HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vtessier@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Vince Tessier)
Subject: Re: US priorities changin in Somalia (big surprise... DUH!)
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 03:19:20 GMT

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

>I was watching the news last night when it was reported that a big cache of 
>arms had been confiscated by the Marines in Mogadishu.  I saw lots of 20mm
>and recoilless rifle ammo.  Then, to my big surprise, the reporter states
>that some US muckety-muck made the statement that US priorities are likely
>to be changing from those purely humanitarian, to now include disarmament of
>the people of Somalia, per UN orders.  Welcome NewWorldOrder!  Hail UN!

News report today sez disarmament will go forward, with "authorized"
armed persons (relief group & news guards) permitted their weapons
back after getting a permit (and computerized records, no doubt).

Seems US is giving in to BB Gali in that UN will not send in peacekeeping
troops until peacemakers have disarmed country and left.  At which time,
look for massacre of peacekeepers by those with arms now hidden.
-- 
Vince Tessier (vtessier@vela.acs.oakland.edu)
"It takes a compassionate man to covet a three-legged dog, and
 it takes a sorry son of a gun to name that dog Flat Tire."
	-- Gamble Rogers (Requiescat In Pace)
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:52:21 GMT

In article <9301092228.53@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!cs.utk.edu!gatech!udel!wupost!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uunet!psinntp!alliant!merk!rmkhome!rmk
>From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
>Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
>Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:28:39 GMT
>Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)
>Message-ID: <9301092228.53@rmkhome.UUCP>
>References: <pa142548.600.726243641@utkvm1.utk.edu> <9301051928.44@rmkhome.UUCP> <ARCHER.648.726424779@utkvm1.utk.edu>
>Lines: 13
>In article <ARCHER.648.726424779@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>In article <9301051928.44@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>There is slightly more to it than that.
>>
>>What?  I've been handling firearms for over two decades and I have yet to 
>>put a hole in anything that the barrel wasn't pointed at.
>
>I can say the same thing, myself, but I've seen other people who weren't
>quite so lucky.

Who managed to put a hole in something the barrel wasn't pointed at, and how 
did they do it? That's one for the books.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:26:11 GMT

In article <9301041935.22@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>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 a pretty good gamble, as those of us who have done the relevant
experiment know.  (The result is somewhat counter-intuitive, for
people who don't understand reaction time, so if you haven't done
it....)  Since the victim does have some knowledge of the exact
situation, s\he's the only one who has enough information to make the
call.

People who have guns for self-defense can choose to not use them.
People who don't have guns for self-defense can not choose to use
them.

-andy
--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:30:17 GMT

In article <9301091934.40@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>The point is that everything isn't black and white.  There are gray areas
>where it is not easy to justify taking control of gun permits away from 
>the state.

We've yet to see any good that comes from letting the state have any
control....

>If gun laws are changed to allow anyone who has the money to
>buy a gun, then a lot of other laws must also change.

Since anyone who has money can have a gun illegally, any laws that are
based on another assumption are fatally flawed now.

>If the laws change
>to a system where gun dealers get there info from a computer terminal,
>then privacy laws in this country will have to change.

Not at all.  Conviction info is public, as are the relevant parts of
the mental health history.  (No, there isn't an absolute bar to the
release of medical data.  In fact, there is a legal obligation to
disclose certain things.)

Oh, and it doesn't require a computer terminal either.  It can be done
with a phone, or even a stand-alone PC with CD-ROM.  Heck - a book
would do.

-andy
--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Carrying in San Francisco and in general
Organization: Western Washington University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:09:22 GMT

ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

>In article <1993Jan11.031609.25808@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>>	You just live in the wrong state, that's all.  Here in WA
>>CCW permits cost $23 for 4 years.   The only people who are not
>>eligible are those with a criminal record.  It takes about a month
>>for the permit, and the police are required to issure the permit
>>if they can't find a record of conviction in that time.

>On the other hand, hasn't WA banned Class III's entirely?  (Due, I think to 
>Canadian pressure.)

	That is true.   If not for that, it would be a great place, no
income tax either.
From:  (MJ)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Trying Again For R. Boudrie
Date: 4 Jan 93 12:15:50 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

Rob, I don't know if you responded to my first attempt to ask wou the
following questions because I was away during the holiday.  Here goes again
and Thanks in advance.

Weren't you a NYS resident and belong to FLPPC?  I've got 2 questions:
1)  I've read that with a NYS Carry Permit MA will grant some sort of
pistol permit.  Is this true?  What kind of permit is it? And where do I
apply?
2)  Were/Are you able to maintain/keep you NYS permit after moving?


MJ

[As if you didn't already know, my opinions are my own and not my
company's.]
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:25:09 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee

In article <9301051207.02@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
>Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!cs.utk.edu!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!linus!alliant!merk!rmkhome!rmk
>Do you have to go through a procedure to transfer gun ownership?

That differs dramatically by location.

Up in Dukakis-Kennedy country, you cannot even OWN a firearm without a 
permit.  Here in TN private transactions are completely unregulated.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: damiel@netcom.com (Paul Theodoropoulos)
Subject: Re: The real gamble of self-defense with a gun
X-Spook-Fodder: hero heroin tree shrub bush birth life death FBI CIA NSA
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 07:23:15 GMT

In <1it58vINNgbq@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:

>Speaking for myself, I declare that:

who is this "I"? i don't see a name attached to this post. I see only a 
person too spineless and insecure to identify him/herself. If you are
so uncertain of your words that you cannot support them with your name,
why should we give what you say *any* credence at all??

>I will always give another human being nearly limitless benefit of the
>doubt before pointing a gun at him or her.  If it means I or
>someone in my family might die needlessly, so be it.  At least I
>won't kill needlessly.

that's a perfectly legitimate stance. if you choose to be a pacifist (whoever
the hell you are), you are free to do so, and i respect that decision.

please respect my decision to defend myself and my fiance from the psychotic
individual who stalked my fiance, and broke into our apartment and trashed
the place. i will *not* lay down my life or allow my fiance to die by dialing
"911" and waiting ten minutes for the donut-brigade to sally 'round to our
apartment.

thank you.
-- 
paul theodoropoulos     damiel@netcom.com     (hooools@well.sf.ca.us)

"Those who will trade essential liberty for promise of security will have
 neither" - Benjamin Franklin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: The Right to be Defended (Was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:29:43 GMT

In article <9301101255.09@rmkhome.UUCP>
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>In article <16B5228C0.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Val) writes:
>>In article <9301091934.40@rmkhome.UUCP>
>>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>In article <C0Fz6n.CLB@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu Amar Caves) writes:
>>>>In article <9301052017.35@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) wrts:
>>>The point is that everything isn't black and white.  There are gray areas
>>>where it is not easy to justify taking control of gun permits away from
>>>the state.
>>
>>       Taking?
>>
>>>If gun laws are changed to allow anyone who has the money to
>>>buy a gun, then a lot of other laws must also change.
>>
>>       I hate to burst your bubble, but there are states in this Union
>>which allow just that.
>
>Which states allow purchase of a handgun without _any_ paperwork changing
>hands, or the identity of the purchaser being noted?

       Federal law requires at least one form when purchasing a gun from
a licensed dealer.  In Tennessee, guns can be transferred between private
citizens with zero paperwork.  However, in theory that form doesn't
leave the premises and can only be checked in regards to a specific
crime. (ie You can't create a database of gun owners with it.)

>>>If the laws change
>>>to a system where gun dealers get there info from a computer terminal,
>>>then privacy laws in this country will have to change.
>>
>>       Excuse me, but if "anyone who has the money" can buy a gun,
>>you've pretty much ruled out background checks.
>
>Except, I have yet to see anyone say that they live in a state where
>anyone who has the money can buy a hand gun.

        If a state doesn't have a waiting period or a background check,
they qualify.  Unless you're changing your qualifications.  (Which
just did changing "gun" to "hand gun.")  If they don't check you out,
and plenty of states don't, then whether they write down a name on a
federal form doesn't change whether you can walk out of the store with
the gun.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 11 Jan 1993 18:27:24 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301091923.58@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

> >        Gun ownership in East Tennessee is quite high.  Very high in many 
> >places.
> >
> >        It is illegal, according to state law, for a civilian to carry a 
> >firearm either open or concealed.  (It's a misdemeanor.)  
> >
> >        People do it anyway.
> >
> >        Clear enough? 
> 
> Ah, but if you are carrying an illegal weapon, then you are a criminal.

Nope, sorry.  It's a civil, not a criminal, infraction -- like a
traffic ticket.

> And if you kill someone with an illegal weapon, self defense or not,
> then you are a murderer.

Nope, you've got that one wrong, too.
-- 

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: dstine@cisco.com (David Stine)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The Society for the Preservation of Human Life
Date: 11 Jan 1993 08:40:59 GMT
Organization: 9th Flying Pig Combat Squadron
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: glare.cisco.com

In article <1993Jan10.024315.13656@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>I think this anon crank is just the same Susan/Brian she-male 
>liar that was posting from .au using several names last year.

The stuff is coming from one of the new 'anon' posting services that have been
springing up on the net, advertised in the 'alt' groups, esp. that alt.sex.*
hierarchy. There are other anon posting services which are based in Finland,
the US and Canada.

Basically, the way it works (from the instructions) is that you register with
the site, they assign you an ID; when you want to post/mail something
anonymously, you send it from your site to the anon-posting site, which then
forwards it to where you wish to post it, sans your fingerprints.

dsa


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Oh No!  NSW homicides again
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:49:27 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.93Jan5012124@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>,
lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:

> >>>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:59:39 GMT, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) said:
> > Absolutely correct, Tim.  I'm really surprised that it took an "expert
> > in statistics" such as yourself **2 MONTHS** to figure this out.  The
> > SQRT(N) argument is valid for *unnormalized* data...  Yes, I knew it
> > was incorrect at the time I posted it; I posted it as an "exercise for
> > the student".  You didn't fare very well... 
> 
> And at the time I pointed that your numbers were wrong.  And when you
> claimed that the homicide rate was Poisson I pointed out that was
> wrong too.  What's this two months nonsense?

Two months comes from that fact that I posted this "idea" back before
the end of October and your response (with much prodding) came on:
<LAMBERT.92Dec18025613@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> = December 18th.
Very nearly 2 months, Tim...

> The rest of Charles' posting is another one of his incorrect
> "exercises for the student".  If anyone had trouble figuring out was
> wrong with it, I suggest looking in an elementary statistics book.

The rest of my post is a refutation of Tim's proposed model, which he
apparently is unwilling to defend.  Yes, I urge anyone who does not
understand Tim's "model", or my comments regarding it to refer to
a elementary statistics book.  Yes!! Really!! Please look it up!

When examining Tim's claims, I want everyone to ask themselves (since
most people here are, or will be, in the professional world):  "If I
published a conclusion based on Tim's statistics, would it be accepted
to any professional journal?"

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"...when all government... in little as in the great thing, shall be
drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
separated."  Thomas Jefferson, 1821
From: post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 04:31:48 GMT
Subject: Re: Fight the bastards (was Re: Dressed for Rape)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

Rick Kelly answers some queries about gun control he believes to be
harmless:
 >>What criteria would you use?

 >Whether the applicant enjoys a healthy social relationship with his
 >family, community, and society.

Could you be more specic?  Each person has a different idea about what is
healthy.  Would you recommend a Federal standard, sat, in the form of a
check list.  This is an important question to answer because there are many
different opinions on what is healthy.

Would you look for specific types of offences or convictions?

 >>How would you obtain the data you need to make a decision?  

 >FBI report
 >State police and court report
 >verifiable references of friends and/or neighbors

Regarding the first two, what kind of information would the reports contain
that would allow someone to apply their criteria.  Did you have some
standard, existing report in mind ( For example, an NCIC report? ).

Regarding the third source, who would do the verifying?

 >>What training or qualifications do you need to make a decision?  

 >The ability to understand police and court records, and the ability
 >to understand basic psychology.

The reason I ask is that it appears that psychiatrists and parole officers
seem to have a remarkably poor record on these sorts of judgements.  It may
be more difficult than it appears, to do a good job.

 >>If you make the wrong decision, what would your responsibility be?

 >None, under current laws.

Since we are talking about hypothetical laws, would you propose a legal
responsibility, one that would have penalties if responsibility is abused?

David Post  davep@hpfcpp.fc.hp.com  hplabs!hpfcla!post
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Oh No!  NSW homicides again
Organization: none
	<LAMBERT.93Jan5012124@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1993Jan4.184927.1109@mtu.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 12:57:02 GMT

>>>>> On Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:49:27 GMT, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) said:
> (Tim Lambert) writes:
>> (Charles Scripter) said:
>> > Absolutely correct, Tim.  I'm really surprised that it took an "expert
>> > in statistics" such as yourself **2 MONTHS** to figure this out.  The
>> > SQRT(N) argument is valid for *unnormalized* data...  Yes, I knew it
>> > was incorrect at the time I posted it; I posted it as an "exercise for
>> > the student".  You didn't fare very well... 

>> And at the time I pointed that your numbers were wrong.  And when you
>> claimed that the homicide rate was Poisson I pointed out that was
>> wrong too.  What's this two months nonsense?

> Two months comes from that fact that I posted this "idea" back before
> the end of October and your response (with much prodding) came on:
> <LAMBERT.92Dec18025613@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> = December 18th.
> Very nearly 2 months, Tim...

The two month delay occured between your posting of incorrect numbers
for the deviations, and between your incorrect argument that homicide
rates were Poisson distributed.  Your "I got it wrong on purpose"
claim did follow quite quickly, though.

>> The rest of Charles' posting is another one of his incorrect
>> "exercises for the student".  If anyone had trouble figuring out was
>> wrong with it, I suggest looking in an elementary statistics book.

> The rest of my post is a refutation of Tim's proposed model, which he
> apparently is unwilling to defend.

Since your "refutation" is as obviously wrong as your "homicide rates
are Poisson" argument, I naturally assumed that it was another one of
your deliberately incorrect statements.  I don't really see any need
to defend the model against such attacks.

>   Yes, I urge anyone who does not
> understand Tim's "model", or my comments regarding it to refer to
> a elementary statistics book.  Yes!! Really!! Please look it up!

I suggest looking in the index under "t-test" to find a relevant
chapter. 

> When examining Tim's claims, I want everyone to ask themselves (since
> most people here are, or will be, in the professional world):  "If I
> published a conclusion based on Tim's statistics, would it be accepted
> to any professional journal?"

Gee, that's not too tough.  Have you seen what gets published? :-)

Another question that people might ask themselves is could Charles
pass an exam in Statistics 101?

Statistics 101 - Exam

Q1 Define "degree of freedom".

Q2 Test if the means of the two sets of numbers below are
significantly different:

1910-1920 rates (before) 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.1 1.9 1.4 2.7 2.7
1921-1930 rates (after)  1.8 1.6 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.6 1.6 1.9 1.7 1.7

Q3 Compute 95% confidence intervals for the means for each set above.

Q4 A model has two parameters.  How many parameters does it have?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 6 Jan 1993 04:52:15 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301042000.28@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

> >Don't ask me.  Ask your newspaper.  And demand an answer.  And turn on
> >your bullshit alarm first.  Then come back and tell us.

> The Framingham edition of the Middlesex News reports extensively on
> the comings and goings of the police.

Not the Ludlow police.
-- 

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
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:47:47 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <ARCHER.660.726427991@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <9301061250.46@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>God forbid we should do something about "releasing convicted murderers and
>>>armed robbers on a whim" instead of screwing down on everybody ELSE'S guns.
>>
>>Or perhaps we should let the police shoot more criminals.
>>
>I think that allowing potential victims the means of self-defense will be 
>sufficient, without granting yet more power to the state.

Actually, since the 1950's, the courts have been taking power away from
the police.  Maybe the police aren't comfortable with civilians having
guns, because even the police aren't supposed to use them anymore.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns