waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
From article <1993Apr18.001319.2340@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, by jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu: > Yea, there are millions of cases where yoy *say* that firearms > 'deter' criminals. Alas, this is not provable. I think that that > there are actually *few* cases where this is so.   It certainly is provable.  Around a million Americans every year defend themselves with firearms.  In many of these cases the defender doesn't even have to fire a shot!  The mere presence of a gun is oftentimes all the deterrent that is needed.  I don't like violence anymore than anyone else does.  But, taking away the right of Americans to keep and bear arms is not the solution to the violent crime problem in this country.  If honest, law-abiding citizens are unable to get firearms then they will be preyed on even more by criminals who will be able to acquire guns through illegal channels.  Expect to start seeing the crime syndicates who smuggle drugs into this country start smuggling guns.  Believe me this will happen.  There is *plenty* of economic incentive for gangsters to illegaly import guns into this country if guns should be banned by the Klintonistas.  > The bulk of firarems are used against unworthy and unnesessary > opponents ... those who posessa a cool jakcet you want, those who > would argue with you about a parking space, those who would > take your woman. In short, trivial and worthless causes.  Statistics, por favor?  > Too much of this has ruined you cause. There is no recovery.  > In the near future, federal martials will come for your arms. > No one will help you. You are more dangerous, to their thinking, > than the 'criminal'. This is your own fault.   See my previous post.  That ought to set you straight.  > The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.  People have the right to keep and bear arms no matter what the Constitution says.  That means that even if the 2nd Amendment is repealed the *people* (that's all American citizens FYI) will *still* have the right to keep and bear arms.   Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot
pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes: >>	If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the >>burning building? > >Assuming the fire was caused by lanterns and stoves being knocked about >by the tanks pushing on the walls (would shake a building pretty good) >perhaps they didn't flee because fleeing would have meant ENTERING the >fire from the other side?  Like they were surrounded by the fire, and >rubble, which finally (combined with teargas, and combustion gasses) >overcame and enveloped them?  >In other words they were TRAPPED by the flames, heat, fumes and rubble?  Wait a minute.  The story being pushed here is that the fire started in ONE PLACE.  This is not consistent with the story that they were TRAPPED by the fire (particularly in a building that all of a sudden had many more exits).  Choose one, please.  >Does that sound plausable?  Not as dramatic as Korash forcing them to >stay, or shooting them (no shot victims found yet), but plausable...  Well, for everyone besides Koresh and his blood children, we can  assume independent choice: Ah, they chose to stay in the face of an assault which clearly endangered their lives.  Or, alternatively, they were not permitted to leave.  Choose one.
>> Look, if you can figure out a reliable means of keeping guns away from  >> bad people, while not interfering with good people, I think we'd all be  >> for it.  The problem is, the methods we're using now don't do the trick.     > Don't manufacture them.  Don't sell them.  Don't import them.    >    > Some guns will get through, but far fewer, and far less people will    > die because of them.  Hunting weapons could be allowed, of course, as    > long as they are big, and bulky, and require reloading after a few    > shots (how many times can you shoot at the same animal, anyways One    > assumes they are moving!)  A better solution:
In article <viking.735373292@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes: > In <mcclaryC5snpq.KB1@netcom.com> mcclary@netcom.com (Michael McClary) writes: >  > 	 >                                          > 	 > 	  LDS and RLDS > philosophy is that all other religions have strayed from the true > Church as set down by Jesus, but that God will judge each on his > own merits.  In addition, the RLDS also contend (and the LDS may > as well) that ignorance of the True Way (tm) is an excuse.  You > can only be condemned if you had been tought the way and rejected > it.  In short, LDS and RLDS suffer everybody from Lutherans to > Buddhists, secure in the knowledge that though they are wrong they > will not be penalized for ignorance.     I believe that this is not quite correct. My understanding is that LDS is engaged on a project to "convert" the souls of deceased persons of other religions, in order to spare them from damnation and gain them entrance into heaven. To this end, the Church has compiled extensive genaeological records, so that they will know the names of people to convert. A long article in the New Yorker a few years ago described the LDS research methods in some detail (for example, some researchers pay visits to local native storytellers to learn the names of people long dead). This sounds like just the sort of lie that would be made up about any unusual religion, but the New Yorker story convinced me that there is some truth to it (the New Yorker used to do extensive fact-checking, and the story was quite detailed).
In article <93109.172450U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz  [...]  > It is kind of funny though how you were the only one who picked up > the part about my sister being a social worker and keeping me up to date on   the > gang thing.  Everyone else seemed to just skim by that part. >  > Jason   I guess that just means "Everyone else" was mistaken?  Jim -- jmd@handheld.com
/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / kendall@lds.loral.com (Colin Kendall 6842) /  9:23 am  Apr 13, 1993 /  In article <1993Apr5.164728.10847@dazixco.ingr.com> crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com writes: >> >>THE ARMED CITIZEN >>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>Mere presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents >>crime in many instances, as shown by news reports sent to The >>Armed Citizen.   > >Perhaps so, but note that of the accounts cited, there was only >one in which no shot was fired. Of the other twelve, five >described cases in which the assailant was wounded by a shot, >and six described cases in which the assailant was killed by a >shot.  Follow more than one months posting.  As more than one reader has noted,  there IS some reporting bias here.  I have seen months where these  numbers were reversed.  I don't keep a constant tally, but it seems  this particular issue had more shots fired than any other I can remember.
>>We all know what a quisling is, right? >Obviously we don't..... >Vidkun Quisling is known to be a traitor in Norway, not a 'censor'. >If I have betrayed my country (Norway) bescause I implied that som of  >you jumped to conclusions/sound a little paranoid then I think there >is a LOT of quislings in Norway.......
In article <C5yypo.EI2@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:  > No, Frank Crary's arguments are based on the assumption that most people > are sane, normal people. tpg disproves this of gun owners. USEnet as a whole > disproves it of humanity as a whole.  Heavens!  Everybody but Phill is out of step!  > We now have proof positive that guns don't make you safer. Buy a lot of > guns and you either get shot in the no knock raid or get the FBI to burn > down your house. See even in the paranoid mindset of tpg there are good reasons > to support gun control.  Once again, Phill lets us all know that might makes right -- but ONLY for the all-sacred government. --
In <1993Apr2.232511.10711@raid.dell.com> mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool) writes:  >Swatikas were also common in American Indian markings/painted walls etc.  Is >it the Swastika that is bad?    Just want to back this up with a personal anecdote.  My grandparents have a Navajo rug made in the 1920's, which they received in trade  from the weaver while living in Flagstaff, Arizona.  The decorative motif consists of 4 large black swastikas, one in each corner.  What's more, the color scheme is black, white, and red.  To the casual glance it would undoubtedly appear to be a Nazi relic of some kind.  Yet they owned it ten years before Hitler and the National Socialists came to power.    As I recall, they took it down in the 30's, and didn't feel quite right about putting it back up until the 60's.  It still draws comments from  those who don't know what it is.  --ccm  --  Christopher C. May * U. of Ariz. Coll. of Medicine '93 * cmay@ccit.arizona.edu +=============================================================================+ | Do your part for Liberty: Teach your children to hate Big Government.       | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Do you care about freedom? Dreams may have inspired it, and wishes promoted |  |     it, but only war and weapons have made it yours. -- Robert Ardrey       | | Armaque in armatos sumere jura sinunt. -- Ovid                              |  | The wise man's understanding inclineth him toward his right hand, but a     | |     fool's heart turneth him to the left. -- Ecclesiastes 10:2              | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In <1993Apr21.160642.12470@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> whughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (William W. Hughes) writes:  >In article <feustelC5tw49.7p5@netcom.com> feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes: >>I predict that the outcome of the study of what went wrong with the >>Federal Assault in Waco will result in future assaults of that type >>being conducted as full-scale military operations with explicit >>shoot-to-kill directives.  >You mean they aren't already? Could have fooled me.  Only because you are apparently easy to fool.  In other words, your remark is obviously from someone who wouldn't know the difference.  --  "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live  in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
>NEWSPAPER AD CENSORSHIP > >The newspapers have now decided to censor gun ads - which is why you no longer >see the ads that Traders, San Leandro, has run for many years. > >If you are tired of newspapers who run sex and liquor ads galor, yet refuse to >run legitimate gun ads, please send a letter to the editors indicating your >displeasure over their censorship doctrine. > >Following is a list of Bay area newspapers who censor gun ads.  Perhaps you'd >like to send them your thoughts on this issue! > >Contra Costa Times	San Mateo Times		San Francisco Chronicle >POB 5088		POB 5400		901 Mission St. >Walnut Creek, CA 94596	San Mateo, CA 94402	San Francisco, CA 94103 > >San Fran. Independent	San Fran. Examiner	San Jose Mercury News >1201 Evans Ave		110 5th St.		750 Ridder Park Dr. >San Fran., CA 94124	San Fran., CA 94103	San Jose, CA 95190  I have the April 15, 1993 issue of the SF Chronicle in my lap.  Page E7 (in the "Sporting Green" section) has a Trader's advert.  (The copy is a bit screwed up - it says that the prices offered expire 4-14-93, but the ad is there.)  The SF Examiner and Chronicle run the same set of adverts (because they have a joint printing/biz agreement and differ only in editorial content).  I've seen gun ads recently in the merc, which is anti-gun editorially, albeit not from traders, but from its competitors.  I don't know about the other papers.  Does Traders claim that things are changing?  When?  >- Why TV journalists lie  Because it's easier than telling the truth and no one much cares either way.  >Let me know if you write to any of these bozos.  Before you do, make sure that the bozos are actually doing what you're accusing them of.  -andy
It's worse than you show it.....look for Janet REno and others to link the words "child abuse" and "p[rivate stores of guns" from now on out.
I thought that the Clipper Chip that was posted to t.p.g (sorry, I lost the original post) was a joke.  I really did.  I didn't believe it for a second.  But on the way to work this morning, I heard about it on NPR.  This scares me almost as much as the doublespeak emanating from the FBI and BATF in Waco.
As quoted from <1993Apr5.172734.8744@icd.ab.com> by kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead):  > oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary) writes: >  > > Questions for the media and the politically correct: > >  > > Try asking people who don't understand why anyone would worry about > > the tactics used against the "child molesting, drug dealing, gun running,  > > cop killing religious wackos in Waco" (1) these questions: > >  > > If the people in the compound were black and the guys in ninja suits > > charging in with assault weapons and grenades were LAPD  > > what would you think? >  >  > The charges are essentially the same they used against Operation MOVE > in Philadelphia a few years back, where the cops dropped an incendiary > bomb on the roof of a tenement and burned down a whole block. >  > MOVE was a black group.  There were some significant differences.  Whereas the Branch Davidians are reported to have gotten along rather well with their neighbors, the MOVE people are generally conceded to have gone far out of the way to antagonize their BLACK neighbors, using loudspeakers to all hours of the night, keeping large piles of garbage, promoting rat and insect infestation, and allegedly threatening to kidnap their neighbors' children.  Still the same sort of questions regarding use of force remain in that case.
In article <dusek.735489223@shale> dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James P. Dusek) writes: >ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig) writes: >>or the cultists...) I think I'll quote the BBC quoting (actually voice >>interview) one of the two British survivors. He claimed that the fire >>started when the tanks caused an internal wooden wall/roof to collapse >>knocking over kerosene lamps and that they had no suicide plan. > >	If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the >burning building?  Assuming the fire was caused by lanterns and stoves being knocked about by the tanks pushing on the walls (would shake a building pretty good) perhaps they didn't flee because fleeing would have meant ENTERING the fire from the other side?  Like they were surrounded by the fire, and rubble, which finally (combined with teargas, and combustion gasses) overcame and enveloped them?  In other words they were TRAPPED by the flames, heat, fumes and rubble?  Does that sound plausable?  Not as dramatic as Korash forcing them to stay, or shooting them (no shot victims found yet), but plausable...
v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes: >hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes... > >>The B.B.C. are also reporting that bodies of B-D members were found >>with bullet wounds in a manner that suggests they may have been shot >>attempting to leave the compound during the fire. > >Can you imagine what happens when a magazine explodes? Bullets go flying every >where. IMHO, these "gunshot wounds" were actually caused when the magazines  >went up.  Unlikely.  Ammunition is not as dangerous when simply burned as it is when fired from a gun.  The brass case is not capable of holding the pressure generated by burning powder, and will (unless supported by the walls of a gun barrel or chamber) simply split open.  While this may cause small pieces of brass to fly around, it will not propel the bullet with any significant velocity.  In fact, it was not uncommon in years past to dispose of old loaded cartridges by burning them.  As long as you were not close enough to take a piece of flying brass in the eye, you were reasonably safe.  Thus, the detonation of loaded magazines or loose rounds might cause slight injury but would be unlikely to cause fatal bullet wounds.
Politicians want to eliminate private ownership of guns before the general public starts violently resisting the tax increases needed to fund the federal government as an ever higher percentage of tax revenue goes to pay interest on the national debt (currently 57 cents out of every tax dollar collected and rising).  --  Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
In article <1r1eu1$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: >In article <1993Apr20.083057.16899@ousrvr.oulu.fi>, dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes: >> In article <1qv87v$4j3@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: >> >In article <C5n3GI.F8F@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes: > >> >> The massive destructive power of many modern weapons, makes the >> >> cost of an accidental or crimial usage of these weapons to great. >> >> The weapons of mass destruction need to be in the control of >> >> the government only.  Individual access would result in the >> >> needless deaths of millions.  This makes the right of the people >> >> to keep and bear many modern weapons non-existant.  >> >Thanks for stating where you're coming from.  Needless to say, I >> >disagree on every count.  >> You believe that individuals should have the right to own weapons of >> mass destruction?  I find it hard to believe that you would support a  >> neighbor's right to keep nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and nerve >> gas on his/her property.    >> If we cannot even agree on keeping weapons of mass destruction out of >> the hands of individuals, can there be any hope for us?  >I don't sign any blank checks.  Of course.  The term must be rigidly defined in any bill.  >When Doug Foxvog says "weapons of mass destruction," he means CBW and >nukes.  When Sarah Brady says "weapons of mass destruction" she means >Street Sweeper shotguns and semi-automatic SKS rifles.    I doubt she uses this term for that.  You are using a quote allegedly from her, can you back it up?  >When John >Lawrence Rutledge says "weapons of mass destruction," and then immediately >follows it with:  >>> The US has thousands of people killed each year by handguns, >>> this number can easily be reduced by putting reasonable restrictions >>> on them.  >...what does Rutledge mean by the term?  I read the article as presenting first an argument about weapons of mass destruction (as commonly understood) and then switching to other topics. The first point evidently was to show that not all weapons should be allowed, and then the later analysis was, given this understanding, to consider another class.  >cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company, >OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig) writes: >or the cultists...) I think I'll quote the BBC quoting (actually voice >interview) one of the two British survivors. He claimed that the fire >started when the tanks caused an internal wooden wall/roof to collapse >knocking over kerosene lamps and that they had no suicide plan.  	If the FBI started the fire, why didn`t people flee the burning building?
In article <1993Apr14.184448.2331@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes: >Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area. 	Why?  Either the numerator or the denominator could fluctuate. 	The dollar value of a gun would (of course) 	go up if supply were restricted.  The weight of a gun might 	go down significantly as technology improved.   I don't 	think you have a basis to assert this.
In article <C5ME6D.Iy0@cs.uiuc.edu> kratz@cs.uiuc.edu (Jason Kratz) writes: >In <1993Apr16.202441.16032@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes: >>In article <93104.175256U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: >>>people are getting killed by gang violence every day?  Every single day I hear >>>about more people getting killed by gang violence and see some of the weapo{s >>>that are being confiscated. > >>Is Kratz claiming that he can reliably visually distinguish an M-16 >>from an AR-15?  That he can see the difference between a semi-auto and >>a full-auto UZI?  That he can see the difference between the various >>versions (some full-auto, some semi-auto only) of the M-11/9? > >Well, let me see.  UZI, no.  M-11/9, no.  I see that I misphrased my question.  I should have asked WHICH full-autos Kratz can accurately distinguish from semi-auto look-alikes.  I should have also included some semi-auto only guns in my list to see if he'd ask how to distinguish them from their non-existent full-auto "relatives".  Let's do the former now.  Kratz has claimed that he can visually distinguish full-autos from semi-autos.  For which full-autos is he making that claim?  How does he do it?  Let's get specific, and as exhaustive as possible.  >M-16/AR-15, maybe.  I remember there >being a selector swtich on the AR-15.  If I remember correctly (please correct >me if I'm wrong) the switch would set to an "off" position or an "on" position >because the gun (AR-15) is semi-automatic.  Wouldn't the M-16 have a position >for semi-auto fire and full-auto fire (or maybe 3 round bursts)?  Maybe?  Why is Kratz asking about what he told us that he knows?  Is Kratz certain that he can distinguish a three position switch from a two position switch via TV inspection?  (Does he even get to see the switch in the typical police display of guns?)  Note that one might well be able to see this sort of thing in a hands on visual inspection even though it won't be seen on TV.  And to think that Kratz was telling us that seeing it on TV was just as accurate as being there....  >How about the other guns?  Do they also have selector switch to switch between >semi-auto and fully-auto fire?  Why all the questions?  Kratz assured us that he could make this distinction and now he's asking us how he did it....  >Well, what about what I said above?  If that is correct I guess TV would be >acceptable (if you had a good enough picture and a picture of the lower  >receiver of the AR-15/M-16).  What about it?  It only demonstrates that, as I predicted, Kratz was blowing smoke on this.  >>-andy gave Kratz a chance to back down on this in private >>-- >Jason Kratz <- didn't take andy's offer to back down in private  -andy wonders what Kratz is learning from this
Hi. I've just finished reading S414, and have several questions about the Brady bills (S414 and HR1025).  1. _Are_ these the current versions of the Brady bill?      What is the status of these bills?  I've heard they're "in committee".      How close is that to being made law?  2. S414 and HR1025 seem fairly similar.  Are there any important    differences I missed?  3. S414 seems to have some serious loopholes:   A. S414 doesn't specify an "appeals" process to wrongful denial during      the waiting period, other than a civil lawsuit(?)  (S414 has an appeals      process once the required instant background check system is established,      but not before).   B. the police are explicitly NOT liable for mistakes in denying/approving      using existing records (so who would I sue in "A" above to have an      inaccurate record corrected?)   C. S414 includes an exception-to-waiting-period clause for if a person      can convince the local Chief Law-Enforcement Officer (CLEO) of an      immediate threat to his or her life, or life of a household member.      But S414 doesn't say exactly what is considered a "threat", nor does      it place a limit on how long the CLEO takes to issue an exception      statement. True?  Have I misunderstood?  Any other 'holes?  4. With just S414, what's to stop a person with a "clean" record from    buying guns, grinding off the serial numbers, and selling them to crooks?    At minimum, what additional laws are needed to prevent this?     'Seems at min. a "gun counting" scheme would be needed    (e.g., "John Doe owns N guns").  So, if S414 passes, I wouldn't be surprised    to see legislation for stricter, harder-to-forge I.D.'s plus national gun    registration, justified by a need to make the Brady bill work.  Please comment.  I'm mainly interested in specific problems with the current legislation--I don't mean to start a general discussion of the merits of any/all waiting-period bills ever proposed.