HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bad cops - a perfect example
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:56:38 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer/ESD/OSBU/SW Dev/App & Tool Dev

In article <1gt8oaINN53r@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
>In article <75745@apple.apple.COM>, earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:
>...
>> The problem is this: cops start dropping because of the "occasional bullet"
>> from the citizens, then citizens start dropping because of the occasional
>> bullet from the cops.  Want to guess where this will lead to?  Do you think
>> the cops (read: GOVERNMENT) will just sit around and complain?  You can expect
>> the police to be granted even more authority (and laws to back it up), then
>> the abuse will really start.  It's so simple.  Why can't people see this?
>
>Possibly because not everyone sees it the way you do?

I hope everyone at least agrees that giving the police more authority to
"control" us has a direct negative effect on our individual freedom.  Thus,
the more power the police have, the less freedom the citizens have.  The
danger is letting the government (and police) have too much power.  Don't
you agree?

Could this happen?
  A rash of cop-killing is occuring when the cop stops a car for speeding.
  The driver rolls down the window and starts firing at the officer as he
  approaches. The officer dies.  There was no reason for the officer to think
  the speeder would be a threat, so his gun wasn't drawn.  This event happens
  a lot, over 10 cops a day are killed in the US every day this way. So the
  cops start pulling their guns even for speeders.  The number of cop-deaths
  drops to 1 a week now.  Over time enough citizens complain about the
  practice that it is stopped.  With only 1 cop a week dropping, it appears
  that the problem has been solved.  Soon, cops are dropping like flies 
  again and the "powers" decide they don't want to let their men and woman
  die at the hands of the citizens, so they pass laws which enable the cops
  to pull a gun whenever they think it might be possible (maybe) that a citizen
  could perhaps somewhat cause them harm.  Now the cops pull guns for every
  little reason.  Because they have the law to back them up, they leave no
  chance for error.  Every stop is with guns drawn.  Every encounter with a 
  citizen is with guns drawn.  The citizens are afraid of the cops now.
  Somehow you feel you lost some freedom when you have a gun pointed at you.

  Weclome to the police state.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:25396 dc.talk.guns:23
From: jrh@mustang.dell.com (Randy Howard)
Subject: Re: Crime and punishment (was Re: 20/20 to crucify FFL holders)
Keywords: FFL, criminals getting FFLs, HCI agenda
Organization: Dell Computer Co
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 10:15:09 GMT

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>I wonder, though, if our schools are up to the task of teaching basic
>>human values like compassion and love for your fellow man.  After all,
>>our schools (and what they teach) tend to mirror our society in
>>general, and society's public figures, who so often are role models,
>>rarely exhibit these human values.

>Worse, are the teachers up to it?  After a couple of generations of 
>multicultural, anything-goes, secular mind-mush, do we have the 
>teachers with the moral underpinnings to do the job?  

First of all, let me agree that our society is in desperate need of a
stronger "moral" base, founded in either religion, or whatever source a 
particular family decides on.  I don't, however, feel that the school is the 
place a child should look to for moral values.  Parents USED to be expected to
provide these values to their offspring.  Somehow everyone has begun to
believe that schools should do this instead.  Parents are now 'not qualified'
for this type of work, it apparently takes a board of psychologists to 
decide how to totally brainwish the nations youth in the latest propaganda
offered up by the political left instead.  I'd like to see a new catch phrase
introduced, something like "Separation of Politics and School" instead of
"Church and State".  Let the schools teach Math, Science, Language, etc, 
and let the family do the work to define the moral values of their own 
children.



>John
>-- 
>John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
>Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
>Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
>jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
>Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
-- 
Randy Howard            _o	    @'s: jrh@dell.com
Dell Computer Corp.     \<,	    !'s: ...!uunet!dellunix!jrh
______________________()/ ()______________________________________________


Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ghm@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: Gun Control: A modern, REALISTIC view.
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:20:31 GMT

bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:

>In a previous article, ghm@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller) says:

>>betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes:
>>
>>>...  now that NSW gungrabbers have
>>>passed laws that make "self-protection no reason to own a gun"
>>>what's important is whether the number of at-home burglaries
>>>increases....
>>
>>And we shall be watching the statistics with interest.  Unfortunately,
>>as with most social "science" statistics, there are so many variables
>>that it will be almost impossible to draw meaningful conclusions
>>(unless you already know what conclusions you want:-)
>>
>Ah. So it will be impossible to prove that this law, in fact, did
>any good.  

No, it will be possible to prove simultaneously that it did and
did not do any good, using the same data.

Geoff Miller  (g-miller@adfa.oz.au)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: eclipse@world.std.com (Mark Urbin)
Subject: Mail Order SKS?  Nope, just more media fiction
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:09:36 GMT

In article <1gndjtINNlvo@fnnews.fnal.gov> lilianstrom@fndcd.fnal.gov writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.210306.12201@icd.ab.com>, kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
>>I just heard something on the news about some kid (I use the term generically;
>>I don't know his age, but I think he's a college student) who supposedly
>>bought an SKS through the mail and used it to shoot up a bunch of people.
>>HUH?  I thought you couldn't buy modern firearms through the mail?  Anybody
>>know anything about this?
>
>According to the story in the local paper he purchased the rifle that day at a
>local gun store.

    He bought the gun at a store front.  According to today's Boston Herald
(12/16), some of the bullets (as many as 9...) may have been purchased through
the mail.  The fellow is 18, so by state law he could have purchased the rifle
as long as he had a state issued Firearms ID card.  Which requires a two day
waiting period and police background check.
  The Herald refered to the SKS as an `assult rifle' several times and 
mentioned at least twice that it is very simular to the AK-47.  Neither of 
those items happen to be true, but then the Herald is owned by the same
company as the New York Post...
  Yesterday morning, Boston disc jocky Charles (Chuck) Laquadaria (sp), of 
WBCN radio had the postermaster of that town on the radio.  Chuck was asking
how the kid got the thing throught the mail.  Then he did a `top ten' list
of songs favored by the shooter.
  Again sourcing the Boston Herald, Chuck owns multiple firearms.  This came
up concerning the various legal documents giving different ages for the 
`Wrinkly Rocker'.  (56 I think)  The Herald claims Chuck lied about his age
when renewing his drivers license and on various gun permits.
  Hmm...if he lied about information on his gun permit, doesn't that put him
in violation of the (in)famous MASS Bartley-Fox law?  Somehow I don't think
that he will ever do the year of jail time required for any violation of the
state gun laws required by Bartley-Fox.




-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Urbin -- eclipse@world.std.com -- These opinions are mine.
It was a typical net.exercise -- a screaming mob pounding on a greasy spot 
on the pavement, where used to lie the carcass of a dead horse.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.japan
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Rikiya Asano and blatant namism (racism by another name)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:17:18 GMT

Rikiya Asano <ra01+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Sorenson writes:

>>	People judge us by the company we keep.  In light of this
>>philosophy, Riki, many of us don't *want* to be your friend.

>Then, I suggest that when you see my name don't read my posts! It's that easy!
>Because, I do not see myself as going away! 

	I thought long and hard on this, Riki, and I decided not to put
you in a killfile.  For reasons of personal pride, I have not yet started
a killfile.  I finally decided not to start with you.  For one, I refuse
to let you keep me from reading somebody else of too similar a name.  The
second reason is that you provide a great deal of amusement.  For your
next trick, you might try the hair flip with a giggle.  This has a 6.6
degree of difficulty, I hear.

	Besides, I merely said I didn't want to be considered your friend.
I did not say I wanted you to go away.

	Now run along and have a wank, Riki -- we have matters of great
import to discuss here, and you'd only become frightfully confused.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: 20/20 to crucify FFL holders
Keywords: FFL, criminals getting FFLs, HCI agenda
Organization: The Cat Factory
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:59:51 GMT

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

}  ... c: BATF already has plenty of power to enforce the law; its simply
}failing to do so!  ...

They have the _legal_ power.  What they lack is the funding to use it.  As
the show pointed out, the fault for that belongs to Congress.  They even
interviewed a (pro-gun) senator who helped kill BATF funding.  His
attitude was it kept them from harassing honest citizens.

With something like 40 inspectors for the entire country, they aren't
going to be harassing much of anyone.


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

They stressed the failure is at the congressional level for failing to
fund the BATF.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                Do not meddle in the affairs of
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483  dragons, for you are crunchy
Santa Monica, CA  90405                        and go well with ketchup.
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: 20/20 to crucify FFL holders
Keywords: FFL, criminals getting FFLs, HCI agenda
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:18:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.190345.5724@dg-rtp.dg.com> meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.150135.8659@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>>The ABC show 20/20 this Friday at 10 PM will target the "Evil FFL
>>holder" and how easy it is to get a license to traffic in arms to
>>the criminal community.
>
>Notice how this fits right in with HCI's stated agenda for this year:
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>[ ... ]
>>Subject: HCI newsletter (humongous)
>[ ... ]
>>HCI's Legislative Agenda for the 103rd Congress
>[ ... ]
>>* Stop the issuance of federal gun licenses to individuals who are not
>>operating retail businesses.

Another interesting "feature" is that "retail biz" is defined by HCI
as selling guns from a storefront.  Since gunsmiths are legally
required to have an FFL, yet don't sell guns....

Oh, I forgot to mention that they're trying to get the storefronts
zoned out of existence.

-andy
--
From: joel@upchrch.UUCP (Joel Upchurch  )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Time Served vs. Crime Rates
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 06:41:49 EST
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL

vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:

> Last night NBC did a report on a study which was just completed.
> This study looked at crime rates vs. average time served by criminal
> in the US.  And shocker of shockers, criminals are now spending less
> time in jail for serious crimes than ever before!  Wow, what a
> suprise!  In 1990, (last year of available numbers):
> 
>         Murder gets you   1.8 years served
>         Rape gets you      ~9 months served
>         Robbery gets you  ~90 days served
>         Car theft gets you  3 days served

I think what you are showing here is the risk each criminal undergoes
each time he commits a crime. What they did is take the number of
days served in prison each year for say, car theft and divide it by the
number of car thefts that occur to figure how much time on the average
they would serve for each crime. Another way to look at is that for
every 122 cars stolen each year there is one guy is prison serving time
for it.


(If your mail bounces use the address below.)
Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809
joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bad cops - a perfect example
Date: 18 Dec 1992 19:28:10 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <75745@apple.apple.COM>, earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes:

[deleted]

> The problem is this: cops start dropping because of the "occasional bullet"
> from the citizens, then citizens start dropping because of the occasional
> bullet from the cops.  Want to guess where this will lead to?  Do you think
> the cops (read: GOVERNMENT) will just sit around and complain?  You can expect
> the police to be granted even more authority (and laws to back it up), then
> the abuse will really start.  It's so simple.  Why can't people see this?

Possibly because not everyone sees it the way you do?


> If I were a cop and knew citizens would pull their guns for any old reason,
> I would have mine out and be ready to shoot if I saw *anything* I didn't
> like.  Like what we have today :-)

Cops aren't afraid of honest citizens "pulling their guns for any old reason",
they're afraid of dishonest citizens pulling their guns to blow them away.
By definition, armed honest citizens aren't a significant threat to cops.
If they were, they wouldn't be honest citizens (i.e. non-criminals).
And what you're missing is that the crooks already carry pretty much at will,
so it doesn't seem to me that letting any Tom, Dick or Harry carry at will is
going to make cops that much less safe.  Unless of course the citizen in
question is another Rodney King, in which case they might be a little more
respectful of his rights.  Either that or blow him away for no real reason,
in which case they should lose their badges and go to jail.

[deleted]

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: A Coffee-House Conversation with an Imaginary Nadja
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<LAMBERT.92Dec8012136@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1g7ohpINNgmh@roche.csl.sri.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 09:16:56 GMT

>>>>> On 10 Dec 1992 15:42:49 GMT, boucher@csl.sri.com (Peter K. Boucher) said:
> (Tim Lambert) writes:
>>Kennesaw Burglaries 1976-1986
>>76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 48 85 86
>>41 21 22 35 35 54 35 35 29 32 70

>>Fortunately we can distinguish the effect of these factors from the
>>possible effect of the gun law.  The gun law is supposed to have had
>>an abrupt effect, while the other factors would operate gradually over
>>the whole period.  If some other factor (such as increasing
>>population) caused the number of burglaries to double over the ten
>>years, cancelling out a 50% drop caused by the law, then the graph
>>would look like this:
>>             *****
>>        *****     *
>>    ****
>>****               *         *****
>>                         ****
>>                    *****
>>It doesn't.  Interrupted time series analysis is designed to detect
>>just this kind of thing and found no reduction associated with the
>>law.

> What is this, a joke?  The graph you've drawn represents a 
> generalization of the shape of the graph made of the numbers you
> supply.  Are you hoping people won't look at any but the first and
> last of the series?  The numbers are increasing from 77-81, take a 
> sudden dip in 82 (the year the law passed), stay down from 82-85
> before rising again in 86.  Increases followed by a dip followed by
> more increases.

In an earlier posting you claimed that the law "worked" further
claiming that rate of increase of burglaries went to zero.

So which is it?

1. Burglaries were increasing after the law.  (Your claim in this
posting.)
2. Burglaries were not increasing after the law.  (Your claim in your
previous posting.)
3. Burglaries were both increasing and not increasing after the law.

> Get a clue.

Get some manners.

Tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Black Leaders
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:36:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.225520.19203@cbfsb.cb.att.com> osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:
>
>	Roy Innes is quite outspoken about his opposition to gun control.

Point of order, it's Innis, not Innes.

>	He is one of the few Black leaders that are not kissing the
>	collective ass of the white liberal establishment.  He has consistently
>	shown he has the guts to stand firm on what he believes to be the
>	right thing and I respect him very much for this.  He is also very
>	articulate and knows more or less exactly who's screwing whom here
>	in America today.  His son was murdered (shot) about 20 years ago
>	exactly because Roy did not tow the PC line, if I remember correctly.  
>	Similar to the death of Malcom X in that respect, as far as I can see.

I don't think so, wasn't it just a robbery or something like that ?
Nothing political.

>	Innes' main strength (IMO) are also his weaknesses, i.e. he is an
>	intelligent and dignified person that maintains his decorum and
>	seems to always act in an intelligent and civilized manner.

You didn't see him on "Geraldo" I take it ?  Didn't he get into a fist
fight with "punks" he was debating ?

>	Sadly, it seems what he needs to get more attention from the Black
>	community is to behave like an idiot bufoon, ranting and raving
>	idiotically in the fashion of the beloved Al Sharpton.

All politicians do this.  I don't see much of Thomas Sowell or Walter
Williams in the media either.  Williams was on Crossfire or some such show
a while ago, but only as a guest.  I'd love to see him on as a regular.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Re: Andy Freeman vs Random House Dictionary (was: Nabbing a car thief)
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<LAMBERT.92Dec15025409@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Dec14.192925.16657@mtu.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 12:20:43 GMT

>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:29:25 GMT, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) said:
> (Tim Lambert) writes:

>> (Andy Freeman) said:
>> > That's an interesting leap by Lambert.  A dictionary has a definition
>> > so he assumes that "everyone" uses it that way.  The dictionary's
>> > definition is wrong BECAUSE usage does define meaning and the usage is
>> > "guns owned by niggers".
>> 
>> Everyone I have seen has used the Random House definition.  It would
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> be simple to prove that not eveyone uses the Random House definition
>> -- provide one single example where somebody has used it to mean "guns
>> owned by niggers".

> ***EVERYONE***????  That's funny, I specifically used **Webster's**
> dictionary.  In fact you have commented to this effect in a later
> posting...  Perhaps you find the most efficient method of arguing
> your point is to misrepresent that facts...

Yes, everyone including Charles Scripter and Webster's dictionary use
a definition very close to Random House.

Tim
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Saturday, 12 Dec 1992 09:45:57 EST
From: Nicholas C. Hester <IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: An annoying defense question
 <1992Dec11.202506.21954@raid.dell.com> <92346.164949IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>

In article <92346.164949IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, Nicholas C. Hester
<IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> says:
>
>In Maine, the cutting of the lines would be regarded as a threatening
>act and if you feel in fear of your life you can justifiably shoot them.

Hehehehe, That didn't come out very well, did it? :)  I mean you can shoot
the perpetrator, not the wires. :)
___

  Nicholas  Hester
ia80024@Maine.bitnet
ia80024@Maine.maine.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth)
Subject: Royal Newfie Constabulary
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:06:37 GMT


While it is the the Royal Newfoundland constabulary is not
armed with firearms consider the firearms.

The cops asked some time ago to carry firearms, and were
denied.

The only member of the RFC to be killed in the line of duty,
was killed by a 2x4 wielding striker during a 
labour dispute about 20 years ago.

Newfoundland has the highest firearms ownership in Canada.

Newfoundland has the lowest homicide rate in Canada.


All in all a very peaceful place.


-- 
Greg Booth BSc                    |     /_____________________________
BCAA-PCDHF-BCWF-NFA-NRA-IPSC-BCFSS|@====|_____________________________>
Motorola Mobile Data Division     |     \
booth@mdd.comm.mot.com cgb003@email.comm.mot.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: priceje@cs.aston.ac.uk (Jason E Price)
Subject: Re: Gun Control Petition
Reply-To: priceje@cs.aston.ac.uk
Organization: Aston University (Comp Sci)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:06:36 GMT

In article 1gb2imINNc8b@access.usask.ca, skeeter@skatter.usask.ca () writes:
>
>sorted by "all gun%"
>
>#         Country  hom  hand   all
>#                  rate gun%  gun%
>#             USA  8.8    29  48.9
>#     Switzerland  1.2    14  32.6
>#          Norway  1.2   3.5  31.2
>#          Canada  2.1     4  30.8
>#         Finland  2.9     7  25.5
>#          France  1.2   5.5  24.7
>#       Australia  2.0     2  20.1
>#         Belgium  1.8     6  16.8
>#    West Germany  1.2   6.5   9.2
># England & Wales  0.7   0.5   4.7
>#     Netherlands  0.9     1   2.0
>#           Spain  1.0     2
>#Northern Ireland  5.2   1.5
>#        Scotland  1.8   0.5
>
>Notice how Switzerland is second in both lists?  Note how low the
>"hom rate" is?  Now look at how small a portion of people in
>Northern Ireland have guns.  Notice it's "hom rate".
> 

I think this part of the argument should be taken with a bit of a pinch of salt.  The situation in northern ireland is a bit volatile as regards terrorist activities, which I would imagine account for most of the figures here relating to firearms incidents.
(presuming the figures here are taking terrorist shootings in them).

Including terrorist shootings in the overall hom rate and only private ownership of firearms in the % rate is a bit misleading I think.

Opinions??

Jason.