HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: New Libertarian Gun Control Book
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:32:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.105249.18075@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.142338.27932@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>>
>>I don't mean to be glib but what does the US constitution have to do with
>>libertarianism ?  Granted there is some intersection in the US constitution
>>and one that would govern a libertarian society but the US constitution is
>>very non-libertarian.
>
>No, not very unlibertarian at all if you buy Epstein's argument.

Okay, I'll have to read his book first.  I've read the constitution,
and it makes me cringe.  About the only good part, IMO, is the Bill of
Rights.  What's all this rubbish about "states" and "states rights",
etc.  Ugh.

>He works from common law principles of restitution for takings, ...

What's common law got to do with libertarianism ?  Why just that
concept from common law ?  Why not all of common law ?

>and argues that common-law and natural rights interpretation of the
>US constitution lead to much more libertarian conclusions than most
>conservatives or "liberals" would like.

Probably so.  I agree if the US gov't was more along the lines of
what the framers had in mind it would be freer, but the constitution
doesn't constrain the gov't enough and Uncle Sam takes advantage of
every possible lopehole.  I don't see a way around that.  And I don't
know a way of forcing the gov't to obey the constitution or it's own
laws.  If someone has any good ideas on this I'd like to hear them.

> ...
>Largely, I agree.  However, if foreign invasion can be deterred by
>taxation to buy everyone a gun, then I'd say that was just compensation
>of private property taken for public use, wouldn't you?

Taxation to pay for "necessary" gov't services is one thing and I can
stomach that, but when the gov't decides to "take" someones property
to build some public building or road that's going to far.  The gov't
should have no special bargaining position in the market place.  The
gov't should be our servant, not our master.

Try this on for size, is this an invalid analogy, if so why ?

    If polio [AIDS, fill in the blank] can be deterred by taxation to
    buy everyone a vaccine, then I'd say that was just compensation of
    private property taken for public use.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Black Leaders
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:47:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.173633.571@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>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.

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

	This may be true.  I may have confused Innis' son with someone
	else.
>
>
>You didn't see him on "Geraldo" I take it ?  Didn't he get into a fist
>fight with "punks" he was debating ?

	Yeah, I saw it.  It is the only such incident of such behavior that
	I can recall as ever having seen him involved with.  Ideally, he
	should have let it pass, but those folks were really working terribly
	hard at begging for a busted jaw.  That stuff must wear pretty thin
	at times, I'd imagine.

>
	Anyhow, thanks for the corrections.

	-Andy V.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
Subject: Re: The basic problem with anti-gun nuts.
    <sDZJVB1w164w@upchrch.UUCP> <1992Dec11.235902.24295@kpc.com> 
    <1992Dec16.000100.22277@cs.mun.ca>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:46:05 GMT
Organization: University of Kentucky, USA. -5 GMT

robin2@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Robin Collier) writes:

>Thats Right!  The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary is the only police
>force in North America that doesn't carry arms.
>Robin Collier


  Hear that violent felons? The cops don't even have guns! I don't know if I'd
be advertising it though.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: larryd@stein.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Subject: Re: For gun control? No not really.
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:51:06 GMT

merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:

[...]

>He got 9 clips off, 10 rounds per clip, in under an hour.
>The weapon was not modified by Wayne so it was semi-automatic.
>Killing two wounding four. He put the gun down and surrendered.

Please!  Clip != magazine.  I know it is picky but the correct name for
that little thing you fill with cartridges and insert into the 
weapon is a magazine.  Lets see now..  (10*9)/60 is approximately 40
seconds/round.  This is a sustainable rate of fire for a muzzle loader.

[...]

>My position then is I shall arm myself. I will protect
>myself and the ones I love. I also want to put a 
>fully automatic weapon on my vehicle(to protect against
>Car-Jacking), I further want to install  various 
>security systems, television cameras, motion detecters,
>electric fences, and yes many fully auotmatic weapons
>to protect my caslte. I want to band together with 
>my neighbors and form/hire a private police force
>that has full police powers(carrying fully auto guns), since I do not see
>the current police as a protective agency when 
>my life or others I care about lives are threatened.

Why do tyros get hung up on full auto weapons.  They are fun to shoot,
provided you have the income to keep up with ammo costs, but essentially
useless in almost all realistic situations in which you are likely to 
find yourself.  

You are right in assuming that the current police force (or, for that
matter, any other) will not be able to protect you.  They will come along
afterwards, take statements, clean up the mess, and maybe even catch
the perps.  The perps, if caught, will go into a justice system that 
is currently obsessed with the criminal's rights.  Except in rare cases,
the perp will be back on the street in short order.  It might be interesting
to note that the majority of violent crime is done by people with prior
felony convictions.

---
Larry
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: An annoying defense question
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:46:29 GMT
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <1866@tnc.UUCP>, m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes:
|> Obviously, that's when you drag out the 15 carriers of slides from
|> your last vacation and start showing them.
|> 
|> Geez.....no imagination.     B-)

Headline

	  ATTACKER DIES OF BOREDOM
	
	NEW BAN ON ASSAULT PROJECTORS

excerpt:

There's a bill before the State Senate to limit the capacity of 
Kodak(tm) Carousel(tm) slide carriers. Any householder not conforming
with the new regulations will be charged with Excessive Tourism.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Bad cops - a perfect example
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 10:35:24 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:

>>> ...   Maybe one of his belligerant
>>>victims will put one right between his eyes one day.
>>
>>I  agree.
>>
>>  == Minh ==

>  Oh shit!  What kind of idiotic over-reaction is this?  

I think it is a glimpse of the future unless we figure out a way to 
rein in a bunch of out of control police.

>The
>police officer clearly was being a bit over-protective and/or
>thin-skinned, but wasn't engaging in any of the really bad stuff
>which John has mentioned many times.  The "victim" in this case
>was acting poorly.  Whether my sympathies lie with the "victim"
>or the police officer is less important than understanding that
>this is a judgement call over a minor item, and minor items do
>not justify shootings.  This is not a "perfect example" of a
>"bad cop" because this minor item doesn't show that he's a "bad
>cop".

It doesn't?  Abuse of authority?  perjury?  Is that not enough?
Does the pig have to swing for the 400 yard line with his
Maglight before it makes him a bad cop?  Should the cop be able
to violate that guy's 1st amendment rights just because
he has a gun and a shield?  If that pig was willing to trump up 
a charge in retalliation for this guy calling his buddy a nasty
name, what's to stop him from trumping up something more
serious?  Like maybe a little bit of pot under the seat?
Or a gun in the victim's dead hands?

>  I agree with John that poor behavior by an officer increases
>the chance that the officer (and other officers) will get shot,
>but I emphatically disagree with John's and Minh's implication 
>that minor items like this could possibly justify a shooting.

I think a shooting or two here and there will raise the ante and make
marginally bad pigs think twice about harrassing people.  It is exactly
the same deterrence that makes the traditional bad guys think twice
about burglarizing likely-to-be-armed citizens.

The pigs have spent the last 30 years making the bed they have to lie
in now.  They started thumping the heads of the hippies in the 60s,
the anit-war protesters of the early 70s, became the state's agents
of theft in the mid 70s under the guise of enforcing the national 
speed limit and have waged the Drug War against the Constitution
for the last 10-15 years or so.  They now get exactly what they
deserve - zero respect and an occasional bullet.

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.
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Tuesday, 15 Dec 1992 12:57:46 MST
From: Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject:    Juvenile Gun Ordinance Seems Ill-Informed Legislation

  "Letters" to the Editor         Arizona Republic - 13 DEC,1992

  Juvenile Gun Ordinance Seems Ill-Informed Legislation
  by W.D. Anderson - Phoenix

  Your Dec. 5 edition quoted Phoenix Law Enforcement Association Pres-
  ident Mike Petchel as saying, "We're getting a little tired of having
  to confront the lawyers and lobbyists of the NRA while removing weapons
  like this from juveniles."  He referred to the lawsuit filed against
  local cities by the National Rifle Association as a result of recently
  enacted juvenile gun ordinances.

  As a member of the Phoenix Police Department and PLEA, I have to tell
  you that lawyers and lobbyists are as scarce as union presidents on the
  downtown streets that I patrol.

  The current Phoenix juvenile gun ordinance accomplishes what all well-
  intended but ill-informed gun legislation does - it places an uncon-
  stitutional burden upon law-abiding citizens while impacting criminals
  not at all.

  As a patrol officer who works at least 40 hours a week on the streets,
  I can and do remove weapons from criminals under the present Arizona
  criminal code without violating the rights of adult or minor citizens.
  Any cop who cannot seize a weapon from a known gangster without re-
  sorting to the ill-advised juvenile gun ordinance should consider an-
  other career.

  I am hesitant to say anything good about lawyers or lobbyists, but
  those retained by the NRA represent about 3 million of the most
  patriotic, decent and law-abiding citizens in this country.  NRA mem-
  bers are historically very supportive of the nation's police, and an
  NRA-trained instructor probably taught President Petchel how to defend
  the public and himself with his sidearm.

  I cannot understand why the Phoenix police administration and union
  support legislation as poorly conceived  as the current juvenile
  firearms ordinance and, in so doing, alienate a group as staunchly
  pro-police as the NRA.

  I would like the public in general and NRA members specifically to know
  that I appreciate their support.  With their continued assistance we
  can have an impact on crime and establish Phoenix as the great place it
  should be, all without abridging the rihts of law-abiding citizens re-
  gardless of age.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: eclipse@world.std.com (Mark Urbin)
Subject: Re: registered gun confiscation examples wanted
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:20:58 GMT

In article <2982@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>In article <urbin.138.724087631@interlan.interlan.com>, urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin) writes:
>|>    A New York City Police spokesperson said that the NYCPD would be running
>|> `spot checks' on those who claimed the weapons were removed from NYC.  I 
>|> wonder if the Police will feel a warrent is required enter and search those 
>|> homes.  My bet is that they will claim that a possiblity of an illegal 
>|> firearm provides enough `probable cause' to pull a warrentless search.
>
>I'm not gonna take that bet, BTW. After the confiscation the ONLY method
>left against crime is a PRO-ACTIVE police force. 
   Do you think that this is really a consideration to the NYC government?  If
you do, I'm sure there are some folk who love to sell you some desert land.
The 'Assult gun ban' in NYC had nothing to do with reducing crime and a whole
lot to do with press coverage for Mayor Dinkins.  Ex-NYC Mayor said it well,
"You don't govern New York City, you entertain it."

>I'm sure you can think
>of some organizations in other countries which go out and seriously
>search for people who MAY, IN THE FUTURE, commit a crime. 
     I don't understand this, please explain.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The Knee Jerks in MA
Date: 19 Dec 92 20:29:00 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer/ESD/OSBU/SW Dev/App & Tool Dev

In article <1gtnp7INNeql@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>...
>This is the usual argument you get from the gun crowd: Killers will always 
>kill, no matter what the laws are. 
>...
>But that just isn't so. For example, what if the Montana sniping suspect had 
>been forced to leave the state for his semiautomatic? 
>
>And what if he had found God on his trip, got lost or just never came back? 
>...

If one human is intent on killing another, don't you agree they just might
keep trying until they succeed?  If you block one of their routes to success
does that mean you stopped them?  Just what can you do to stop someone
from killing you anyway?  Deny them access to guns?  You're trying to solve
the symptom, not the disease.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Black Leaders
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:28:43 GMT

In article <f6=rb6=@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>
>>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.
>
>Anyone know where to reliably read these two fellows?

The local "African America interest" newspaper, the Call & Post, has
Williams all the time.  Maybe there is a similar paper in your area.

Something else to look for at your newsstand is a weekly, I forget the
name, which has many of the weeks editorials by all the syndicated writers.
The same company puts out a weekly of a lot of editoral cartoons.  Both
are available via subscription.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Lloyd Bentsen and ATF
Date: 20 Dec 92 18:48:53 GMT
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


A friend of mine recently pointed out that as Secretary of the Treasury
Lloyd Bentsen will be over the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and
therefore have some influence on the Clinton Administration's gun control
policies.  I have understood that Bentsen is pro-gun.  So is his presence
in this position likely to have any moderating impact of importance on
Clinton's policies?
Zz
-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Subject: Statistical Analysis
Organization: CS&E, Uni of NSW, Australia
	<LAMBERT.92Dec15042039@nankeen.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Dec14.214039.21293@mtu.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:56:17 GMT

>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:40:39 GMT, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) said:

> I've noticed that many of your posts make claims, while presenting no
> correlation.

I have provided cites, data and extensive analysis to support my
claims and refuted all objections raised.  I don't see the point of
repeating it in every post.

> I also notice you spout statistics, but it is quite
> evident that you have a poor understanding of statistical analysis.

Since you`re the one who confused "fitted parameter" with "degree of
freedom of a chi-square statistic" and persisted in your error even
after it had been pointed out to you (in email) by a professional
mathematician, it is unlikely that your opinion in this matter is
worth anything.  None the less, I'm curious.  Can you provide an
example of poor statistical analysis on my part?

Tim
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Monday, 14 Dec 1992 14:09:36 MST
From: Shooting Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Help on NEJM info


----------------------------Original message----------------------------
This is from "Preston K. Covey" <covey+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: potential anti-control "blockbuster"

Paul Blackman at the NRA sent me an off-print of an article that you
will want to walk a mile or two to xerox outta your local med library:

"Homicide & the Prevalence of Handguns:
Canada & the United States, 1976 to 1980."

Dr. Brandon S. Centerwall.

Americam Journal of Epidemiology, 134 (11), December 1, 1991.

-----

Pursuant to the flim-flam Seattle/Vancouver study by minions of the
benign Public Health lobby for strict gun control and the spate of
Nobel-rank research purporting to prove the need or desirability of
stricter handgun controls in the U.S. to bring U.S. criminal homicide or
handgun-homicide rates into line with the enviable Canadian ways of
death, this new study shows that some (at least one) medical
professional and one brave niche of epidemiological science have not
sold out their standards for cheap wishful thinking.

This study performs the most rigorous contortionist feats to consider
every alternative explanation of its findings and to professionalize its
damnation of the errant Public Health ideologues' voodoo epidemiology,
quote:

"Major efforts to reduce handgun prevalence in the United States would
be of doubtful utility, even if successful."

This quote does not capture the news.

The details of substantiation are a tour de force of rigor cum understatement.

This study  provides the most comprehensive and judiciously analyzed
data extant confirming the "substitution hypothesis" for criminal
homicide and aggravated assault, negating any correlation between
handgun prevalence and homicide, and demythologizing the errant
intentions of do-gooder AMA folk to reduce criminal homicide by
mimicking the Draconian gun controls of our mythically more civilized
neighbors to the north.

This study stands beside recent research confirming the "substitution
hypothesis" for suicide.

A few predictions:

1. You will see or hear nothing of this study in the media.  Or else,

2.  Should word slip out in some backwater tribune, requiring the
Knights of 1984 to set the record straight, you will see or hear reports
that Dr. Brandon S. Centerwall was blackmailed by Charlton Heston with
threat of a palimony suit.

3. At the least, it will be very interesting to see how the media
contort to explain this bombshell of unwelcome lucidity away.

4. You will be sorry if you don't go out and get yourself a copy.

5. You will surely be reading about this in the AR and TNGW.

6. You will not hear about Dr. Cennterwall's study on Geraldo's "NOW It
Can Be Told."

7. The Brady Bunch will still miss the point and be found drivelling on
about jolly olde England.  Brain damage is infectious by hysteria.
--
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
"An unarmed people are slaves, or subject to slavery
at any moment." -- Huey P. Newton.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ntetsuya@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Nishimura)
Subject: Re: Yoshi Hattori
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:47:58 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Dec12.024651.20503@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.172432.452@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>>perfectly harmless. given that background & the fact that it -was-
>>halloween, (about the time you'd expect to see costume guns) it's 
>
>It was NOT Halloween.
>
>I heard about it several days before Halloween and this year,
>Halloween was on a Saturday.
>
	At least the deceased and his friend were on the way to a Halloween 
	party.  It might have been possible for the deceased, an innocent and 
	igonorant Japanese high school boy, to assume that a guy holding a gun
	and pointing at him was just joking, since the deceased might have 
	thought that he was at the party site.

	Likewise, it was, IMHO, possible for the guy who shot the deceased to
	think that a boy in tux was possibly of harm to him and his family 
	since it was a week before Halloween, when they didn't expect little		goblins and ghosts, or anybody in disguise at the door.

	This tragedy could not have happened if it had been on or around real 
	Halloween...  
	
		
						Tetsuya Nishimura

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns