waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In <93104.173826U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: >What seems to be happening here is the situation getting totally blown out of >proportion.  In my post I was referring to your regular patrolman in a car >cruising around the city vs. gang members.  Of course the police have access >to the things that you mentioned but do they use tanks and such all of the >time?  Of course they don't and that's the point I was trying to make.  Every >day when I go out to lunch I always see cops coming in.  The majority that I >see are still carrying revolvers.  So?  Look in the trunk some time.  Heck - look at the dash.  That funny thing attached with a quick-release is a gun.  The ones in the trunk are "better".  (I don't have numbers for Chicago, but Philadelphia police cars carried multiple automatic weapons and thousands of rounds as standard issue in the 60s.)  >Not that there is anything wrong with a >revolver but if you're a cop that is up against some gang member with a couple >of automatics in his coat (I mean semi-auto handguns) you're going to be at a >disadvantage even with training.  What is the nature of this disadvantage?  If the cop can shoot, 6 rounds will do the job against a single opponent (especially since the cop has guaranteed backup).  If the "gang member" can shoot, the extra rounds don't help.  The only time this difference can matter is if neither can shoot, and cops aren't supposed to be throwing lead around like that.  BTW - most cops carry multiple guns.  You're not supposed to know about the second, third, and so on.  >I have been at a shooting range where >gang members were "practicing" shooting.  How do "we" know that they were gang members and not undercover cops or even law-abiding menacing minorities.  BTW - Why the sneer quotes?  They were actually practicing >taking out their guns as quick as possible and shooting at the target >and they weren't doing too badly either.  Then the extra rounds won't make any difference, so why is it an issue?  -andy
papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes: >... >Some guns will get through, but far fewer, and far less people will >die because of them.    Do you have any statistical evidence to back you claim that requires another limitation of the citizenry freedom? --   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Podleski			|     phone: 216-433-4000 NASA Lewis Research Center     	|     Cleveland, Ohio  44135         	|     email: pspod@hooch.lerc.nasa.gov
Steve Kao (k@hprnd.rose.hp.com) wrote: : Frank Crary posted: : : Sure, but the difference in per-capita crime rates predates the : : gun control laws: The homicide rate in England was a tenth that : : of America, back when anyone in England could buy a gun without : : any paperwork at all.  : Steve Manes asks: : > Got a citation for this?  : Colin Greenwood from Scotland Yard did a study that showed that gun : control has had no effect on crime or murder rates in the UK.  His book, : _Firearms_Controls_, has been published in London by Keegan Paul (name : may be misspelled).  Others dispute that, like Richard Hofstadter, <America As A Gun Culture>, and Newton and Zimring's <Firearms and Violence in American Life>.  But, again, statistics between too dissimilar cultures are difficult to quantify.  I don't know how anyone can state that gun control could have NO effect on homicide rates.  There were over 250 >accidental< handgun homicides in America in 1990, most with licensed weapons.  More American children accidentally shot other children last year (15) than all the handgun homicides in Great Britain.  (Source: National Safety Council.  Please... no dictionary arguments about RATES vs TOTAL NUMBERS, okay?  They're offered for emphasis, not comparison).  If Mr. Greenwood believes that Brits are much too sober and coordinated to make such mistakes I'd like to introduce him to my friend, Amanda from Brighton.  I used to have some pretty nice crystal in my place until she moved in.  I've gotten used to the snide comments from guests about the clown motif on my rubber wine glasses.
In article <1993Apr15.202811.29312@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says: > >>I have been at a shooting range where >>gang members were "practicing" shooting. > >How do "we" know that they were gang members and not undercover cops >or even law-abiding menacing minorities.  BTW - Why the sneer quotes? > "We" know because the area that the gun shop/shooting range is in is right on the border of the west side of Chicago.  That is a gang infested area.  There are many, many bad things going on in that area.  Also, I have several friends that live very close to that area who have had problems with some of these folks.  By the way, where did I say that they were minorities?  Do you think that only minorities have gangs?  Not so.  As far as the quotes are concerned it was totally obvious that they weren't just practicing for marksmanship.  I don't know about you but I have never seen anyone else practice marksmanship by taking their gun out of their coat as fast as possible and start shooting.  If you would have been there Andy it would've been obvious to you too.  Of course it might not have been.  Who knows.  All I do know is that I was there, I live here and I know that they were gang bangers.  When you live here long enough it becomes pretty easy to spot them via gang colors, gang signs, etc.  One last thing.  My sister is a social worker.  She makes it her point to find these things out (gang signs, colors, etc) because it is in her best interest to do so.  She is nice enough to let me know these things so I can watch out for myself as I live right on the border of the west side of the city. Enough said.
From article <strnlghtC5tr6D.n3n@netcom.com>, by strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight): >  > Though I agree this is not the place to discuss guns, I note in passing that > a number of gun apologists seem to have ignored the words "well regulated" > in their distorted interpretations of the Second Amendment.   "Well Regulated", at the time of its writing and in the context of the Second Amendment, means "Properly trained and equipped."  It modern language it would read:  	A properly trained and equipped militia, being necessary to the security of 	a free state <note the word "free", it doesn't say "police"), the right of 	the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
|This was no MOVE fuck-up. A helicoptor was thermal-imaging the compound |that afternoon and detected three fires erupting almost simultaneously.  Did anyone notice any helicopters equipped with thermal imaging  equipment? They usually manifest themselves in a turret in the front of the helo, or a sphere on top of the rotor with optical elements.
>DATE:   18 Apr 93 00:13:19 -0500 >FROM:   jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu > >Yea, there are millions of cases where yoy *say* that firearms >'deter' criminals. Alas, this is not provable.   In my case I am alive thanks to a gun, that is provable.. even in your twisted logic.  >I think that that there are actually *few* cases where this is so.   No... Wrong again brain trust..   >The bulk of firarems are used against unworthy and unnesessary >opponents   Huh? What planet are you from?   >The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.  Wrong... Not as long as freedom remains ..  PS: Get a Dictionary..
Dan Sorenson writing:   ...   DS>I'd rather not get into the Nationalized Medical Care debate  DS>here, but I find it amazing that criminals often live better than the  DS>rest of the population, in some aspects, and that we're paying for                                ^^^^  DS>them to do so.  As an example, in November I had my annual dental   ...   Here, you are somewhat in error.....in ALL respects we are paying. When we  are not paying for their countryclub incarceration, we are paying with our  lives and belongings as their prey. Upon what would they practice their  nefarious predatory acts if not for the citizens of this country. What is  amazing to me is the mindset of those who overtly and covertly perpetuate  a justice system (har) that essentially mandates that some of us offer up  ourselves as that prey while they suitably insulate themselves from the  preyground. ---  . OLX 2.2 . Church of Crime & Justice....come, let us prey!
In article <1993Apr19.223925.2342@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes: >A poster claims he 'always asks [anti-gunners] what they think would >be reasonable personal firepower restrictions'. OK then ... > >Caliber : Not greater than 32 >Muzzle  : Not greater than 300 ft/lbs with any combo of bullet wt/vel >Action  : Single shot rifles and single action revolvers  >          Revolvers bearing no more than six rounds and incorporating >          an 'anti-fanning' mechanism to discourage Roy Rogers wannabes. >Bullets : Any non-explosive variety, HPs just fine. > >Now - these specs leave the 32 H&R magnum as about the most powerful >allowable civie cartridge for handgun or rifle use. It would be >reasonably effective against home intruders, muggers, rabid wolves >and other such nasties, even with the firearm-type limitations. At the >same time, this caliber/power limit would reduce the ultimate lethality >of hits. The chances of the average joe encountering a gang of huge >individuals all drunk and stoned on PCP and crystal meth and with a >bad attitude and all armed and willing to die ... well, it's about >zero - far less than the chances of getting killed driving your car.  When will you people realize that our right to keep and bear isn't primarily intended to be for protecting against criminals and beasties in the wild?  Granted, it is a big part, but we also need military style weapons so we can fight off the government when they come to our door. When ten agents come to my door, it would be nice to be able to shoot all of them for 'not upholding the constitution to the best of their ability'.  It will be a lot harder doing that with the puny weapons you listed above.  Please read the Federalist papers for all clarification on RKBA.  These documents have cleared up plenty of misnomers that friends of mine have had.
In article <strnlghtC5tr6D.n3n@netcom.com>, strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:  > Though I agree this is not the place to discuss guns, I note in passing that > a number of gun apologists seem to have ignored the words "well regulated" > in their distorted interpretations of the Second Amendment.  Though David Sternlight pushes the envelope of credibility by claiming that talk.politics.guns is not the place to discuss guns, or the meaning of the Second Amendment, it seems he would rather post to millions of people out  of relative ignorance of the subject than to follow the currently active  threads discussing EXACTLY this topic which at least explore the fallacies  of his erroneous claim, and at most explode them.  Basic fact #1, Mr. Sternlight:  The RIGHT described is a "right of the people to keep and bear arms;" not a "right of the people to form a militia," a "right of a militia to keep and bear arms," or a "right of well-regulated people to keep and bear arms."  This should be apparent from a simple reading of the sentence.  For the other arguments, I suggest you check out the thread, "Some more about gun control," playing now in an alt.politics.usa.constitution near you. --
I just read a clari article about how, among the other weapons the BD had purched, they had two "Barrett 50-caliber armor-piercing rifles."  How the hell do you use an armor-piercing rifle?  Run up to a tank and try to stab it?  Once again, ignorance prevails amongst the media . . .
In article <1rgudtINN3it@apache.dtcc.edu> bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe) writes : >In article <2099@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes: > >>I want to see an INDEPENDENT investigation, with full prosecuting and >>subpoena powers.  With felony prosecution where felony acts are found. >>Fat chance, I bet.  I bet the Justice Dept will have an internal >>investigation which will turn up at most 'poor judgement'. > >  OOOHHHHHHHH, can you say "INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR", geee, maybe ol' >Mr. Walsh can do something useful after all..... > > (Right, fat chance...) >  I'm responding at the risk of misreading your response, but I do have to tell  my fellow conservatives to give it up, attacking Reno/Clinton/ATF/FBI.  They may have botched an operation, but they didn't kill anybody who never shot at them first.  David Koresh was a frigging lunatic.  His followers had the  combined I.Q of a Geraldo audience.  The kids probably would have been those fucked up social rejects who go to Freshman dances in high school, never to be seen again (except maybe in the band) until prom, when they show up like  animals boarding the ark.  Then it's bowling till 3 in the morning.....  (WHY....WHY?? did it happen to me??!!)  Anyway, the point is Janet Reno/Bill Clinton were only following the advice of  trained, law enforcement officials who were experts in their fields.  I'd  rather have our leaders do that then micro-manage every crisis that comes  along.  Then you'd really see trouble no matter what party or ideology the  President and her (er.. I mean his) Attorney General is. --  Ryan C. Scharfy
[snip]....  draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn) writes:   >The President is not competent to plan or judge the planning of such a >raid, nor does he need to be.  His job is to set basic policies and >manage the people under him.  If Clinton instructed Reno to preserve >lives, and if she confirmed that the plan for the raid was a safe as >could be, then he did his job.  The President should not involve >himself in the minor details of these kinds of operations.  This sort >of micromanagement only leads to disaster, as was demonstrated so well >in Vietnam.  >But the raid went bad:  Over 80 civilians have been killed in a >controntation with U.S. authorities.  >NOW Clinton enters the picture in a big way.  Will Clinton start an >investigation?  Or will he try to squash any attempt to investigate? >Is he a responsible leader?  Or is he only interested in protecting >the image of his administration?  >We'll all find out as this unfolds.   	Excellent point, Mark.  We should all remember that if Nixon 	hadn't tried to cover up the misguided actions of some of his 	subordinates in the Watergate burglary, the scandal would 	never have brought down his presidency.  So far, Klinton seems 	to be stonewalling this the same way Tricky Dick did.  His whole 	case seems to be "we didn't do anything wrong".  However, if 	in the course of the investigation it turns out that the 	gov't DID do something wrong, and he tried to cover it up, 	then that's an impeachable crime, I believe...    	Perhaps he is inadvertently cooking up his own scandal...  Can you  	say "Wacogate", little neighbor?...   ;-)
Let's discuss Reno's taking full responciblity. Is everyone happy with the  outcome? Did the FBI pursue the correct course of action? was justice done? If Reno really meant what she said she would resign! She is just grand standing, period. What did those people do wrong in the first place? that is what i can't figure out. sure they were crazy, no dought about it, but what did  they do wrong? someone please help me out on this.
>Would someone please post the generic addresses for Congress and  >Senate so that we can all write letters?  US House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
In article <1r5a7jINN83g@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> nomad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Michael Larish) writes: >In article <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes:  >>2) Could a further wait have resulted in a different outcome.  >	This I doubt.  While I question the ATF's initial raid, I believe >that the remainder of the standoff was handled fairly well with the single >exception of the psychological "warfare" by blaring music, etc.  I think >that was uncalled for and probably hindered the outcome.    BUT...  Suppose they had waited.  The WORST outcome would have been the one that actually did.  But with the FBI/ATF just standing there watching instead of being a part of the problem.  It then would have been very clear exactly who was at fault then, rather than the way it turned out.    AND, that would have been the WORST case.  The best would have been, they finally get hungry and come out.  Possible/likely?  Well, the alternative was worse...  >>One other point, I'm no fan of Janet Reno, but I do like the way she had the >>"balls" to go ahead and take full responsibility.  Seems like the waffle boy >>had problems figuring out just where he stood on the issue.  >	Which is actually rather refreshing nowadays.  Most of the time, the >higher-ups claim "I don't remember..." or "I had no involvement..."  :-)    But what does it matter?  Why say "I don't remember...." when it doesn't make any difference?  Altho the clintonettes have been pretty good at lying when it wasn't necessary, they didn't do it this time.  But it wasn't  necessary - claiming full responsibility is a totall meaningless gesture. Symbolism over substance - again!      I've offered to take full responsibility.  When do they pay me the big bucks the AG is making...????   ;^) --  ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Bob Rahe, Delaware Tech&Comm College | AIDS, Drugs, Abortion: -        | |Internet: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu        |  - Don't liberals just kill you?| |CI$: 72406,525 Genie:BOB.RAHE        |Save whales; and kill babies?    |
for those who live near or plan to vacation in New Hampshire and Maine, I am posting the basic info of how to apply for a LTC (CCW) in those states for non-residents.
In article <1r4r01INN4v6@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes... >In article <C5uyG1.7q9@acsu.buffalo.edu> v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu   >(P.VASILION) writes: >> In article <C5v15A.7oo@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes... >> [... snip ...] >>  >> >|>>Has anyone in U.S. heard anything similar or are U.S. government >> >|>>spin-doctors censoring such information? >> >|>> >> >|>>The B.B.C. news is also reporting that about 20 of those that died >> >|>>were british citizens. >> >  >> >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. >> >  >> >There is a possibility that these are the bodies of people killed during >> >the initial shootout. >> >  >> >Phill Hallam-Baker >>  >> 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. A Texas ranger does not a pathologist make, so I'll wait for an >> autopsy to determine if they were shot first.  >>  >  >I would doubt bullets would go flying.  There is no particular force to make   >the bullet leave the scene of a cartridge going off outside of a barrel.  The   >brass shell would burst too soon to give the bullet any real velocity.  I   >wouldn't want to be near it, but I do not think bullet wounds would result.    >Shrapnel wounds would be more likely >  >At least this is my understanding.  Not necessarily. If the body had been denatured (cooked) or dehydrated due to the heat, a projectile needs only a minimal kinetic force to penetrate. In fire aftermaths, bodies tend to fall apart or loose large chunks of meat with little effort. Medical Examiners tend not to like cleaning up such scenes.   As such, if the body had been suitably cooked, a bullet comming from a magazine explosion would more than likely have enough force to enter and thus it would be difficult to determine whether a bullet entered at the time of death, or much later, unless you were trained to look for the evidence. Texas Rangers are not pathologists.    >  >> Either way, they're all dead and the FBI & Atty. Gen. Vampria are still >> responsable. >  >Yep, at least in large part. >  >jmd@handheld.com
In article <1993Apr20.060635.26568@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >In article <nagleC5n2sz.5IA@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes: >>      The San Francisco Examiner reports that Clinton has issued instructions >>to federal law enforcement that they may not kill or injure anyone to  >>resolve the Waco situation.  So they've built a fence around the compound, >>and are now seriously considering building up the fence to prison-camp >>levels, pulling out most of the manpower, and waiting however many months >>it takes. > >Well either the Examiner was wrong (as usual) or Clinton lied *again*.  Or perhaps David Koresh didn't listen too well??  Just because mistakes were made does not mean the President *lied*.  > >Gary > >--  >Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary >Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary >534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary  >Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |
In article <C5uIHo.8LK@chinet.chi.il.us> dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes: :gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH) writes: :>On the subject of CS/CN/tear gas: when I received my initial introduction to : :You couldn't find a window after six hours?   : :--  : Daniel A. Hartung  --  dhartung@chinet.chinet.com  --  Ask me about Rotaract  Have you ever been violently sick repeatedly?  I have, and it was difficult to  drag myself back to my bed, much less move through a building full of smoke and debris, especially when most likely already disoriented from lack of sleep and constant psychological abuse...  Throw in the fact that the 'safety' outside consists of people who have shot at me and thrown grenades at me, and are currently knocking my house down with tanks, I could understand if the BD's were inclined to stay put in the center of the building...
pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:  >Well, maybe I AM overreacting.  This is probably the best part of your post.  Everything else is shrill speculation.
In article <C6548v.JHA@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes: >In article <1993Apr27.032401.28156@news.acns.nwu.edu> brice@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Benjamin Rice) writes: >>The reason the fire department couldn't fight the fire is that bullets were >>whizzing throughout the area.  Had koresh not had such a "frightenly large >>arsenal" maybe the feds would not have decided that having the firedepartment >>on the scene would have been a useless waste of taxes and potentially >>dangerous had a different fire broken out in Waco > >So, how come the fire department had been at the compound area for >49 days, only to be sent away two days before the FBI attack?  (Whatever the above comment has to do with the hazards of fighting a fire in the midst of ammo cooking off...) Maybe the fire department was loudly complaining the whole time about being diverted from their other duties, and the FBI said "FIne. Go home and we'll call you if we need you."  A million things could have happened, we don't know.  BTW, this is the first time I have heard that the Waco FD was on scene for all but the last 2 days...  what's the source (out of curiosity)?