HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 00:05:19 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

It is truly an open question which group is up to more no-good:
cops or crooks.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
---
Given Civil Seizure, from the DEA's point of view, winning the War on
Drugs would be killing the Goose that lays golden eggs.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Time to Fight
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 06:58:11 GMT

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

>	If someone in a mask, or a police uniform for that matter, busts into 
>	my house, they will probably not leave the premises vertically.


	Is that because you don't think they can arrest you in your house,
or just that you think anybody busting into your house needs to be shot as
a matter of course?  Really, this seem too rigid a theory, especially given
that death is not reversable.

>	I will probably make their wives widows and their kids very unhappy and
>	I will not be glad about that at all, but I will NOT submit to such
>	treatment under any circumstances.

	Being a martyr is perhaps a noble occupation.  Good luck in your
new line of work.  I suggest that there are other means besides killing
that might be employed to prevent this treatment.

>  	I will shoot whomever I feel I
>	must and I will not miss.  

	You never miss, eh?  You're human, right?  Have you ever made a
mistake, or not achieved a particular goal?  In other words, have you
ever screwed up?  If not, I'll accept the above statement.  If you have,
I suggest you talk to a life insurance agent at your earliest convenience.
Your widow might quite possibly appreciate it.

>	If they cannot or will not do the job in
>	a correct manner, then let them die, one by one.  To hell with them
>	and their miserable, corrupt lives.

	My goodness, and I was seen as irrational!??!!?!  Will you extend
that judgement (do it in the correct manner or die) to your present job?

	I don't mean to flame you, but you've left nothing to allow the
situation to be defused here, and I find that somewhat alarming.  It's
quite like the landowner shooting any tresspasser, regardless of the
threat that tresspasser entails.  Too rigid, in other words.  I don't
expect a follow-up post from you on this, just that you examine how
much you mean what you've posted.  I've not made myself clear in the
past, so I'll grant that you may not have here, and I won't make
any judgements on this.  Still, you won't mind if I skip your
house while selling encylopedia's, would you?  I'd hate to be shot
for Britannica!  (insert 1/2 smiley)

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
From: simnet@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Mark R Poulson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Clinton and Suicides, injuries, and Vigilantees.
Summary: Study was just done.
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:14:05 GMT
Organization: Boeing Defense and Space Group, Seattle WA

In article <l8gnuiINN571@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:
> I'd would think that it would be a lot harder to commit suicide
> with a gun if there were no guns available in the home.  Some
> other method would have to suffice (and apparently does...)
> 
> I doubt that the suicide rate is much different between teens
> in gun-owning homes and those in non-gun-owning homes.
> 
> Has anyone studied this problem (and published on it)?

In this morning's Seattle Post Intellignecer (13 August), there was an article
relating to just this. A study, soon to be published in the JAMA, indicated
that gun owning households were 4 times more likely to have successful adult
suicides and 10 times more likely to have successful teen suicides. I have no
idea how valid the study is (I think it compared King County Washington to
some county in Tennessee for the demographics base). It is certainly
politically correct with the AMA's agenda though!

The newspaper article kept giving quotes which were inconsistent, but I think
what they tried to say was:

	1) Guns availability doesn't CAUSE suicidal tendencies.
	2) People who have suicidal thoughts can quickly grab a convenient
	  firearm and blow themselves away successfully.
	3) If a firearm is not readily available, then other less successful
	  methods will be tried. Eventually they get it right and succeed or
	  are treated for their "illness".
	
	Conclusion: Taking away all the guns will give your child a better
	chance of not committing suicide giving you more time to identify
	the problem and get it treated.

Certainly, elliminating guns will elliminate with gun suicides. However, I
don't think these guys looked at Japan where handgun availability is nearly
zero, long gun availability is low, and suicide is very very high (at least
for adults -- don't know about their teens) and firearms are rarely the chosen
method. I think the with gun method is very easy (although quite a mess to
clean up) and if that option goes away, Americans will get smarter and find
other more reliable suicide methods which will then be published in the
newspaper for everyone else to learn.

		Mark
From: reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:46:02 GMT
Organization: Real/Time Communications

In article <1992Aug19.071814.22809@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au> ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller) writes:
>I've been following this from a distance, and I'm a little confused.
>It seems as though the police internal inquiry (if any) has pre-empted
>any coronial inquest.  Surely in any such case the coroner would hold
>an inquest and would be able to direct that the police officer concerned
>stand trial or not.  There have been a number of cases recently in
>Australia where police have shot and killed suspects, and each killing
>has been fully investigated in a public inquest  -  in no case, BTW,
>have charges been laid against the police concerned.
>
>Geoff Miller  (ghm@adfa.oz.au)

Can you say "blue wall"?  Sure, I thought you could...
-- 
oooooo ooo o o  o            Keath Milligan            o  o  ooooo oooo oooooo
oooo oo ooo  o   o   Prometheus Light and Sound, Inc.   o   o  o ooooooooooooo
oooooooo o oo  o         Real/Time Communications        o    o o ooo oooooooo
oooooo oooo ooo  o  internet: reaper@wixer.cactus.org  o   o  o ooo oo ooooooo
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Suicides, injuries, and Vigilantees.
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:41:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.173826.12566@riacs.edu> gahooten@george.arc.nasa.gov (Greg Hooten -- IAS) writes:
>I sent a message to Clinton at the compuserve gateway, and got this 
>in reply.

Thanks for posting it.

>From: Clinton for President <75300.3115@CompuServe.COM>
>
>Thank you for your note re the gun issue.  There are several other points
>that need to be addresses as well.  I have not received any mail yet on
>the issue of a nation of laws vs a nation of vigalantees.

So?  Self-defense isn't a vigilantee action.  If the Clinton camp
doesn't know the difference....

>Nor has anyone addressed tha issue of teen suicides in homes with guns.
>Such suicides suceed far more often than in homes w/o guns.

I recommend chapter 6 of Kleck's "Point Blank" for a lucid discussion
of this non-issue.

>Also to be thought about is
>the gunshot as a leading cause of medical service costs to the nation.

Since it isn't the leading cause ....  (Consider autos, if you don't
want to think about real killers like cigarettes and red meat.)  If
it's the leading cause that Clinton is concerned about, we've just
learned that Clinton is more concerned with guns than medical service
costs....

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:19481 talk.politics.animals:7213
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Date: 18 Aug 1992 21:17:07 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu
Keywords: peta, 800 phone numbers

>> [ discussion on complaining to companies about animal abuse ]

>> Many companies do not mind having this sort of feedback.
>
>Really ?!?  Golly Beaver, I would'a never known.  Thanks!

Larry, I cannot determine if the above is intended as sarcastic.

Certainly in my experience, by making a telephone complaint you 
stand a chance of convincing at least one person -- the person 
answering the phone -- that a serious problem exists, even if you
don't sway corporate policy.  So there is advocacy value
to making such a phone call.

For example, a few years ago, AT&T had the poor judgement to give
away the pelts of dead animals as part of some misguided "promotion".  
When I called to point out how tasteless this is to a lot of
folks, the person I talked to seemed interested, said she hadn't 
thought of that aspect before then, and at least sounded thoughtful 
about it.  Of course, she could've just been well trained in
telephone technique, so it's hard to say.

But I haven't noticed AT&T giving away furs recently.  Probably
just coincidence.

>What the Gun Week article is pointing out is that people who
>know of 800 numbers being abused, not used, can report it to
>the FCC.

Fair enough.  However, I imagine a fraudulent report of this
sort is also illegal.  If an organization is mounting a
legit phone campaign, and an individual with differing views 
maliciously makes a phony complaint to the FCC, than said indivdual 
should be held accountable.  It seems that Gun Week is at least 
bordering on advocating this sort of irresponsible behaivor.  

(No surprise to me, I do not look to editors of "Gun Week" as
a source of wisdom on personal responsibility.)

>Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com

Steve


Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:19516 talk.politics.animals:7222
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Date: 19 Aug 1992 01:40:15 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu


vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:

| Steve Pope writes:
|
|> Part of what is going on here is that the false media image of
|> animal advocates (irrational, prone to illegal acts, etc.)
|> is being projected on to the situation.  If, for example, 
|> the Disabled Veterans or some such mounted a similar phone
|> campaign they would be viewed as within their rights.  But because
|> it's animal advocates, the brainwashed public thinks it must
|> be illegal.

| Steve, I've read this at least six times now, and I still think you
| are somehow serious about this deluded passage.  

Yes.

| Like most other hunters, I long for the day when the
| media shows you AR folk for exactly what you *are*, instead of
| painting you as a bunch of animal lovers and do-gooders.  

I do not describe myself as "AR".  Note that I use the term
"animal advocate" above.  Don't try to pin me with a rights-based
philosophy.  I ain't got one.

| You folk
| would rather see animals die of starvation or be torn limb-from-limb
| by predators while still alive than (God forbid) allow a hunter to
| shoot one and feed his or her family.  

Did I ever say this?

| You folk don't give a damn that
| by trying to stop hunting you are taking away the single largest
| source of money that is spent on environment restoration (an amount
| over *one billion* dollars per year from license fees, the 11% excise
| taxes on all our equipment, etc.).  

A specious argument.  The same amount of money could be spent on
the environment regardless of policies on hunting.  

| Imagine what would happen if the
| media told the American public that, rather than hug bunnies, you folk
| want to shut down Mickey D's and stop all animal experiments that
| could cure illnesses such as AIDS or cancer instead of beating the
| anti-hunter drums as part of their happy little agenda to disarm the
| American people (us mean-old-nasty-"assault-rifle"-toting-scum-of-
| the-Earth-Bambi-killers being a good start on their mission).  

Did I ever say *this* ???  As it happens, yes, I do want to 
shutdown animal testing facilities, moreso than I want to curtail
hunting.  Actually, I haven't formed a strong opinion on hunting.  
And yes, I'm in favor of gun control but for reasons that have 
nothing to do with animal advocacy.

| The
| media will never mention all the good that hunters do in controlling
| animal populations and helping the environment, since after all we are
| just a few more ornery old rebels that might poke our shootin' irons
| out the window and let fly with a volley if "King George's" troops
| ride into town.

I never thought of this allusion.  Nice!  I'll use it from
now on.

| John

Steve
From: paull@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Robert Paull)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:51:36 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Palo Alto,CA

alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
: The Seattle Times for August 8th has a front-page story entitled
: "SWAT Killing: No Charges  //  State finds no negligence despite
: split inquest jury".
: 
:  

 << deleted article about SAWT team killing innocent citizen on
    bad tip. >>

 This just confirms my observations that the 'gummint' can and does do
ANYTHING it damn well pleases and screw ANYONE who gets it it's way.
----
RP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: FREE 1-YEAR NRA... enough allready!!
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:45:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In <1992Aug20.201529.17600@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <cthong.714250623@sfu.ca> cthong@fraser.sfu.ca (Christopher Thong) writes:
>>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

AF:
]>]Wrong, wrong, wrong.  The "modern" (since 1900) trend has been toward
]>]less bullet diameter and weight.  The increase velocity hasn't resulted
]>]in greater momentum or KE.  If anything, the trend is towards less
]>]lethality, not more.
]>

CT:
]>then why are ammunition diameters getting larger and larger by the decade?

Wow, that's quite a claim! On what did you base this?

AF:
]They're not.  In the black-powder days, .50 caliber and bigger was
]COMMON.  Now, they're rare.  With that switch, bullet diameters
]started dropping.  At first, the common rifles were .45, there was a
]brief stop at 8mm, but now they're .30 and the calibers between .22
]and .30 are gaining share every year.  It's unlikely that .30 will
]ever become as rare as .50 and .45 have, but the shift is still
]towards "less".

Yah, I even saw something interesting recently about a doctor who wants
to X-ray, etc. Clark's (of Lewis and Clark fame) grave. Part of the article
mentioned the contention of whether he was murdered or committed suicide.
It's claimed three years after their exploration and return, he slipped
into suicidal depression and killed himself with a brace of .68 cal pistols.
His descendants claim a companion murdered him.

Black powder in those short leaky barrels just couldn't put much impetus
to the projectile. Obvious compensation was bigger projectile. Modern
arms tend toward using higher velocities instead, as Andy stated.

CT:
]>and how do you account for less killing power, decreased calibres and modern 
]>doo hickeys like .5 semi autos and caseless ammunition?

Wow, I'd like to see .50 cal caseless. Didn't the government try for
years to build a caseless version of the Vulcan cannon for fighter use
and fail? 

-- 
The War on Drugs is just part of the War on the US Constitution.
From: earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Reading Brady
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:40:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bit Flippers, Inc.

In article <5770@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>I'm confused, guys.  I can't see that the Brady Bill is saying what 
>some of you folks say it does.
>...
>Here's what I read:
>...
>(4) If the chief later tells the dealer that the buyer is a Bad
>    Guy (after he already has the gun), the dealer must contact
>    the two chiefs where the buyer lives and works.  (Due to (6),
>    this shouldn't happen after 30 days, unless the chief is in
>    the habit of publishing all felony records to all gun dealers.)

Let's say the chief says the buyer is a bad guy and stops the sale of the gun.
Is there any "punishment" of the chief if he lies?  Does the chief has to
prove the buyer is bad or can he just say "he's bad" and thats it?  How many
times do we see someone in these higher offices doing something that is
outright criminal, but they never get punished because of the "wording of
the law"?

Take the speed limit laws.  If there was no penalty for speeding, would 
anyone give a hoot about the limits?   We need to make sure that the people
who use these laws to control us are also under control by these same laws.
It gets a bit tiring to see how the laws only apply to the people at the
bottom of the food chain.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: UFO "October Surprise" and USA TAKEOVER?!
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:36:04 GMT

In article <OTTO.92Aug12155011@tukki.jyu.fi> otto@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela) writes:
>The fact that yearly much more people in the United States get killed by
>guns than in Europe of course has nothing to do with gun control, right ?

Since that fact was true BEFORE gun control, it can't have much to do
with gun control.  (I'm ignoring your periodic wars, which seem to
effectively kill lots of folks.  Maybe you ought to control your
govts.)

We've got a standard offer for our peaceable European friends.  We'll
ship you a crime prone community from the US and you show us how to
deal with them.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:46:20 GMT

In article <Bt6s1F.6tn@newcastle.ac.uk>, J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk
(Jonathan Spencer) writes:
> 
> (attributes may be manged)
> 
> someone, maybe, syspb@smartstar.com (Paul) writes:
> >>              ...  Pretty soon, California may
> >>be like England, where nobody can have a gun.  ...
> 
> This, quite simply, is wrong. Only those who are prohibited from owning
> guns, or those whom a Chief Constable considers cannot be entrusted with
> a gun, may not have them. Everyone else can have them.

The problem here in the US is, that a significant portion of the police
Chiefs here think that no one can be entrusted with a gun.  I find that
kind of veto power is unacceptable (especially in light of the fact that
firearm ownership is a RIGHT in the United States).

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
From: aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: No charges filed in SWAT killing
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:41:00 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


From: alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel)
(description of horrifying SWAT terrorism deleted, then adds:)

>>In a rational world, I would hope that this sad incident would cause
>people to reconsider the concept of disarming the citizens while
>leaving the police armed.  This incident is just one more piece of
>evidence that the police and the courts simply cannot be trusted to
>reprimand their own members for abuse of power.  An innocent person
>was shot to death by police in her own home, and rather than seeking
>justice and admitting fault, the attorney general and police are
>closing ranks to protect their own.

I don't get the connection...if the woman had been armed would this
confrontation end otherwise? Even if she held off the cops, they'd
get the battering ram and kill her and her kids too. I've said this a
dozen times - gun ownership does not stop police/govt abuse of its
citizens.

What can you do? Drive to the police station & shoot it up? Sniper
away at cops on the hiway? None of that will change from the state
imposing its forcefull will on you or me.

Thru legislation they make criminals of it's citizens andand thus make
us eligible for the police 'treatment''.

Please don't quote the US revolution to me - this was an external
army occupying another country.
From: finn@isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Holier than thou again
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:27:37 GMT
Reply-To: finn@dalek.isi.edu (Greg Finn)
Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute

In article <OTTO.92Aug12155011@tukki.jyu.fi> otto@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela) writes:

>The fact that yearly much more people in the United States get killed by
>guns than in Europe of course has nothing to do with gun control, right ?

	When the number of US civilians killed by firearms equals the
number of Jews, Gypsies, and so on, shot in Europe, who could not
defend themselves because it was illegal for them to have firearms
.... please let me know .... if I live that long.  Hint: Start in
Russia and move west and south, picking up several millions as you go.
A pogrom here, a pogrom there, ethnic cleansing, the odd death camp
and a few ghettos.

	Oh, I see.  You want to pick just those years that make your
point but exclude others that don't.  It was to prevent that sort of
genocide that the 2nd Amendment was put into our Constitution, a
policy that has failed in the US notably once, when a class of ethnic
peoples were not allowed arms ... the American Indians weren't
considered citizens ... poof.  Seems to me that you just got caught
leg-before-wicket.
--
Gregory Finn	(310) 822-1511
Information Sciences Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Suicides, injuries, and Vigilantees.
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:55:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.173826.12566@riacs.edu> gahooten@george.arc.nasa.gov (Greg Hooten -- IAS) writes:
>I sent a message to Clinton at the compuserve gateway, and got this 
>in reply.

Thanks for posting it.

>From: Clinton for President <75300.3115@CompuServe.COM>
>
>Thank you for your note re the gun issue.  There are several other points
>that need to be addresses as well.  I have not received any mail yet on
>the issue of a nation of laws vs a nation of vigalantees.

So?  Self-defense isn't a vigilantee action.  If the Clinton camp
doesn't know the difference....

>Nor has anyone addressed tha issue of teen suicides in homes with guns.
>Such suicides suceed far more often than in homes w/o guns.

I recommend chapter 6 of Kleck's "Point Blank" for a lucid discussion
of this non-issue.

>Also to be thought about is
>the gunshot as a leading cause of medical service costs to the nation.

Since it isn't the leading cause, no thought is justified by that
claim.  (Consider autos, if you don't want to think about real killers
like cigarettes and red meat.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu