waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <C4tsHu.Ew6@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes: >Frank Crary (fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU) wrote: >: That's all very well and good, but I was refering to all >: homocides, not just ones involving handguns (what is this fixation >: on death by shooting, as if it were somehow worse than death >: by stabbing?) > >What relevance are ALL homicides in this debate?  What do you think gun >control advocates are saying: that if we get rid of all handguns we will >live in a homicide-free world?         The relevance is that if you've got x homicides and reduce the number of gun homicides in that group, but x doesn't decrease by a significant amount, have you made an improvement, and is that improvement worth what you've paid?  >The issue is guns, not baseball bats.  Even a simpleton knows that >he stands a better chance of surviving an attack with a baseball bat... >certainly of outrunning a bat-wielding assailant.         If a baseball bat is a tenth as likely to kill a victim as a gun, is that any comfort to that tenth?  >As for knives, see my earlier post.  I'd much rather face a knife >than a gun, thanks.          I've faced a knife.  And I was damn annoyed I didn't *have* a gun.  All the statistics in the world didn't change the fact that *he* was interested in cutting *me*.  >Fortunately, the best defense against a knife isn't >another knife.  Anyone trained in unarmed self-defense won't have >much of a problem disarming a knife assailant untrained in knife >assault (which probably means 99.9% of knife assailants).         "Anyone trained in self-defense."          Unarmed self-defense isn't for everyone.  What's more, it requires substantially more training to be safe and effective than a firearm. It requires physical proximity and thus a greater threat to the victim, which is a primary problem with stun guns.  You have to actually touch your assailant.  Unless you're *very* good, a large, stronger assailant can simply ignore your blows long enough to incapacitate you.
In article <15240077@iftccu.ca.boeing.com>, bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes: |> / iftccu:talk.politics.guns / hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) /  3:31 pm  Apr 13, 1993 / |>  |> >Some of the pro-gun posters in this group own no guns.  The dread  |> >"Terminator", aka "The Rifleman", owned no firearms for several years  |> >while posting in this group, as an example.  There are others. |>  |> Good point, Kirk. |>  |> He's still around too.  He's responded by email to a couple of my posts,  |> and gosh darn, he's gotten down right civil!  This happed about the time  |> he got his first firearm.  Wonder if there is a relationship here?  Turns |> out that MOST people (at least the ones who are not criminals to start |> with) act responsibility once given the chance.  I'd like to point out that I was in error - "Terminator" began posting only  six months before he purchased his first firearm, according to private email from him.  I can't produce an archived posting of his earlier than January 1992, and he purchased his first firearm in March 1992.  I guess it only seemed like years.  Back to your regularly scheduled flame fest.
From the Boston Globe, Thursday April 22 1993  p. 44  Walpole man, 32, guilty in rape  Kenne, N.H. -- A Walpole man charged with kidnapping a mother of two from her home, then raping and beating her, has pleaded  guilty.  Roger Santaw Jr. also plead- ed guilty to an attempted escape from Cheshire County jail last win- ter.  Santaw, 32 is scheduled to be sentenced next week.  The rape last fall came six months after Santaw was released from prision, where he spent 15 years for a rape he commit- ted when he was 16.  (AP)     [end of article]  Any reactions?  Did he do enough time?  What should his penalty be?
>In article <1993Apr15.152834.16638@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti. com   >>Seriously.  There is no difference in the safeties betweena Glock and any DA >>revolver.  Intellectually, think of the Glock as a very high cap revolver. >>Ignoring stove pipes, misfeeds and all the other bonus exercises that >>autoloaders give you, that is.  On a DA revolver, you get another try on a misfire.  On a pistol where the trigger does not cock the hammer, like a Jennings, or an Astra M400, or a Glock, a misfire requires the slide be cycled to get the gun  to function.  Rather than a high capacity revolver, think of a Glock as an Astra M400  with no manual safety and a heavier trigger pull.
In article <C5vzHF.D5K@cbnews.cb.att.com>, lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:  > 	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- As part of its investigation of the deadly > confrontation with a Texas cult, Congress will consider whether the > Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be moved from the > Treasury Department to the Justice Department, senators said Wednesday. > 	The idea will be considered because of the violent and fatal events > at the beginning and end of the agency's confrontation with the Branch > Davidian cult.  Of course.  When the catbox begines to smell, simply transfer its contents into the potted plant in the foyer.  "Why Hillary!  Your government smells so... FRESH!" --
In article <0096B294.AAD9C1E0@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu> reimer@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu (Paul E. Reimer) writes:  >In article <1qkftjINNoij@cronkite.cisco.com>, pitargue@cisco.com (Marciano Pitargue) writes: > >[stuff deleted about causes of people in ER] > >>and your factoid about shooting victims in the ER.  count how many come in >>due to automobile accidents and automobile crimes.  maybe we should outlaw >>cars. >>marciano pitargue@cisco.com > >There are a lot of automobile accidents, but atleast there is some >regulation to try to combat this.  When I got my drivers license, I HAD >to take a drivers safety class.          Tennessee, at least, does not require any sort of safety class to get a driver's license.  All that is required is one twenty question quiz and to drive a car around the block without crashing.  >I HAVE to be licensed to drive.          In all probability, no you don't.  You are required to be licensed to drive on public roads.  A license is not necessary on private property.  >My car >MUST be registered.           Most states do not require the registration of cars that are not used on public roads.  Those that do (California I know of) do so for tax purposes more than anything else.      >I MUST (at least where I live) have liability >insurance on both myself driving and my car (if someone else had an >accident with it).           Many states do not currently require this, and most, again, only make this requirement for public roads.  A car sitting unused  is not required to have insurance.  >Hmm, wouldn't manditory saftey classes, registration >of both the owner and gun, and manditory liability insurance be nice for >gun owners.         The two are not the same, as I pointed out above.  There are significant difference between making rules for *use on public property* and *making rules for ownership*.         The other half of the objection is trust.  Similar things to this have been tried in many local jurisdications across the country, and have been abused in far too many cases.   Safety classes which are never sheduled, never funded, or only one or two is held a year for a limited number of participants.  Registration lists in New York, Chicago, and California have been used for confiscation.  *Many* gun owners would, in theory, support these planes.  (Although the numbers overwhelmingly show that competence is not the problem, that intentional misuse is).  They've simply seen it abused and are leery of the next person who comes down the pike with a "reasonable" suggestion they've already seen abused.
In article <1qkcok$s9i@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ci946@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John K. Gever) writes: >Public health experts will tell you that you are far more likely >have your gun stolen, use it yourself on a family member or >have it used on you than you are to use it on an actual criminal.  Actually, they won't.  What they'll tell you is that if you add up the number of suicides, murders of one drug dealer by another, legit self-defenses of a battered spouse, and so on, you'll end up with a number that is much larger than the number of self-defense killings against strangers committed in the bedroom.  (BTW - they didn't honestly count the latter either, but let's not quibble.)  They try to claim that comparison is between the costs of self-defense and the benefits, but they're wrong.  This comparison doesn't measure the costs of self-defense and it doesn't measure the benefits either.  For example, the goal is not to kill the attacker, whatever your relationship to him, but to stop him. While the number of killings may be proportional to the number of stops, it isn't equal.  Anyone who confuses that comparison with an honest evaluation is either lying or....  -andy
Here's a copy of a letter I'm e-mailing to the Slickster at his address of 75300.3115@compuserve.com:  ____________________________________________________________________________  To: William J. Clinton     President of the United States of America  Mr. President:  I am writing to express my utter outrage at the conduct of various government agencies in regards to the tragedy in Waco.  I DEMAND the dismissal or resignation of Lloyd Bensen, Secretary of the Treasury, who bears responsibility for the initial helicopter and grenade attack  by the ATF against the Branch Davidians, and of Janet Reno, who authorized  the final assault on the very day that we were commemorating the Warsaw ghetto revolt.  And I would truly appreciate it if you would make sure something like this never happens again on your watch.  Respectfully yours,  Kenneth D. Whitehead  ___________________________________________________________________________   Get involved, gang.  It's your Republic.  Let's take it back.
In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes: >I will be surprised if this post makes it past the censors, >but here goes: > >Monday, 19 April, 1993 13:30 EDT > >                    MURDER  MOST  FOUL!! > >CNN is reporting as I write this that the ATF has ignited all                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I watched the CNN report and I never heard them report that the ATF started the fire.  They did speculate that the type of CS gas might have _accidentaly_ started the fire.    >the buildings of the Branch Dividian ranch near Waco, TX. The >lies from ATF say "holes were made in the walls and 'non-lethal' tear >gas pumped in". A few minutes after this started the whole thing went up.                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ From my understanding of the CNN report it was 6 HOURS after they started.  >ALL buildings are aflame. NO ONE HAS ESCAPED. I think it obvious that >the ATF used armored flame-thrower vehicles to pump in unlit               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The track vehicle that I saw in the vicinity of the building where fire was  first noticed looked more like an armored recovery vehicle (the type used to  tow tanks of battle fields) and not an armored flame-thrower vehicle.  >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ As someone else has pointed out, why would the stove be in use on a warm day   in Texas.  It seems to me that it would be very poor planing to hope for a wood stove to ignite the "napalm" when the stove would probably not be in use.  And  I doubt that it would have taken 6 hours to ignite it.  > >THIS IS MURDER! > >ATF MURDERERS!  BUTCHERS!! > >THIS IS GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, INCLUDING CHILDREN! > >I have predicted this from the start, but God, it sickens me to see >it happen. I had hoped I was wrong. I had hoped that there was >still some shred of the America I grew up with, and loved, left >alive. I was wrong. The Nazis have won.                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Right Clinton is in office.  (Sorry I couldn't resist, please no flames :))  > >I REPEAT, AS OF THIS TIME THERE ARE **NO  SURVIVORS**! > >God help us all. > > >PLEASE CROSSPOST -- DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THE SLAUGHTER OF THE CHILDREN! > > >W. K. Gorman - an American in tears.  In short Mr. Gorman (I am assuming Mr. as a title because I don't think a woman would be stupid enough to make this post) I don't know what episode of CNN you were watching but it obviously was not the same one that I was watching or your tears seamed to have blured your hearing along with your eye sight.  Please excuse any mispelled words as I am a product of the Arkansas education system which Slick Willie of the "Double Bubba Ticket" has so greately improved during his tenour as Governer of my great state (taking it from 49th in the  nation in 1980 and allowing it to drop to 51st, how I don't know, and bringing it to 44st and back to either 48th or 49th in 1990--sorry I can't rember the  source of these numbers but they can be found).
Hmm... am I the only person that remembers Masada?  This isn't the first time a group has committed suicide to avoid persecution/capture... and you seem to miss the point that the raid SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! I find the FBI actions too damn reminiscent of the Warsaw Ghetto... fitting  that Al Gore was in Poland for events marking the 50th anniversery of that... Remove any references to dates and you have two raids by government troops wearing black uniforms, carrying automatic weapons, backed by armored vehicles, against religious minorities they claim were practicing sexually deviant  behavior and hoarding weapons... Too damn similar...  James  ps: I am not advocating the BD's, I just find the whole situation too damn  troubling.
> 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.  I suspect that you think that this is less lethal than the typical "assault weapon".  You are wrong.  Compared to what most criminals use, a 9mm with military ammo (FMJs), or a military rifle (use is extremely rare), .223 or 7.62mm with military ammo (FMJs), the .32 H&R magnum with "civie" bullets is more lethal.  Most of the arms which criminals (and the military) use are among the least lethal arms in existance.
In article <93106.21394634AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes: |In article <2001.150.uupcb@yob.sccsi.com>, jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray) |says: |> |> Bill Vojak: |> |> BV>I read in the paper yestarday that Ted Turner wants to "trim" down |> BV>his media holdings and is putting CNN up for sale.  The #1 potential |> BV>bidder?  TIME/Warner of course.  Sigh . . . . . Just what we need. :-( |> |> Maybe now's the time for us, the NRA, GOA, CCRTKBA, SAF, et al to band |> together and buy CNN as *our* voice. Wouldn't that be sumpin....broadcast |> the truth for a change and be able to air a favorable pro-gun item or two... |> |I would like to see this happen. I don't think it will. I don't |think the average gun-owner will take any notice of what is happening |until they break down HIS door. | |BUT I will go on record publicly to the effect that I will contribute a |minimum of $1,000.00 to the buy-out fund if it can be organized and made |viable. Anybody else want to put their money where their mouth is?  :) |There ar 50+ MILLION gun owners out there. If - and it's a big and |not very realistic if - we got hold of CNN, the anti-gun bullshit would |STOP RIGHT THERE. Why won't it happen - because nobody will get off their |ass and MAKE it happen. Nuts.  I will join the ranks here.  If someone has the ability to actually put this thing together and get enough support, I'll also contribute $1000 to the  effort.  And jeeze, people, I'm a *student*, with *no job* yet, and I will put up my own hard-earned savings if it means we have a shot at getting the truth told on the airwaves.  Count me in.  Mike Ruff
>In article <1993Mar28.180629.21574@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy) writes: >>A Associated Press News story 3/28/93 reports: >>  >>"    In other developments Saturday, David Troy, intelligence chief for >>the ATF, confirmed reports that authorities suspected the cult had a >>methamphetamine lab.  He said evidence of possible drug activity >>surfaced late in the ATF' investigation of the cult's gun dealings.  Wow, the scope of the mission of the ATF continues to expand.  Besides Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, they now seem to be involded in Child Protective Services, Drug Enforcement and Tax Evasion.  They look to be on the road to being the nations *boys in blue*! No Knock in one hand, M-16 in the other.  Zeik-Heil!!!  Lance
In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes: >I will be surprised if this post makes it past the censors, >but here goes: > >Monday, 19 April, 1993 13:30 EDT > >                    MURDER  MOST  FOUL!! > >CNN is reporting as I write this that the ATF has ignited all >the buildings of the Branch Dividian ranch near Waco, TX. The >lies from ATF say "holes were made in the walls and 'non-lethal' tear >gas pumped in". A few minutes after this started the whole thing went up. >ALL buildings are aflame. NO ONE HAS ESCAPED. I think it obvious that >the ATF used armored flame-thrower vehicles to pump in unlit >napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.  Actually if 'a few minutes' translates into 6 hours, you have it right.  BUT you (and I guess your single-source news agency CNN) failed to mention the Davidians pouring kerosene all over and lighting it in plain view.  >THIS IS MURDER!  Well, small-scale Jim Jones type suicide with fire instead of kool-aid.  > >ATF MURDERERS!  BUTCHERS!!  Sorry, guy, you got it wrong.  ATF was pumping tear gas into the compound. The Branch Davidians (going along with their apocolyptic faith) set their own compound on fire killing all but 9 or so.  No children survived.  >THIS IS GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, INCLUDING CHILDREN!  Self-slaughter, anyway.  I pity the children who were to young to be able to make a conscious choice.  >I have predicted this from the start, but God, it sickens me to see >it happen. I had hoped I was wrong. I had hoped that there was >still some shred of the America I grew up with, and loved, left >alive. I was wrong. The Nazis have won.  You are wrong.  Thank goodness.  I would suggest, however, that you take a deep breath, and wait 30 minutes or so before posting.  Also make sure your facts are correct before making your allegations(sp.).  >I REPEAT, AS OF THIS TIME THERE ARE **NO  SURVIVORS**!  You repeated wrong.  There were 9.  >God help us all.  God help the Branch Davidians.  >PLEASE CROSSPOST -- DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THE SLAUGHTER OF THE CHILDREN!  NO DON'T!!!!  THERE IS WAY TOO MUCH OF THIS CRAP BEING CROSSPOSTED ALL OVER CREATION AS IT IS!!!!!!
Count me in for $1000.00.    Allan Lockridge  My Opinions are my own and are not for sale.
Jason Kratz (U28037@uicvm.uic.edu) writes: > PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) says: > >Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: > > > >Don't be silly.  Of course you can.  The police have everything  > >the gangs have and then some.  Plus they've got access to the  > >National Guard (via the Governor) if things get too rough.  That's  > >tanks for those of you who've never seen them at play.  Of course,  > >they've got rifles and helicopters. > > > >And as far as fully-automatic weapons, you can be a lot better > >armed if you want to hit what you aim at. > > 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.  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.  how so? i think you're making assumptions here that might not  necessarily be true. -my- personal choice would be a semi-auto, but  revolvers are just as effective, if not more so.  > I have been at a shooting range where gang gang members were  > "practicing" shooting.  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.  relevancy, please? you sound shocked, but that hardly proves anything.  > The University cops here (who are are state cops) are armed better  > than the Chicago police.  It seems most state cops are.  I don't  > know where you are originally from David but you live in Tennesse  > and I live in Chicago and see this crap everyday on the news and in  > the papers.  I think the situation is just a tad different here  > than there.  wait, doesn't Chicago have -serious- gun control? if so, why do the police need all that firepower in the first place? (sarcasm alert)  all the patrol cars i've seen around here have shotguns clamped to  the dash board. IMHO, that's all the police need to outgun just about  anything.  jason
>> Eighth Amendment: >> 1) The Davidians suffered cruel and unusual punishment when: >> 	f> Thoes who escaped were imprisoned without bail without a   >hearing. > >Happens all the time, they were arraigned the next day, I'd doubt >you'd have any luck on this point.
Could y'all PLEASE stop posting this stuff to tx.general.  tx.politics is sufficient and is where this stuff belongs.  Thanks.  	Cathy
In article <1993Apr20.050550.4660@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca>, j979@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (FULLER  M) writes:  > Yet, the FBI mouthpiece at this afternoon's press conference characterized > the quantity of CS gas pumped into the building as "massive", and speculated > that after a few hours of exposure any Davidian gas masks would become > useless. >  > Does this sound "not harmful" to you?  Hm.  A previous poster argued that the fact that the BD's did not rush to escape the burning building indicated that it was they, and not any of the government actions, that started the fire.  On the other hand, I wonder if, with a face full of "massive amounts of CS," *I* would be able to escape a burning tinder-box like that ranch house assuming my best efforts. --