HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt)
Subject: Re: A Brady Bill Debate
Originator: swatt@mickey.CS.Yale.Edu
Organization: Yale University, Computing & Information Systems
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:21:47 GMT


In article <1992Oct12.214114.10486@iitmax.iit.edu>, technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow) writes:
|> I've got many friends who are pro-gun, and a few people I know are anti-gun,
|> and from my experience the Brady Bill is perceived very differently by the
|> two sides.
|> 
|> 	The anti-gun people see it as a "reasonable" restriction that simply
|> acts as a delay to prevent "crimes of passion" and provide time for a background
|> check to "keep dangerous weapons from getting into the wrong hands".
|> 
|> 	The pro-gun people see it as an "unreasonable infringement of a 
|> constitutional right" that won't stop criminals because "If they obey the law
|> they wouldn't be criminals" and acts as a delay. They also point out that unlike
|> Staggers the Brady Bill doesn't call for a mandatory check, and that it allows
|> the police cheif to deny a purchase by simply pretending he never received the 
|> application...
|> 

Watt's rule of public policy debates:  You cannot trust *anybody* to
accurately summarize what a proposed piece of legislation or regulation
actually says or what it will actually do.  Not those for it, not those
against it, and most especially not the news media.  In general, the pro-side
will tend to gloss over defects and inflate benefits and the anti-side
will tend to assume any ambiguity or loophole will be exploited with
malice.  The media will "summarize" the bill assuming you have a 15 second
attention span.

You have to get a copy of the bill and read it for yourself.

When you do this, you will begin to wonder how the hell the people in
Congress even know what they're voting for.  The bills are not marked
with a version number, or even a date.  There are no change bars to show
how this version of the bill differs from prior version(s).  Many
bills contain complex instructions on how to modify specific portions
of existing laws and you can't make any sense of them unless you also
have a copy of the current statutes.  I have little doubt if you contacted
5 different congressional offices and asked for the same bill under
discussion you could easily get 5 different texts.  I would almost
bet money you'd get at least 2 different texts.

I haven't seen any of the most recent incarnations of the Brady Bill,
so I won't attempt to answer your specific question.
-- 
  Alan S. Watt
  Yale University			Computing and Information Systems
  Box 2112 Yale Station			(203) 432-6602
  New Haven, CT  06520-2112		Watt-Alan@Yale.Edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman)
Subject: Re: Candidate ratings on RKBA
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:15:49 GMT


lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>Could you give us the algorithm used to come up with this rating, please ?
>I'm a bit suprised that you'd rate John Kasich, my US representative,
>as an F; at worse I'd rate him a B.  His opponent, Fitarski, is rated

GOA rates Kasich as a B+.  His opponents, Fitrakis, gets an A-.  Quite a
bit different from the huge gap in the Ohio association's ratings.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once." David Hume
|||  clc5q@virginia.edu (Clark L. Coleman)
From: ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:18:46 GMT
Subject: Re: Carry around the country (new)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

> From: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer)
> 
> >What do have to do to get some protection around this country!? 
>         ^ you?
> 
> Short answer: Break the law
> Long answer:  Usually break the law.
> 
> 
> 				mike

Politically Correct Answer: Hire bodyguards. (don't ask how they carry)

Ron
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Perot's Running Mate
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:51:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T


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...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: ctdonath@rodan.syr.EDU (Carl T. Donath)
Subject: Re: Carry around the country (new)
In-reply-to: shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov's message of Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:18:31 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 15:35:29 EDT

In article <1992Oct12.181831.1510@mcs.anl.gov> shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:

   >What do have to do to get some protection around this country!? 
	   ^ you?

   Short answer: Break the law
   Long answer:  Usually break the law.

Remember, the police are not legally obligated to protect you.
Hmmm...what was the quote..."forgiveness is easier to get than permission..."
--
  __________/ ctdonath@rodan.acs.syr.edu  Carl T Donath \________________
 / Why do people assume that this is the first time things have ever     \
/ been this way and things will stay this way forever?                    \
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:58:02 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Oct4.230525.12479@mtu.edu>, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
> The average person couldn't tell you when the Constitution was signed,
> much less anything about it's contents.  Studies have found that
> approximately half the people know little or nothing about the Constitution
> (e.g. What it does, what the Bill of Rights is, and what the President's
> power w.r.t. to Rights are).
> 
> Do you really find it surprising, or significant, that most of the
> population is satisfied with the status quo?...

Worse, how do you feel about living in a country where the criminals are
experts on their individual rights, while the common citizens are clueless?

At least there IS one class of criminals in the country that aren't concerned
with what the Constitution says.  Unfortunately, its members tend to occupy
government buildings.
-- 

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: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing army?
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:23:56 GMT

In article <85115@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

>In article 14297@watson.ibm.com, mjp@austin.ibm.com (Michael Phelps) writes:
>>True, the courts have found that the 1st doesn't allow you to yell "Fire" in a
>>crowded auditorium.  But the 2nd amendment seems very specific -- the right
>>of the people to keep and bear arms -- about who gets to keep the arms.
>
>So, your position is that the First Amendment is not as specific as the 
>Second. Does this mean that you think Congress can pass laws respecting 
>the establishment of religion?  How do the libel and slander laws square 
>with freedom of speech?  I don't see anything in the First about requiring 
>that only the truth be spoken.  

     Nor about only the militia being armed at the whim of the government
in the second.  It does say, "people," after all.

>The language of the First is no less clear 
>than that of the Second.  It is just that the courts have tended to expand 
>our rights under the First.  The Second, like the Third, has been treated 
as something of an anachronism.  An 18th century>solution to an 18th century 
>problem.

     Which continues to plague many countries even today.
   
     But I suppose we should be grateful that the courts have taken it upon
themselves to decide for us what rights are "suitable" in "the modern 
context" and what rights aren't.
     I mean, that silly protection against search and seizure must only have
meant against British troops and is *much* to bothersome to worry about
today. 
     It think I'll go plan a demonstration outside the Supreme Court to thank
them for what they've done for me.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Does This Law Make Sense
Date: 14 Oct 92 08:12:34 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <viking.718744875@vincent2.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sore
nson) writes:
>In <BvwxvH.2At@rice.edu> kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack) writes:
>
>>      As I said, I don't know the CA law, but Texas law has a
>>   similar problem.  One can not legally have a handgun "on or
>>   about his person" (unless he's a police officer, etc.) and the
>>   courts have ruled that the glove box, back seat - basically,
>>   anywhere in the passenger compartment - is considered to be
>>   on/about ones person.  Thus, technically, there is no legal
>>   place to transport a handgun in a station wagon/hatchback, on
>>   a motorcycle or in the cab of a pickup truck, unless one is
>>   qualified under one of the exemptions in Title 10, Sec 46.03
>>   of the Texas Penal Code.  Since Texas does not have any sort
>>   of permit (CCW) system for civilians, this can be a problem
>>   if you don't have a vehicle with a trunk and the police officer
>>   decides to be a hardass.
>
>       And you'll also note that this is not generally considered a
>reason to be allowed a CCW.  The police just think you ought to openly
>display your guns so you no longer have a concealed weapon.  Thus,
>you can be charged with intimidating the public or some other BS law
>that they feel like charging you with.  Iowa does have a permit system,
>but it's incredibly difficult to get one if your sheriff is a hard-ass.
>
><Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
><z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
><viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
><ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
>

*   Has anyone considered the "automobile gun safes?" If you had a station
* wagon, couldn't you bolt the safe to the floor plate in front of the
* right-rear wheel well? It seems to me that if your handguns were locked up
* in this manner, if a hardass cop nails you, that at least it LOOKS like you
* made an honest attempt to try to abide by the law. Whether the court would
* think so might be a different story...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: drac@uumeme.chi.il.us (Bruce Maynard)
Subject: Re: Leonard Levy, "Original Intent", etc.
Organization: UUMEME Public Access UNIX
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 07:34:05 GMT

In article <3725@execu.execu.com> dont@execu.execu.com (Don Thompson) writes:
>
>>>From article <1992Oct6.152435.15187@eff.org>, by mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin):
>> Well, it should be noted that if the original understanding of the Second
>> Amendment was *not* to reserve a right to individuals, the word "people"
>> in the Second Amendment means something far different from the word
>> "people" in the First Amendment.
>
>>--Mike
>
>
>How/Why does the word "people" have a different 
>meaning in the First Amendment than the Second? What do you base this on? 
>How do you reconcile this with the several Supreme court opinions
>stating explicitly that the term People means everyone ( more or less ).

I believe the fellow was trying to make a point about the media's
apparent hypocrisy in treating the "people" in the first amendment to mean
ALL, and the "people" in the 2nd amendment to mean just the state
militias...
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The true defense of gun ownership
Keywords: Guns,Constitution,Militia
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:13:38 GMT

In article <Bw0CBq.5vH@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) 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.

According to federal law (Title 10 and 32) the militia includes all
males between the ages of 17 and 45.

According to the Supreme Court (in US v. Miller) the militia includes
everyone "physically capable of acting in concert for the common
defense."

According to the framers of the Constitution themselves (Col. Geroge
Mason of the Virginia Militia, in this case) the militia includes
"everyone, except for a few public officials."

The Second Amendment is about preserving the militia (armed citizens),
regardless of government opposition or interference, by protecting the
right of the individual members (everyone) to arm and train themselves.

                                       Frank Crary
                                       CU Boulder

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman)
Subject: Re: Brady Bill squashed and other news
Keywords: Brady, Good riddance
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:12:56 GMT

In article <1asbpsINNse7@eagle.natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
>......................  I think that there is only one member of the
>House who is not a Republican or Democrat - and I think he's a Socialist
>or some such thing.

Right. Bernie Sanders, Socialist from Vermont, was elected by gun owners
with great fanfare as a protest against a Republican incumbent who was
a compromiser on gun control.

Bernie has proceeded to be a compromiser on gun control, and now gets a B
rating from GOA.  That may be an improvement on his predecessor; I am not
sure.  We also get Bernie's wonderful Socialist votes on all other matters
before the Congress.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once." David Hume
|||  clc5q@virginia.edu (Clark L. Coleman)
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:17:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.193222.24206@raid.dell.com> mikepb@lupus.dell.com writes:
(eulogy about the 12 "fat" years, deleted)

I'm glad you prospered during the reign of Reagan/Bush/Quayl.
It would make sense for you to vote for Bush.

Those of us who did NOT prosper, who are seeing a dramatic loss
of jobs, a decrease in public services of all types, greater
difficulty in finding affordable health care and college
educations, and a constant instrusion of theology into
public administration will be voting for Clinton.

Democracy is really simple.


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: NSW homicides
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 19:01:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.145803.6337@csi.jpl.nasa.gov> mwette@csi.jpl.nasa.gov (Matt Wette) writes:
>My impression is that Tim Lambert proposed a correlation between crime
>statistics and gun control in two sets of successive years.  I'm
>guessing that Andy Freeman then made the argument was then that these
>aren't necessarily correlated (which is true -- any number of other
>events could have led to the change).  He then proposed some other
>model maybe?

Several of us proposed a different model: A gradual, decade-long decline, 
due to other factors, begining several years before the passage of the
gun control law. The chi-square fits for Lambert's sudden change model,
and our gradual decline model were roughly the same as I recall, though there
was _massive_ variation depending on the time interval considered.
The argument not is over the number a parameters used: Lambert claims the
gradual decline model uses more parameters than his, and therefore
his model is superious, despite similar chi-square values. 

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: NSW homicides
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:00:59 GMT
	<LAMBERT.92Oct6170742@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>
	<1992Oct13.200515.15268@mtu.edu>
Organization: none

>>>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:05:15 GMT, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) said:
> Nntp-Posting-Host: fishlab11.fsh.mtu.edu

> In article <LAMBERT.92Oct6170742@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>,
> lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:

>> >>>>> On Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:02:44 GMT, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) said:
>> > (Tim Lambert) writes:
>> >>(21
>> 
>> > Huh!?  19 degrees of freedom!  That's enough to least-square fit an elephant!
>> 
>> Explain to us how 19 df allow you to "fit an elephant".

> Well, since you haven't seen this "proof" before, go to your library and look
> up "Least Square Fitting of an Elephant", by James Wel (U. of Delaware),
> CHEMTECH, Feb 1975, pg 128.

> It's really quite humorous! ;-)  A "good" fit to the elephant requires
> about 30 terms, but you can do quite well with 20 degrees of freedom.

Very amusing, but that's 20 or 30 FITTED PARAMETERS to fit the
elephant.  My 19 df are the degrees of freedom in the DATA, which
gives you the df to use in the chi-square statistic for goodness of fit.

>> >> 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...
>> 
>> Your suspicions are incorrect.

> Oh!  Now *this* is convincing evidence....

The evidence that there were but two fitted parameters is underlined
above.  You've quoted it twice now.

If you have some substantive basis for your suspicions, please inform us.

Tim
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: My response to newspaper bias - Part I
Organization: Twilight Zone
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:25:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct05.122442.8981@brtph560.bnr.ca> mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030) writes:
>I gave him examples. I didn't tell him and I
>haven't written a letter yet, but I'm think I'm going to write to their big 
>advertisers and tell them why I won't be seeing their adds anymore.

	This actually sounds like a good idea.  if companies started getting 
	thousands of letters stating similar sentments, I dare say you might 
	well see some companies putting on the pressure to the papers to
	clean up their act.

	I amy even try this myself.

	-Andy V. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Re: position of pres. candidates
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 19:45:27 GMT
Organization: N/I

In article <sday.718493513@kirin> sday@bbn.com (Sherry Day) writes:
[ ... ]
>I would appreciate any replies. Is it me, am I the only one who is 
>confused by what the candidates are saying.  I hear one thing then
>the opposite a few days later.  I hope I am not the only one that
>feels like a mushroom.

No, you're not the only one.  It's not just firearms.  "They" don't
trust "us" with the vote, either.  Hence the mushroom-cultivation
techniques.  (I.e., "keep them in the dark, and feed them shit".  :-)
From: lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: NSW homicides
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:09:10 GMT
	<1992Oct9.145803.6337@csi.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<1992Oct10.190132.772@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
	<1992Oct13.155710.8919@news.yale.edu>
Organization: none

>>>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:57:10 GMT, watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt) said:

> However, what effect did WW-I have on the age-distribution of the population?
> I would expect the percentage of 18-25 year-olds in the general population
> to be reduced due to war casualties.  In the U.S., this is the age group
> which accounts for most of the violent crime.

Here are the percentages of the population of NSW that were between 18
and 25 inclusive at each census year:
      Male   Female
1911   8.4%     8.2%
1921   6.4%     7.1%
1933   7.3%     7.0%

This suggests that the male percentage would have been 7.4 in 1921 were
it not for the Great War.  However, I suspect that this overestimates
the effects of the war - see below.

> Also, I don't know how Austrailian military forces are organized, but in
> G.B., they are (or were at the time) grouped in units by geographical
> area.  That is, each regiment would be composed of people from the same
> place.  A unit which got wiped out therefore consisted of a lot of
> neighbors and relatives.  If the war casualties did have a significant
> effect on the age distribution of the population most likely to commit
> violent crime, it would also tend to have a very high regional variation,
> or at least higher than the same casualty rates would have on the U.S.,
> which deliberately homoginizes its forces.

I don't think losses were proportionately more in NSW than elsewhere.

> I also don't know the Australian casualties in WW-I;

60,000 dead, or 1.2% of the entire population.  This suggests that the
calculation above, which suggests that 1% of the population, or 80% of
the deaths occured in the age group 18-25 in 1921, which was the age
group 11-18 at the start of the war and 15-22 at the end, overstates
the effect of the war on the 18-25 group.

In any case, this could explain part of the decline that followed gun
control, but not all, since the percentage decline in the homicide
rate was greater than the percentage decline in the fraction of the
population male 18-25.  Furthermore, while males 18-25 are the most
likely to murder, they are responsible for only 25% of the homicides
in NSW.  (This was measured over the period 1968-1981, so may perhaps
have changed.)

Do you think it would be interesting to recalculate the homicide
rates, using not the actual population, but the population weighted by
age groups, with the weights being the fraction of homicides committed
by that age group.  This should correct for demographic change.

Tim