HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: NSW homicides
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:35:30 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Oct6170352@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
> On Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:36:54 GMT, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) said:
>> (Tim Lambert) writes:
>> Nope, Andy's right again.
>
>Andy is wrong this time, was wrong the time before and will no doubt
>get it wrong again if he follows up to this article.  Might I
>recommend a career in economics or weather forecasting?

That's what I like about Lambert.  He's got his story, and he'll
stick to it, until he doesn't.

>> Andy's posts have been extremely sensible.
>
>In a surreal kind of way.  What on earth do you mean by 'the "nothing
>else happened" parameter"?

Lambert's model is for a transition between two stable situations with
some "noise".  He uses it to argue that gun control explains the
transition.  Yet, he doesn't bother to show whether or not anything
else happened at the relevant time, whether or not the situations were
in fact stable, and so on.

>Model                        Parameters   Andy-parameters
>1. Abrupt change in 1920              2               2+n
>2. Decline starting in 1910           4               4+n
>
>either way, the abrupt change model is simpler.

So?  As n increases, the difference becomes less and less important.
In any event, we're not looking for the simplest model, we're looking
for good models.  More importantly, not all parameters are equally
important, so the addition is rather inappropriate.

>This only proves that ratios of Andy-Parameters are useless.

It proves no such thing.  It proves only that Lambert is overly impressed
by neat formulas.

>Strawman.  Just because you can construct an implausible explanation where
>gun-control caused the decline, it does not follow that all such
>explanations are implausible.

It wasn't an implausible explanation, it was a number of factors that
the "gun control worked in a step fashion" advocates must address.
People don't work the way that model assumes.

>"The world is complicated, so simple models can't fit the data".
>Ahem.  The simple model DOES fit the data.  Huff and puff all you
>want, you can't get away from that fact.

"Ahem" indeed.  The data isn't complete, so its "fit" is basically
meaningless.  For one, the step model explanation is inappropriate
without "nothing else changed" data, which hasn't been presented.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Ten Most Wanted List (HCI Contributions)
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:58:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Tennessee

In article <1992Oct6.220626.27512@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> clc5q@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:
>Not much difference between Democrats and Republicans, judging by this list,
>huh?

Not really, no.  They just want to rob you at different rates and for 
different reasons, and see different rights they want to restrict at 
differnt rates.

The Dempublican Party is one and the same.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: NSW homicides
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:38:03 GMT
Organization: N/I

In article <1992Oct5.030244.17339@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>In article <LAMBERT.92Oct1021348@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>,
>lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:
>
>> In my goodness of fit calculation I used 19 degrees of freedom (21
>
>Huh!?  19 degrees of freedom!  That's enough to least-square fit an elephant!
>
>> data values less two fitted parameters) in the Chi square statistic.
>> Should I have use 18 df?
>
>I suspect you're drawing meaningless conclusions from your pseudo-
>scientific method...

Me too.  I recall from my Numerical Analysis days that the least-squares
equations are ill-conditioned, and their condition gets rapidly worse as
the number of parameters increases.  "Ill-conditioned" means that the
inverse matrix maps small changes in the problem into large changes in
the solution.  How do we know that Tim's results are not entirely due to
this amplification of floating point representation error in his data?
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The true defense of gun ownership
Keywords: Guns,Constitution,Militia
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:58:49 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <9kmd4bv@Unify.Com>, ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
> In article <Bw1KI0.Bv6@rice.edu> kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack) writes:
> >In article <Bw0CBq.5vH@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com writes:
> >> However, I am distressed by the willful misunderstanding of the second
> >> ammendment to the U.S. Constitution. This ammendment is about militias,
> >> not private gun ownership.
> >
> >	Pardon me, but who in tarnation do you think makes up the  
> >   militia?
> 
> The amendment says "A well-regulated militia ..."
> 		      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The numbskull who buys a gun and leaves it around, fully loaded, where his
> 3-year-old grandson can find it and kill his 2-year-old brother with it, is
> *not* part of a well-regulated militia.  Nor is a bunch of good ol' boys who
> drive around in a pickup every other weekend drinking beer and shooting at
> deer out of the pickup's windows a well-regulated militia.  The only legal
> well-regulated militia in this country that I know of is the National Guard.
> If you all know of other legal well-regulated militias in the U.S. I wish
> you'd stop maundering and name a couple.

"Other" well-regulated militias is a strawman, since the National Guard is
*not* a well-regulated militia, since it is under the control of the
government.  This particular misconception surfaces at least once a month and
is routinely corrected.


> Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> |   "I have NOT lost my mind:  it's backed up on tape somewhere."  - Anon.   |
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>


Dan S.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court allows New Jersey gun seizure law
Keywords: supreme court, legal, gun control, social issues,
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:38:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.140741.2472@cbnews.cb.att.com>, lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com
(Larry Cipriani) writes:

> 	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The Supreme Court refused Monday to hear an appeal
> by a Florida man whose guns were confiscated in New Jersey, letting
> stand New Jersey's law that allows automatic forfeiture of unlicensed
> handguns.
>
> [...]
> 	The state's highest court said that under New Jersey law illegally
> possessed guns are ``contraband,'' and as such are subject to forfeiture
> without allowing the owner to appeal or obtain a hearing.

   But how can the possession be found "illegal" without a hearing?  ;-)
This sounds a bit like it violates the 5th Amendment:

"No person shall .... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation."

> 	Attorneys for Sholtis claim the New Jersey law, which is similar to
> other state laws, violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

And it appears the due process clause of the 5th.  And the 2nd....

--------
In article <1992Oct9.010230.21929@cbnews.cb.att.com>, lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com
(Larry Cipriani) writes:

> Even if they were unloaded, NJ thinks their laws supersede federal
> law here and they'd confiscate the guns anyway.

Somebody should inform NJ about the Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made
in Pursuance thereof; .... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hmmm... Could this mean that the Constitution supercedes the State's
laws to the contrary?.... ;->

-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:39:26 GMT


In article <1992Oct12.152544.3094@wkuvx1.bitnet> kinnema@wkuvx1.bitnet (Mark Kinney, Attorney at Chaos) writes:
>Also, note that over the left breast pocket of any Guardsman's
>uniform, it says not "National Guard" but "US Army".

More to the point, their weapons, including their firearms, are
owned by the US Army.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:27:21 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <84097@bcsaic.boeing.com>
>rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
>>I'm not such a "big proponent" of reinterpreting the Constitution as you think.
>>What I've said is that the courts do not (and should not) apply "original intent"
>>as the sole (or even necessarily major) criterion of interpretation.
>
>     If we ignore the "original intent" then any interpretation of the
>Constitution must be based on the opinion of whatever judge on current
>political/social situations.  The is no possible way, given this, for
>the Constitution *not* to undergo continuous re-interpretation.

In point of fact, I have said that original intent should be taken into account.
What I am against is the attempt to use it as the *sole* basis of interpretation
and, in some cases, the *major* basis of interpretation.  This, in fact, is how
the Court operates today and will operate in the future, whether populated with
liberals or conservatives.  Nobody in their right mind would *want* the Constitution
to be interpreted literally as the original framers seem to have understood it.
That would cause utter chaos in our system of laws.  Among other things, it would
remove control of foreign policy from the President and put it back in the Senate's
control.  The Constitution, like it or not, has undergone considerable revision
in interpretation and will do so in the future.  You have only to look at what is
happening with Roe v. Wade to understand this point.  

>     I believe you are correct that it is illegal in most areas to train
>para-military forces.  How you equate organizing and training to vigilanteism
>is beyond me.  Being organized and trained does not mean a group is going
>to suddenly start taking the law into its own hands.

I don't equate "organizing and training" per se with vigilantism.  I do fear
that a self-organized military force, answerable to no civil authority, is a
danger to everyone.  It creates the potential for vigilantism and competes 
with established authority.  It smacks of the so-called "druzhinniki" that the
Soviets used to encourage--civilian "volunteers" who went after public drunks 
and other "hooligans".  Of course, they broke some noses that didn't belong to
to hooligans, but, hey, they were just volunteers helping to keep public order.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Anyone see "Doogie Howser, M.D."?
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:53:47 GMT


  I happened to catch a couple minutes of "Doogie Howser, M.D." last night &
  was wondering if the show was as anti-gun as it looked like.

  Synopsis: Doogie & Vinnie get mugged by an armed robber, Doogie decides to
            get a gun, he's shown at the range, being "egged on" by the in-
            structor (?) to "go for the chest", &c., but all he can think
            about is all the gunshot wounds he's seen and treated as an MD.

  Then I quit watching.

  Should we call the show "Booger Howitzer, BFD"?

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
From: pes3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Paul Eric Stoufflet)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A Brady Bill Debate
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:40:14 GMT
Reply-To: pes3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Paul Eric Stoufflet)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1992Oct12.214114.10486@iitmax.iit.edu> technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow) writes:
>
>BTW, I have a question on the Brady Bill. If you live in a county or city where
>handguns are banned, and go to another county to buy an handgun, who gets your
>application? can your application be denied because possession of a handgun is
>illegal in your area of residence?

It is legal in NYS to buy a long gun (no permit, no waiting period) but NYC
requires a permit for ANY gun.  Until recently, a person living in NYC could
go upstate or to Long Island, purchase a rifle, and return to his or her
residence in NYC.  I know, I did it three times.  This "loophole" has
been closed, and people with addresses in NYC must provide a permit issued
by NYC before purchasing a long gun outside the city.  The NY Times hailed
this as a great advance in NY State Law.

Something similar would probably happen eventually in such communities as
Kevin describes.
>-- 
>               Just say NO to unreasonable search and seizure!
>
>technews@iitmax.iit.edu                           kadokev@harpo.iit.edu
>                         My Employer Disagrees.


  / \ / \     Paul Stoufflet                          / \ / \
 |  / \  |    Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center   |  / \  |
 |  \ /  |    internet: pes3@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu  |  \ /  |
  \_/_\_/     All opinions are my own                 \_/_\_/
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Perot's Running Mate
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:32:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Oct9.165141.6916@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
> 
> USA Today earlier this week had an interview with Perot's running
> mate. He said that "automatic weapons" were becoming a problem and
> that he could see some gun control... chalk another victim up to
> the news media onslaught...

Who the hell IS Perot's running mate?

The last news I heard on this was during the time Perot had dropped
out of the race.  He told a reporter that he had two people in mind
as VP.  One of these people was totally caught by surprise when he
read the interview in the paper, because it was the first he'd heard
of it.  The other vice-presidential prospect had been dead for years.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lydic@ka8lvz.uucp (lydic)
Subject: Re: The true defense of gun ownership
Keywords: Guns,Constitution,Militia
Organization: organization
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:18:38 GMT

In article <Bw0CBq.5vH@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>First let me tell you that I am a Libertarian and no great lover of
>Government interference in the private lives of citizens. However...
>
>However, I am distressed by the willful misunderstanding of the second
>ammendment to the U.S. Constitution. This ammendment is about militias,
>not private gun ownership.

Current U.S. Law:

USC 1970 Title 10 (311 Militia: Composition and Classes) states,

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United
States, and of female citizens of the United States who are
commissioned officers of the National Guard.

 The classes of the militia are--

  (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
      and the Naval Militia; and
  (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the
      militia who are not members of the National Guard or Naval
      Militia."

 *******

"The militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in 
concert for the common defense" and "ordinarily when called for 
service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied 
by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time..."

- United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174,179,180-182 (1939).

 *******

   Note that the 2nd amendment doesn't say "The militia" but "A militia".
   It might also do you well to read a little history and see for youself
   why the 2nd amendment was included.  Treaties by Jefferson, Madision, and
   their peers felt that an armed citizenry was the last chance against a
   government (not of the people) that had run amok.  Before you make wild
   acqusations (sic), it would do you well to get your facts straight.

   -.. .

   John W. Lydic Jr              lydic@ka8lvz.cmhnet.org

   "We live beyond our means, on other peoples dreams, and that's succeeding"
   Janis Ian 'Between the lines'
   ... -.-
From: 76330.3412@CompuServe.COM ("John M. Sulak")
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Debate censorship, Marrou & Lord on 2 CNN programs 12-13 October
Date: 10 Oct 92 18:14:14 GMT

After the debates on Sunday, CNN will have a call in to discuss them. Why
not call and ask why the first candidate on all 50 state ballots (not
Perot) is excluded. USA Today reported that the debate committe was
searching for ways to justify exclude Marrou.

Rep. Marrou will be the guest on CNN's Larry King Live on Oct 12 at 9 PM
ET. You can call him and ask questions directly.

Dr. Nancy Lord, the VP candidate will be on CNN's Crier & Company at 11:30
AM ET the next day, Oct 13 to discuss the Vice Presidential debates and
the fact that they will not allow her to debate Dan Quayle. 

***
Why don't the media understand the difference between bi-partisan and
non-partisan when they do understand the difference between bi-sexual and
non-sexual??? VOTE LIBERTARIAN. Free info: 1-800-862-1776.
***




Distribution:
  talk-politics-misc internet:talk-politics-misc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
  talk-politics-drugs internet:talk-politics-drugs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
  talk-politics-guns internet:talk-politics-guns@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
  alt.censorship internet:alt-censorship@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
  alt-activism internet:alt-activism@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: NRA Ratings (was Re: 1992 Senate Races: No Contest
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:12:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T


|>Carol Moseley Braun during the Democratic Primary campaign attacked
|>Sen. Alan J. Dixon on the RKBA issue; so why would it be unknown the
|>candidate's position on the RKBA?

|         If I recall correctly, the NRA bases their ratings based on
|         surveys sent to the canidates. Ms. Braun may not have
|         returned it or was so vague in it that it was useless.

My understanding is that not only are surveys are sent out to be filled
by candidates, but NRA-affiliated organizations like the Illinois
State Rifle Association are consulted. Clearly, there is knowledge
out there concerning a candidate's position vis-a-vis RKBA that
exists outside of the NRA survey forms. That being true, there is
NO reason why well known candidates like Braun and Bobby Rush should
be given a "?" rating when such knowledge is availible for the asking.

If the purpose is to help folks decide which candidate there is 
deserving of support, then a "?" rating is a disservice to NRA
members seeking guidance if the info is known but not made availible
by the candidate or their organization.

|         On a brighter note, Ms. Brauns lead over Rich Williamson is
|         shrinking and folks are starting to contribute to his
|         campaign.  Maybe there's hope for Illinois yet. 

Rich has quite a ways to go, considering that he has to overcome the
enormous news media Lovefest for Braun. Cracks are beginning to form
in the news media fawning ehh.. 'reporting' of her campaign. Yesterday's
Chicago Tribune had not one, but TWO critical columns on Braun; one
by Mike Royko and one by Mary Schmich in the "Chicagoland/Dupage/etc."
section. 

The one by Mary Schmich was particularly unflattering. The columnist,
who said she still supports Braun, was clearly underwhelmed by Braun's
knowledge of campaign issues. She said that last friday, Braun came
to the Chicago Tribune to meet with the editorial staff to obtain
their blessings. Schmich said of Braun "She  cried." at the end of
the meeting... hmm... I suspect that Braun has been avoiding
holding the five debates she promised with Rich after the primary
election because of this shortcoming...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: OK I was wrong.
Summary: I was mistaken about Militia
Keywords: Militia,2nd Ammendment
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:13:26 GMT

In article <Bw8BB9.12r@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:

>Ok, I was wrong about Militias. Many of you folks out there were *very*
>quick to correct me. As a member in good standing of the Militia, I still
>say the most straight forward claim to the right to bear arms for personal
>self defense still derives from the  Right to Life. 

     The most straightforward claim to RKBA is the federal government's
legal inability (as per the tenth amendment) to enact legislation in that
area.  However, the tenth is dead and the second is only seriously ill.

     However, modern day people want a "where is the government prohibited
from doing this" (see talk.politics.misc thread on the family leave
bill) instead of providing "here is where the government is *allowed*
to do this."

     Any right to life in the Constitution is listed under "without due
process of law."  The Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed."
Which is the stronger wording? 

>I we have a right to life, then we have a right to any action, or the use
>of any implement which sustains and or defends our lives, submect to the
>Caveat that in taking such action or using such implements, we do not
>wronfully deprive others of their lives or property.
>
>I now propose a new Ammendment,

     Good luck...

>A Well Function News Conference being necessary for the protection and
>furtherance of our Liberties, the right to throw flames shall not be
>infringed.

     Not very Libertarian, considering we don't own the newsgroup.  :-)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns