whom their jobs depend.
-- 
 *  WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu**I speak for me,OK?**sic semper tyrannis    *
 *   NRA LIFE* *NRA Certified Instructor* *Penna. R&PA* *Ind. SR&PA   *
 * Department of Decision & Information Systems, Indiana University   *
 * Bloomington, IN 47405 USA* *Pennsylvania CCW Lic.*Indiana CCW Lic. *
From: larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Subject: Re: David Bowman considered as a sliding-block puzzle
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 17:47:27 GMT

jrk@information-systems.east-anglia.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) writes:

[....]

>It is this strange behaviour, of appearing to engage in constructive
>debate, while doing no more than holding to his conclusions by shifting
>his premises in response to each counter-argument, which persuades me that
>"David Bowman" has no real existence, but is a fictional creation.  By
>whom or for what reason I do not know.  A real person arguing for Bowman's
>purported beliefs would display greater creativity than merely thinking up
>a new set of premises every few days.  

You must have come into this debate late.  It's fairly certain that 
"David Bowman" is one of several pseudonyms that Kate Juliff (kcj@vut)
uses to post here.  She created a host of fictional characters to create
an illusion of support for her views.  Good ole' Dave is the only one 
still "alive."  You may note that "Dave" always responds with something
guaranteed to be flame bait.  Katie is amusing herself by making
stupid, antagonistic remarks just to see how much she can disrupt this
group.

[...]

--
Larry                                   |   Thunder makes all the noise;
                                        |   lightning gets the job done.
larryd@milton.washington.edu
I have my opinion; the university has its own.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (wayne john warf)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 8 Apr 92 07:25:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: bronze.1992Apr8.022607.7800
Organization: Indiana University

In article <1992Apr8.005718.15174@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.064257.8833@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (wayne john warf) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr7.090454.10224@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>>>
>>>OK. Then how come the police are against private gun ownership
>>>for self-defence. After all firefighters encourage people
>>>to have preventative equipment.
>>>
>>In frequent polls in the United States around 80-90% of police are very
>>much in favor of private gun ownership. Police officers often counsel
>>crime victims to arm themselves. Police CHIEFS, on the other hand,
>>are politically appointed and are against gun ownership to a great 
>>extent. They are not on the line and their views have to match the
>>politicians on whom their jobs depend.
>>-- 
>Well in Australia, the police recognise that private gun ownership
>does not help minimise crime, and that it has the opposite
>effect. That is why the Police Associations plus the Chief
 vvvvvvvvvvvvv           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^          ^^^^^
>Commissioners are right behind our gun laws, specifically
>the new ones which prohibit the ownership of guns for
>"self defence".>
>
OF COURSE THEY ARE! THAT'S WHAT I SAID!
*How dense*

-- 
 *  WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu**I speak for me,OK?**sic semper tyrannis    *
 *   NRA LIFE* *NRA Certified Instructor* *Penna. R&PA* *Ind. SR&PA   *
 * Department of Decision & Information Systems, Indiana University   *
 * Bloomington, IN 47405 USA* *Pennsylvania CCW Lic.*Indiana CCW Lic. *
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bomb control fails in Europe.
Date: 13 Apr 92 07:08:24 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <6jwj27q.feustel@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
>The interesting thing about the failure of bomb control is that bombs
>are *already* illegal world-wide - a much more severe condition than
>gun control proponents advocate when they suggest nation-wide gun
>prohibition. If world-wide prohibition of bombs doesn't work, how will
>nationwide prohibition of guns work?

From what you are saying, it follows that you believe that
if something doesn't work, it should be given up on. Do you
think that because we can't control some men raping women,
we should legalise rape?

-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: asbestos@nwu.edu (Michael A. Atkinson)
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot
Organization: Chaos
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 02:47:08 GMT


I know it's considered a perversion to follow up on your own article...

...But I was told that The Anti-Christ oops I mean Perot had made some
pro-RKBA statements.  Furthermore, I found one of the quotes I was told
about regarding RKBA stated pretty clearly that he opposes registration and
bans. 

I retract my statement that he is anti-RKBA.  My thanks to Andy Freeman for
pointing out my error.

I still think he's the Anti-Christ :-).
-- 
Michael A. Atkinson | "Why do bad things happen to good people?" I hear you 
asbestos@nwu.edu    |  cry, to which I say, "SHUT THE HELL UP!" - D.S. Cahr

      A Libertarian, an NRA member, and a firearms owner.
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Salmon (sic) Rushdie's insight into America
Date: 11 Apr 92 01:39:07 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <larryd.702886151@milton> larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto) writes:
>
>[...Background about Rushdie deleted...]
>
>>>>As for my compassion or lack thereof, I didn't say
>>>>that Salman Rushdie shouldn't have protection, only that he should provide
>>>>for it himself. (of course, he can't in England, as armed bodyguards are
>>>
>>>Why should he? 
>
>>Because he is a private citizen, and not connected with the British
>>government in any way, shape, or form. Therefore, despite his notoriety, I
>>do not believe that the government should be charged with his protection.
>>Let him hire his own gunsels (oh dear, it's England, so he can't. Tough.)
>>or use his government connections to get a CCP.
>>>>only available for government officials except by special assignment by the
>>>>government, as in his case. So the poor English taxpayers foot the bill for
>>>>protecting a millionaire. Piffle.) 
>>>
>>>Is he a millionaire???? I doubt it. In any case, millionaires
>>>have rights too.
>
>The amusing thing in the entire Rushdie episode is he spent a good deal
>of his time his prior to the Iranian threat expounding on how the
>British government was fascist.  I suspect 1) he hasn't endeared himself

I don't see anything amusing about this. Everyone has a right
to the services of their government regardless of whether they
voted for them.

>with his full-time bodyguards and 2) his perspective has changed.  Maybe
>not...self proclaimed intellectuals are often fairly stupid.

SR is not a self-proclaimed intellectual. You are
obviously anti-intellectual.
-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 14 Apr 92 04:22:37 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr13.215814.19107@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>As quoted from <1992Apr11.014355.18095@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):
>
>> >Bullshit, Suzy!  If you would listen to what's being said, instead of
>> >looking for things to justify your accusations of sexism, you would know
>> >that the use of lethal force is *always* considered an extreme measure,
>> >to be used only as an absolutely last resort.  Most, if not all, of the
>> 
>> Oh sure Roberta.... like in the case of the guy that said he
>> would kill for a penny; like in the case of the Terminator
>> saying OZ should be nuked; like in the case of the guy who said he
>> would attack the guy who tipped beer on me. There are none so blind...
>
>Like in the case of Susan who said that gay bashers should be pitied rather
>than resisted.  Funny how you two don't mind telling other people to die for
>YOUR sordid "morals".  There are none so blind as David and Susan... other 
>than their victims of course.
>
Susan said no such thing. Why do you have to make things up, instead
of arguing to the point? Could it be you have no point to make?

>> >gunowners here have had enough firearms training to know that.  This is
>> >talk.politics.guns, not talk.fight.alternatives.  By the time we reach
>> >the stage of discussing guns, we have dismissed the other alternatives
>> >as inadequate for the particular situation.  BTW, why do you make sexist
>> 
>> Yes.... always the non-violent ways are dismissed. You live
>> in a violent society. You know no better.
>
>Yes.... always non-violent ways are the ONLY ways put forward or recognized.
>You live in a sheep society.  You know no better.
>
Find out about a society before you critisize it. You
have no idea what you are talking about.

-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Rape and Statistics
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:10:19 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Apr16012132@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:54:58 GMT, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) said:
>> (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>>(Andy Freeman) said:
>>>> (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>>>>Knives are 14% "better" than unarmed and guns are 21% "better", so a gun
>>>>>is a 50% more effective weapon than a knife for a rapist.
>>>
>>>> That's a dishonest measure of "more effective".  (X-Y)/(Z-Y) depends
>>>> on not only X and Z, but on Y, yet Lambert insists that it tells us
>>>> only about the differences between X and Z.
>
>> If you want to compare the effectiveness of two alternatives, which is
>> what "more/less effective" means, the effectiveness of a third
>> alternative IS irrelevant.  Lambert would have us believe that the
>> relative speed of two computers on a given program and data set
>> depends on the speed of some other computer, which is silly.
>
>False analogy.

It isn't an analogy; it is what "x is more effective that y" means.

>> ... the medical data shows that handgun wounds are not significantly
>> more lethal than knive wounds, even though both are significantly
>> more deadly than "edged weapon" wounds ....
>
>You are invited to present your "medical" data.

Annals of Surgery, 153, pp 639 and 59, pp 650.

>> Only if said criminal's "crime" is to go about life peacefully,
>> waiting to be attacked by an armed victim.  Sure, we could make that a
>> crime, but ....
>>
>> For initiating an attack, a gun is no more effective than readily
>> available alternatives.  
>>
>> However, guns are more useful in response than other weapons, because
>> one can do something useful with one during the action-reaction gap.
>> In other words, one can "outdraw" a drawn gun/knife/club.  That's not
>> true of other weapons, let alone running away.
>
>Which is why it is useful for a criminal to carry to defend against an
>armed victim.

Not at all.  The criminal initiates the interaction.  In doing so, he
either uses his weapon or threatens with it.  Defense against the
victim is only possible if said victim survives the initial encounter
so we move on to the "crook wants some cooperation from the victim"
stage, where cooperation ranges from "do nothing", such as while the
crook takes a handbag, to some action, such as handing over the
handbag.  During that time either crook weapon use is either
self-initiated or in reaction to some action by the victim; only the
latter is at issue here.

Precisely how does a carrying a gun help the crook defend himself
against an action (draw and fire) that is completed BEFORE the
criminal can react?  Yes, the victim can draw and fire before the
crook can react enough to pull a trigger; that's what "you can
`outdraw' a drawn gun" means.  (A relevant experiment isn't hard to
set up.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 15:41:55 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1992Apr7.045843.7079@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <32211@darkstar.ucsc.edu> cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter) writes:
>
>>weaponry, preferably one with a greater range than arm's length, becomes
>>quite desirable, and I for one plan to invest in such weaponry as soon as I
>>move off campus (firearms are not allowed on campus because theoretically,
>>as we live in buildings which are patrolled at night by police officers and
>>have all entrances locked after 7 p.m., we don't need firearms for
>>protection. Just last quarter, there were five burglaries in my building
>>alone, and several assaults and one rape on-campus. I feel safe. :).
>>>-- 
>You feel safe but you have lost your freedom!

But David, the situation (s)he lives in is quite similar to that of
Australia, isn't it?  Police patrols and no firearms...  Maybe you are
finally catching on.



-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jca@crash.cts.com (John C. Archambeau)
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 05:03:38 GMT

In article <viking.703224192@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>What is a non-licensee?

I have no idea.
 
>	Just as a point of interest, I happen to live within 1000 feet of
>both a university campus and a junior high school.  Five years and five
>grand for posessing a gun, as in the ones locked in my house?  So, who
>wants to pick up my legal fees when I get busted?

I also live within 1000 feet of an elementary school.  But I do know
that in your own home or private business you can carry a loaded firearm
on your person; at least under CA law.  It's your place, do whatever you
want with respect to carry.  Off your business or property, it's another 
matter.
 
>>And by the way, George, "fuck you," and thanks for screwing us.

Maybe we ought to screw Bush for a change (see .sigsauer).
--

     // JCA

 /*
 ** ARPA    : jadpc!thewall!jca@nosc.mil | Perot: Because this gov't
 ** INTERNET: jca@thewall.cts.com        |        needs an enema! 
 **           jca@thewall.uucp           | 
 ** UUCP    : nosc!jadpc!thewall!jca     |      - joshm@pnet01.cts.com     
 */
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: wayne john warf <wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 10:21:31 -0500

In article <1992Apr9.231322.6369@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.110207.29427@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (wayne john warf) writes:
>
>>Neighorhood Watch, crime avoidance programs and martial arts: Lord,
>>they could teach us so much if we only listened! We don't we have
>>any of these things HERE, now do we?
>>
>>Of course, if you don't have the same problems, why do you keep
>>proposing the same solutions? Leave us to our own ignornant devices.
>
>Because (listen carefully), the reason we don't have the same
>problems is that we don't think violence is the way to go.

Well, gee whiz, David, I guess you told me. Gosh, so when is 
Australia abolishing its military and disbanding its police now
that everyone has embraced only nonviolence for every contingency?

-- 
 *  WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu**I speak for me,OK?**sic semper tyrannis    *
 *   NRA LIFE* *NRA Certified Instructor* *Penna. R&PA* *Ind. SR&PA   *
 * Department of Decision & Information Systems, Indiana University   *
 * Bloomington, IN 47405 USA* *Pennsylvania CCW Lic.*Indiana CCW Lic. *
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:05:54 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr07.154155.9148@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.045843.7079@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>>In article <32211@darkstar.ucsc.edu> cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter) writes:
>>
>>>weaponry, preferably one with a greater range than arm's length, becomes
>>>quite desirable, and I for one plan to invest in such weaponry as soon as I
>>>move off campus (firearms are not allowed on campus because theoretically,
>>>as we live in buildings which are patrolled at night by police officers and
>>>have all entrances locked after 7 p.m., we don't need firearms for
>>>protection. Just last quarter, there were five burglaries in my building
>>>alone, and several assaults and one rape on-campus. I feel safe. :).
>>>>-- 
>>You feel safe but you have lost your freedom!
>
>But David, the situation (s)he lives in is quite similar to that of
>Australia, isn't it?  Police patrols and no firearms...  Maybe you are
>finally catching on.

(S)he feels safe with the one reported rape and the 5 burglaries!
My sarcasm apparently alluded you.

>
>
>
>-- 
>Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
>Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
>Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
>(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)


-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Susan is still only thinking about herself
Date: 9 Apr 92 04:09:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.s0g22INNqdd
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tornado.berkeley.edu

In article <32345@darkstar.ucsc.edu> cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter) writes:
>>	Tell me, BTW, why didn't the state appeal against the sentence as
>>being too lenient?
>In the United States, it is _illegal_ for the prosecution to appeal a 
>sentence. Boneheaded law in the worst sense of the word.

It might make convicting criminals difficult, but I think it is a very 
good idea. Otherwise, one could be "sentenced" to ten years of court
appearances and legal fees, at the whim of the local district attorney...

						Frank Crary
						UC Berkeley
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Manhood, talking tough, posting in t.p.g., life, universe and
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:14:13 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <susan.702687861@coombs>, susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
> 	I think this newsgroup has been through all this before.  Its obvious
> that its the correct spelling of the word, after all we are wymmin not
> woMEN, now aren't we?

Hey, if I can't believe a dyslexic, who CAN I believe.


> 	Yep, lets solve all our social and marital problems with guns.  Don't
> you think it would be better if some of you beastly men pulled your fingers
> out and started to realise that wymmin are not another one of your possessions?
> 	It appears that the only solution you can produce to this sort of 
> problem is a gun.  Not surprising really.

Uh huh.  Given a man vs. a woman, which side is more likely to NEED the gun...?

Hey, if you want to be unarmed in such a confrontation, that's your right.
Be unarmed.



> >   ^^^^^^-what's wrong with "women"
> 
> 	Could it be the suffix?
> 
> We don't want the male (violent) solution to our problems...
> Or is it the case that was simply another male lie propagated by a man?
> |  *   |We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men, and if we were free... |



> Tell me, when you purchase your gun, do they hand
> out an extra ration of maturity? 

I suggest you purchase a gun; in your case it couldn't hurt.
-- 

cdt@pdp.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