waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes:  >What I would like to see is some serious discussion of this incident.  I >believe the moves made were right and proper, but I still have some problems >with some of the tactics.  After watching the ABC special on it tonight, as >well as CNN and Nightline, I question some of the ATF and FBI actions.     >Some< of?  >1) Could it have been possible to have taken Koresh outside the compound at >some time before the Feb. 28th raid?    Yes, I think so and it has been reported as such.  Seems like a cowboy movie-style attack was needed for some reason....  >2) Could a further wait have resulted in a different outcome.    The answer is probably YES. But consider; what was the WORST thing that could have happened if they waited?  Hint: whatever it was it could not have been any worse that what DID happen.    >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.    But that statement of taking full responsibility is totally meaningless. What are the consequences for being fully responsible for this disaster? A note in your personnell file??  Slick already called these people a bunch of crazy people and dismissed the idea she should resign.  Doesn't take  ANY balls at all to take the responsibility.  Hell, at that rate >I< will take full responsibility for it.  No skin off my nose.... --  ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |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?    |
In article <1993Apr16.092618.22936@husc3.harvard.edu>, kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim) writes: |> I have been convinced of the right of AMericans to an effective  |> self-defense, but something strikes me as odd among the |> pro-RKBA arguments presented here. |>  |> The numbers comparing hundreds of thousands (indeed, even a |> million) of instances of law abiding citizens deterring |> criminal activity, seem valid to me.  Likewise the number |> of gun-caused homicides each year (about 11,000/year?).  However, |> it is surprising that the "Evil AntiGun Empire " (Darth Vader |> breathing sound effect here) never tries to compare |> "All legitimate gun defenses" vs. "All gun crimes."  Instead,  |> it's always "All legitimate gun defenses,"  which includes |> cases in which the criminals are shot but not killed, and |> cases in which the criminal is not here, vs. just  |> criminal gun homicides, which only includes case sin which |> the victim died. |>  |> Why is this?  Of course, it wouldn't be unreasonable to say |> that in each crime already measured (involving guns), the |> consequnces are already known and it is safe to assume that |> a gun-based bank robbery last week will not suddenly turn |> into a gun-basd robbery+homicide.  Whereas in the legitimate |> gun defenses, one may assume that all those criminals who |> were deterred would have committed more crime or more |> serious crimes had they not been deterred.  I think its an attempt to show lives_saved v lives_lost; all other  gun related crimes don't result in lives_lost.  On the other hand,  its impossible to know how many of the successful self defenses   prevented lives from being lost.  In other words, the lives_lost  is pretty clear [its the homicide and non negligent manslaughter  number], while the lives saved is some percentage of the successful   self defenses.  Clearly that percentage doesn't have to be real   high to show that lives_saved > lives_lost.  As a semi-related point, check out Kleck's "Point Blank".  I believe  it goes into some related areas; it also is well written and informative.   |>  |> -Case Kim |>  |> kim39@husc.harvard.edu |>
>Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing >that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is >that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.  You're getting warmer.  The 'little thing in the trigger' has to be depressed before the trigger can move.  What this means is the damned thing won't go off until the trigger is pulled.  This makes it just about (there HAVE been some problems, but we're assuming the gun is functioning correctly..) as safe as a revolver.  The gun when working correctly is totally drop safe.  Now, in police work this is a consideration.  There is not a single documented case I'm aware of where a police officer was killed because he failed to operate the safety on his firearm.  There are quite a few documented cases where criminals got hold of the cops gun and couldn't figure out how to get the safety off in time to use the gun, thus the proprietary nature of the safety (to the criminal at least) very likely prevented the office from getting shot.  The purpose of a safety is to make the gun safe from unintentional fire. This does not mean it should be so complicated as to slow down intentional use!  Thus the Glock safety is perfectly adequate from a 'safety' standpoint, but not necessarily the most desirable from the standpoint of open carry where it is easily grabbed by somebody else. By this criteria it DOES make a lot of sense as a concealed carry piece. From the standpoint of police use, it is no better (or worse) than a revolver as far as being 'proprietary' to the officer in the method of firing it.  The ideal solution may someday be biometric sensing of the user so that the firearm can't be used by anybody but it's owner, but for now the wide variety of safety systems helps, unless the criminal happens to be familiar with that particular type of firearm.
In article <1qksp9$l39@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: >In article <1993Apr15.142322.1318@atlastele.com>, brians@atlastele.com (Brian Sheets) writes: >> and has no rights under the federal constitution. So, what I  >> don't understand is how a statute like 922 can be enforced on  >> an individual. So someone tell me how my government can tell >> me what I can or cannot possess. Just passing a law  >                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> does not make it LAW.  >  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Sorry, but I really can't figure out what you're trying to say, above.  I guess what I am really asking, like I did above, how does my government who is my servent, tell me the soveriegn what I can or cannot possess?  It would seem to me that the act of possessing a machine gun is no less "criminal", by definition, than the act of possessing a television set. I also would seem to me that it would be better to pass laws that say, that if I harm or kill someone with the machine gun or the television set that there  would be specific penalties for doing such.   > >> Everyone knows that laws are constitional >> until it goes to court.  Sorry, I was close.  > >Not exactly:  >"No on is bound to obey an uncontitutional law, and no courts are > bound to enforce it." > 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 >      late 2d, Sec 256
In article <1qrn3aINN4rq@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com  (Jim De Arras) writes: >> The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way. > >It ain't dead, yet.  And even if it were repealed, remember, it just protects  >our RKBA, it does not grant any rights.  There would then have to be  >additional laws passed to outlaw gun possession.  Even if they outlawed private posession of firearms, there would be no moral force behind that law; I imagine compliance would be low.
Gun clubs: If you are a member you CAN borrow weapons....(Suprised??) You are supposed to train with a .22 for the 6 months, THEN you can start with anything bigger.  Drivers licence: Forgot that USA is THE land of cars..... Getting one in Scandinavia (and northern europe) is not easy. Average time is about 20 hours of training, and the cost is rather...... But we think this is acceptable because a car is NOT a toy, and bad drivers tend to hurt OTHERS. (If you are really bad, you WON'T get a lincence!)  Abuse by the goverment: This seems to be one of the main problems; Any harder gun-control would just be abused by the goverment.(!) Either some of you are a little paranoid (no offence...) OR you should get a new goverment. (You do have elections??)  Guns 'n Criminals: MOST weapons used by criminals today are stolen. Known criminals can NOT buy weapons, that's one of the points of gun control. And because gun control are strict in WHOLE scandinavia (and most of europe), we dont have any PROBLEM with smuggled guns.  Mixing weapons and things that can be use as one: What I meant was that cars CAN kill, but they are not GUNS! Someone said that if we 'ban' guns we'd have to ban cars to, because they 'kill' to... I don't think we should argue on this one..... ;)  The issue (I hope..): I think we all agree that the criminals are the main problem. Guns are not a problem, but the way they are used is.... (and what are they for??)  I think this discusion is interesting when you think of (ex)Jugoslavia: They should all have weapons, it's their rigth to have them, and if they use them to kill other (Innocent) people the problem is humans, not guns.  If 50% of ALL murders was done with axes, would you impose some regulations on them or just say that they are ment to be used at trees, and that the axe is not a problem, it's the 'axer' ?? (An example, don't flame me just because not exactly 50% are killed by guns...)  Think about the situation in Los Angeles where people are buying guns to protect themselves. Is this a good situation ?? Is it the rigth way to deal with the problem ??  If everybody buys guns to protect themselves from criminals (and their neighbor who have guns) what do you think will happen ?? (I mean if everybody had a gun in USA)  Don't flame the Englishmen because of Northern Irland, they have gun control that works (in England) and fonds from USA are one of the reasons why IRA can bomb innocents... (Something about throwing stones in glass houses...) Don't flame them because of what to (three?) children did either. (Can an Jugoslav have an oppinion on guns or even peace??) (YES!)  (My numbers about crime rates after restrictions on shot-guns are from the police and the Statistisk Sentralbyraa) (understood that one Sorenson??)  LAST WORD: Responsible gun owners are not a problem, but they will be affected if you want to protect  your citicens.    	This is not a .signature. 	It's merely a computergenerated text to waste bandwith 	and to bring down the evil Internet.
In article <1pmol6INNod9@gap.caltech.edu>, arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements) writes: >  > >*  Thanks to the N.R.A., the A.T.F. is prohibited from researching the > >effectiveness of using taggants in explosives, Taggants are a cheap > >and technologically feasible microscopic additive that would help > >investigators at crime scenes - like the World Trade Center bombing > >- trace the explosives involved. >  > I want this man to tell me how in the hell you can take the  > explosives used in the WTC bombing, considering that the  > consensus seems to be that the explosive was a fertilizer-based > one.   Proper counter to this claim:  "Forensic analysis of the WTC bomb by means of taggants would have been as impossible as semantic analysis of NYT editorials by means of taggants -- the difficulty in both cases being to have persuaded the bull to consume the taggants before  production of either item." --
In article <1993Apr21.091130.17788@ousrvr.oulu.fi>, dfo@vttoulu.tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes: > In article <viking.735378520@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:  > >I'll give > >you a little hint:  see that manure pile in the farmer's field down the > >road?  In the USA, that is a weapon of mass destruction,   > Nope.  It is not considered a weapon.  Ironic, since it's pretty much what was used to blow up the World Trade Center... --
In article <93104.231049U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: >All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as >I am not really familiar enough with handguns.  That's not all that Kratz doesn't know.  >Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing >that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is >that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.  Now we know that Kratz doesn't understand what a safety is supposed to do.  (He also confuses "things he can see" with "things that exist"; Glocks have multiple safeties even though only one is visible from the outside.)  A safety is supposed to keep the gun from going off UNLESS that's what the user wants.  With Glocks, one says "I want the gun to go off" by pulling the trigger.  If the safeties it has make that work, it has a "real" safety, no matter what Kratz thinks.  -andy
In article <cmay.734085409@helium>, cmay@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Christopher C May) writes: |> 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.  Having lived, played, and worked on and near the Navajo reservation for a number of years, I can confirm this is an ancient pattern, found in petroglyphs dated 800 to 1200 years old.  Also, the Indians never stopped making rugs with this pattern - they just stopped selling them after the Nazi's pre-empted the swastika.  Note also that the Indian versions use both clockwise and counter-clockwise swastikas.  Ob guns:  It's the rare Navaho family that doesn't own a rifle.  They remember being "relocated" by the US Army, and don't intend to do it again.  The Hopi, on the other hand, have a dislike for weapons, from my experience.  Perhaps they just hide them better from strangers.
There's only one way I know of to tell an AR-15 from an M-16.    Pick it up, hold it about a foot from your face and look closely    at the saftey lever.  If it has two positions, its an AR-15, if    it has three, its an M-16.  There are numerous internal differences    as well, but since one would have to field strip the weapon to see    them, they are not valid in this discussion.  So, in conclusion,    there is very little external differences to distinguish an AR-15    from an M-16 except at close (very close) range.     David Bixler    Auburn University
In article <lt8keoINN31v@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes: >In article <C5sIAJ.Ks7@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes: >> >>Why didn't they release the children weeks ago? > >It would have been inconsistent behavior for them to have done so. > >Some people believe that there is more to life than the physical requirements. > >These folks believed that the generally-held standards of the surrounding >community (heck, most of the world) were morally wrong, and letting the >children be abandoned to this (godless/unbelieving) culture would be condeming >them to eternal loss and separation from God. > >By their standards, letting the children go would be abandoning them to a fate >literally worse than death. > >The FBI (and BATF and media) people working on the issue, I suspect, >just couldn't get their heads into a similar-enough (to say nothing of >identical) mode of thinking to realize what they were doing. > >Physically, there was no reason why the BD's shouldn't have given up and come >out a long time ago. > >From the point of view of the BD's, they were up against the wall and had nowhere >to go at all. > >They apparently really did love their kids too much to abandon them to a godless >bunch of outsiders...although the end result was horribly twisted. > >I didn't say the BD's were right, I just said that that's the way they perceived >it. > >Koresh was a nutcase, and a bunch of other people paid for that. > >And the FBI and BATF miscalculated and misunderstood what was going on from the >word go.  Very likely possible.  Reminds me of the movie "The Rapture".  > >--  >------------------------------------------------------- >| Some things are too important not to give away      | >| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  | >|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|
In article <1993Apr15.171601.25930@dg-rtp.dg.com>, meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:  >                                     A BILL  >    > To establish the right to obtain firearms for security, and >     to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and >     to provide for the enforcement of such right.  Maybe I'm too "religious," but when I see a bill to "establish a right," I wince.  Keep in mind, what the law giveth, the law can taketh away. --
HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:  >In <1r3efjINN3jj@gap.caltech.edu> arc@cco.caltech.edu writes:  >> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes: >> >I also believe Texas has some of the most liberal 'gun-laws' in USA...... >>  >> In Texas, you cannot carry a handgun.  Period.  Either concealed or open.  >  Currently, there is a bill before the Texas legislature that would make it >legal for some ordinary folks to carry concealed weapons.  I don't have the >details, sorry.  >semper fi,  >Jammer Jim Miller  >Texas A&M University '89 and '91 >________________________________________________________________________________ > I don't speak for UH, which is too bad, because they could use the help.      >"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System." > "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."     >      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		                If I recall correctly, the bill would provide for concealed carry if the person takes a 15-hr DPS safety course in firearms and pays a $150 fee for the license.  The bill is apparently veto-proof in the House, but LtGov Bullock has said it will never come to the floor of the Senate and Dreamboat Annie has vowed to veto it if it comes to her desk.  *shrug*
A couple of questions for you firearms law experts out there:    Question #1  According to the NRA/ILA state firearms lawbook, in Wisconsin it is 'unlawful for any person except a peace officer to go armed* with a  "concealed and dangerous weapon."  There is no statutory provision for obtaining a lixense or permit to carry a concealed weapon.'  *  Jury instructions indicate that 'to go armed' one must have a firearm on one's person or within his immediate control and available for use.    Does this mean that open carry is allowed?  If so, just how 'open' does it have to be?  Would an in the pants holster be considered concealing?  What if one had their jacket on and it partially covered the weapon?  Also, is there any way to be allowed to carry concealed, or is it just not allowed, period?   Question #2  As I understand it, in Evanston, IL, they have a ordinance banning handguns. Is there any way to get around this provision?  What would the penalty if you were found out be?  What if you used said handgun in a defensive shooting in your apartment there?  How would the city law apply to your impending  trial for the shooting? Also, what is IL state law concerning short barreled weapons?  Short barreled shotgun is what I would be interested in if a handgun were not available,  either that or a shortened 9mm carbine (ie Colt, Marlin).   One more thing, what is the chance of getting a CCW permit in IL without being rich or famous or related to the mayor?
Re: Flaming wreckage  I wrote my congressmen strongly worded letters demanding they dissolve the BATF.  Perhaps anger and grief can help spur a letter writing campaign?
Everyone is complaining about the debacle in Waco. It is hard to  understand all this angst. What happend there is nothing less than what we wanted to happen. Why all the sour grapes ?  BATF was looking for a propaganda event to counteract their impending budget cuts ... the attendance of the press at the initial big commando raid is proof. It would have been ever so easier to grab Koresh and his central followers as they shopped in Waco. Alas, no propaganda value there.   The FBI screwed-up big time, all the time. They should have never allowed the situation to drag out like that. A quick second assault, before the BDs could decide on a strategy, would have been the better plan.   The BDs themselves were the biggest screw-ups though. They imagined that US law and US law-enforcement had no jurisdiction within their little 'country'. WRONG ! They had no right whatsoever to fire on the BATF, and if they mistook their identity initially, they should have surrendered at once when they did realize who they were. If the BDs had a problem with the warrants, they take it to court, just like the rest of us. If they wanted full-auto weapons, they could have obtained the proper permits, just like the rest of us would need to do. What they may NOT do is decide for themselves what US law applies to themselves and which does not. They get their chance like the rest of us - at the voting booth.   If the BATF and FBI have become latter-day Gestapo, then they have become that way because WE have desired them to be so. We get to vote on laws, and on the lawmakers. By our choices over the years, we have approved the creation and form of the BATF and FBI. When the FBI was out chasing 'pinkos', the general public didn't seem to mind a bit of extra-constitutional activity. When the BATF is raiding militant black organizations, we don't mind the heavy hand. When the FBI is dicking around with the rights of potheads, the public doesn't mind. Suddenly, when we see a bit of ourselves in the current 'enemy' choosen by these agencies, we get all bent out of shape. SUPRISE ! You reap what you sow.  Waco was an encapsulation of the All-American experience - religious fanaticism, militaristic thinking and overwhelming violence. Don't blame it on 'them', the FBI and BATF. They were just acting within the parameters we have set over the years. We made 'them'. We ARE 'them'.
rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy) writes:  >The FBI released large amounts of CS tear gas into the compound in >Waco.  CS tear gas is a fine power.  Is CS inflammable.  Grain dust >suspended in air can form an explosive mixture, will CS suspended in air >form an explosive mix? Could large quantities of CS have fueled the >rapid spread of fire in the compound?  	No chance.  If that CS ignited at all, it would have been quite similar to a grain bin explosion.  Explosion, I note.  The entire compound would have been leveled, not merely burned.  As there was no explosion, there was no CS ignition causing the fire.  	Note: at five miles a decent grain elevator explosion will knock you on your butt and your ears will ring for days.  I speak from experience here.