waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:  >Promising field experiments are being done this year in several areas of >the country relating to chemical contraceptive baits for deer. Preliminary >data suggests that this will be a cost-effective and humane method for >preventing over-population of habitats.  Preliminary data regarding similar research into kangaroo overpopulation in Australia do not in any way support the cost-effectiveness of this approach.  It _may_ be cost-effective for deer--if you quietly overlook the fact that the net cost to the state of deer hunting is _negative_ (i.e. a profit) because the (majority of) hunters pay for licences. The cost comparisons are probably being done assuming that people have to be employed to cull the animals, which is not in fact the case. You figure people are going to pay for licences to implant contraceptive pellets or spread baits?  There has been a fair bit of discussion about this here recently, because the kangaroo population in the grounds of the Governor- General's residence has now reached plague proportions.  Despite the whines of the rampant animal-libbers, the most effective method of controlling the population is still considered to be controlled shooting.  >So, now why should we allow hunting ... to prevent over-population of >the deer/bear/<whatever> ? Sorry, but that 'justification' of blood- >lust is now gone with the wind. Once mass-production of this stuff >begins, animal populations can be easily managed without a shot being >fired.  This leaves only the fact that some people *like* to go out >in the woods and *kill* things.  Some people take satisfaction (IMHO, legitimate satisfaction) in eating food that they have harvested themselves.  The pleasure derived from hunting is the same as that you get from eating fruit and vegetables grown in your own garden (and, in general, game meat is probably much  freer of unpleasant chemicals than what you buy from the butcher or the supermarket).  > That may be a motivation, but it >cannot now be justified. Expect PETA and like organizations to use >this argument to get hunting banned - period.   By "cannot now be justified" I guess you mean that you personally don't see any justification.  Fine--but what makes your opinion so important?  >With no legitimate hunting, with the papers filled with stories of >senseless murders ... I guess there won't be a chance in hell of >building a case for the RKBA that will withstand either public >opinion, necessity or scientific scrutiny. Don't give me that >"silent majority wants guns" crap ... they are and will be 'silent'. >No votes for RKBA, no RKBA.   Certainly the last point is correct.  If politicians don't see any votes for themselves in opposing stupid legislation or in developing and supporting measures which might be effective in reducing the  incidence of violent crime they won't do these things.
In article <1pqsruINNiae@hp-col.col.hp.com>, dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff) writes: >Does anyone really believe the Swiss have had no war within their borders >because every adult male owns a rifle? I'm a great admirer of the Swiss, but >500 years of peace on their turf has zilch to do with gun ownership. Can you >picture Hitler, with Panzers and Focke-Wulfs poised on the border, losing >sleep over a few thousand expert rifleman?   Not just because of the riflemen.  They also have many hard bunkers in the mountains that would be nearly impossible to penetrate. As for tanks, they would be rather useless in such mountainous terrain.    >Hitler stayed out of Switzerland because the Swiss run the money in this >world.   Gee, that's a new one.  He thought it was a different ethnic group.   Since Hitler was determined to control, at the least, all of Europe, do you think he gave a damn about international monetary concerns?   Also, there's a LOT of gold in Swiss vaults.  Don't you think he new that?  If he could have, he would have taken Switzerland.  However, crazy as he was, he wasn't totally stupid.  It would have cost him a hell of a lot to take Switzerland, with no guarantee that an invasion would be successful.  He probably figured (or his generals did, when he was listening to them) that it wasn't worth the cost.
# So the Blue PRess suggests that we bankrupt HCI by requesting information # and the concern by list members is that HCI will claim everyone that calls # as a new member.  I think they will. I also think they will claim a new # MANDATE to ban all firearms from the solar system wheter we call and ask for # information or not! #  # On the other hand, with due respect to the Editor of the Blue PRess, just # becaue Mike makes damned good presses, dies, powder scales, and got tired of # Lee's atacks DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY DILLON FAN FOLLOWS WHAT MIKE CALLS FOR # LIKE HE WAS KARESH AND WE WERE TRANSDILLIDIANS!  #  # Our local State Assemblyman has called for a complete ban on all non-bolt # action military rifles and all assault weapons, a 7 day wait for purchase # permits { it currently takes 10 to 14 working days here in NC } and one # permit/year. The flood of calls he got was 7 for and 3 against. Guess who # called supporting his move? Guess what ILA is doing? Right? #  # CHL #
In <C601ED.CD6@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com>, thomasr@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com sez: > >The Houston Chronicle last Thursday (maybe Wednesday) said that >the interior of walls had been covered with hay bales to help >protect against bullets.  Many of you know how fast dry hay >burns.  This is all terribly interesting, but it doesn't belong in misc.legal. Take it elsewhere, please.  --          Have you hugged your common nucleus of operative fact today?
In article <1993Apr16.022926.27270@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >In article <C5JIF8.I4n@boi.hp.com> slack@boi.hp.com (David Slack) writes: >>The idea of the card is bull in and of its self, but I'm curious to know, do  >>they plan on making it a requirement to *always* have it on you, or is it  >>only going to be required to be *presented* when trying to ge medical aid? > >This, at least, has already been determined: The Blue Cross medical >coverage for all federal employees is a good model for a future >national system. To get emergency medical care, anyone so insured >must always carry their Blue Cross card. Before entering a hospital, >you must notify Blue Cross, or they will refuse to pay your bills.  >In an emergency, where you must be treated before notifying them,  >you must inform them within 24 hours or (if you are unable to do >so for medical reasons) the hospital must. Failing to do so within >24 hours means they will not cover the hospitalization. In you need >your card to notify them (and without the card, the hospital certainly >wouldn't know they had to.) Therefore, you are required to carry >the card at all times, or do without emergency medical coverage. > >                                                 Frank Crary >                                                 CU Boulder > Which works fine until you end up in the hospital because you were hit on the head and your wallet, with your insurance card, is stolen.  This happened to  me, and it took six months to sort the mess out.  These sorts of plans sound nice at first, but in the end they just create a lot of paperwork and bureaucracy to deal with all the checking and filing they involve.
In article <93112.153005MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, <MGB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes... >From A.P. :  According to numerous accounts by those in the compound, >the fire was started by an armoured vehicle crushing a large propane >tank, and turning over numerous gas lanterns.  	If there was a large propane tank, and it was breached, don't  	you think that there would be an identifiable explosion? 	Further, the BD members have as much reason to lie as the  	Gov't.   >Medical Examiners have found no bullet wounds, as was stated by the >FBI, on the corpses.  	They'd only autopsied one body when this information was released. 	I wouldn't doubt though   >I find it tremendously chilling that so many people seem willing to accept >the governments story, despite much evidence to the contrary.  	The only evidence that exists right now (at least what we know 	about) is various claims and counter claims. I'm waiting until 	the hard evidence is released. What about you?                    _____  _____                   \\\\\\/ ___/___________________   Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________ ________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/ \_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/     \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/                 \_ / /__________/                  \/____/\\\\\\  			 \\\\\\
Okay, here is the result of my efforts.  I'm just getting started with this type of activity, so please set your flame-thowers on low.  Comments, corrections, suggestions, welcomed.  ****************************************************************************  Editor,   I would like to ask you and your readers a few questions that are related to the "right to keep and bear arms", and to a greater degree, the many other "rights" that we take for granted on a daily basis.   1.	You're sleeping at night, when you hear someone in your house.  You call the police.  How will you defend yourself, should the need arise, while you are waiting for the police to arive?   2.	You are driving your family home when your car breaks down.  A "good samaritan" stops to "help", when you find you and your family at gun-point or knife-point.  How will you defend yourself?  And your Family?   3.	You are a woman walking alone to your car or home.  A man appears suddenly with the intent to rape you.  How will you defend yourself?  Are you strong enough to fight off your attacker?  Are you willing to let this man rape you in order to survive the attack?   If the House and Senate have their way, we will soon not have the right to keep and bear arms, as provided by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. A gun may not be the answer to each and every dangerous situation, but are you going to let the politicians decide what sort of force or weapon you may use to defend yourself and your family?   Many times a situation may be diffused by just brandishing your handgun.  If certain members of the House and Senate have their way, .25, .32, and 9mm ammunition will be banned for sale to anyone other than the military and law enforcement departments.  Very soon, you may not be able to purchase ammunition for use in your handgun.   There is already a 15 day waiting period in California.  Do you really feel that any law abiding citizen should be required to wait this amount of time for the purchase of a handgun when his life or family members have been threatened?  Our local police do an excellent job, but they can not be there all the time, or in a moments notice.  You should have the right to protect yourself   while waiting for help to arrive.   There is currently legislation circulating in Washington that would prohibit the sale of certain types of ammuntion, handguns, rifles, and shot-guns.  One elected official even wants to repeal the Second Amendment!   I want to ask the readers of this paper what they would do if their elected officials decided that they should only belong to a "certain church", or go to church on a "partiular day"?  What if you were told that you could only read certain books?  Write about certain subjects?  What if you no longer had the right to a jury of your peers?  How about the right to assemble in a peaceful manner?
Dumb move.            The smart move would be to sneak in someone with a TV camera and video transmitter.
In article <CMM.0.90.2.734814613.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli   <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes: >  >  > 	Observations from a naive norwegian: >  > 	1) Guns are made to KILL people, not to shoot target or to  > 	have something more macho than stamps to collect..... >  > 	2) It IS more easy to kill/injure someone with a gun than > 	with a knife or a bat (as in baseball). >  > 	3) It's not very wise to compare two completely different > 	countries like USA and, let's say, Island on issues like > 	crime and violence. >  > 	4) Yes, the problem is  people committing crimes, not the tools > 	beeing used, but 1) should be taken into concideration. >  Only as far as it affects the crime rate. >  > 	We have a very strict gun-legislation in Norway, but until recently > 	it was possible for enyone over 18 years to buy a shotgun. > 	Shotguns are used mainly for hunting in Norway(...), but because it > 	was so easy to accuire one, it was THE most used gun in crimes. > 	The solution was to restrict the sale, so it's now necessary to  > 	apply and register your shotgun. > 	And -unbelievable- the use of guns in crime fell.....  Did the RATE of crime fall?  If not, the ban was of no use.  It is the rate of   violent crime that matters, not the tools used.  "It's the crime, stupid!"  > 	There are now a new law against wearing long knives in public, > 	and why should it be allowed ?? >   Apparently that became the weapon of choice after the shotguns were banned.    After that, they'll decide the car of choice  is the Saab, and propose a ban on   that!  > 	What I, as an scandinavian, have problems to understand is that  > 	you (Americans) have a more liberal view on guns and violence > 	than on nudity and sex. > 	Try showing a bare breast on tv insted of violence and murder... >  > 	Yes, I know a little American history, but is it a civil/human > 	right to have an assault gun in your home and/or an handgun > 	in your car?? >   Yes.  We still trust honest people here.  For the time being.  >  > 			The bad english is not my fault, it's probably > 			the keyboard-software or the quality of the > 			subtext on tv...... >  >  > 	Disclamer(not): > 	These are the views of all studens at my university, > 	all Norwegians and probably whole of the universe... >  >  > 			                       Thomas Parsli > 	                                     thomasp@ifi.uio.no >    -- jmd@handheld.com
Something about how Koresh had threatened to cause local  problems with all these wepaons he had and was alleged to have.    Someone else will post more details soon, I'm sure.  Other News: Sniper injures 9 outside MCA buildling in L.A.  Man arrested--suspect was disgruntled employee of Universal Studios, which is a division of M.C.A.   QUESTION: What will Californians do with all those guns after the Reginald denny trial?
As quoted from <1993Apr14.184448.2331@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> by jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu:  > 	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area. > 	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production > 	would have to be local. There are not all that many people > 	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile > 	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could > 	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and > 	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would > 	pay through the nose for it.   You don't know much about modern automatic weapons, do you?  Just about ANYBODY with basic manufacturing skill can turn out HIGH QUALITY submachineguns.  A  couple of high school shop teachers were recently arrested for building  submachineguns in the school shop.  I suggest that you go to the library and find a copy of "Smallarms of the  World".  Your entire premise is based on non-factual assumptions.
The following is quoted from the tail end of a (rather condescending) article about Paxton Quigley, that appeared in US Snooze and World Lies, (sorry... i think it was in the wall street journal...) and was repeated in the Colorado (people's) Daily, a student newspaper at the University of Colorado at Boulder.  "A study of residential gunsot deaths in King County, Wash., found that a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to be used to kill its owner, spouse, a friend, or child than to kill an intruder.  Studies by the  Western Psychiatric Institute, in Pittsburgh, found that the mere presence of a gun in the home sharply incresases the likelihood a family member will commit suicide, even in the absence of psychiatric illness."  I have seen these numbers quoted before, and I have seen very specific refutation of them quoted as well.  If someone will be so kind as to email the relevant information, I will write a letter to the editor of the Co. Daily (which might get published) and send a copy to USN&WR as well.  Thanx...  --Dan  --   DoD #202 / loki@acca.nmsu.edu / liberty or death / taylordf@ucsu.colorado.edu                   Send me something even YOU can't read... -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.1
W.K. Gorman:  <3>> Maybe now's the time for us, the NRA, GOA, CCRTKBA, SAF, et al to band <3>> together and buy CNN as *our* voice. Wouldn't that be sumpin....broadcast <3>> the truth for a change and be able to air a favorable pro-gun item or two..  <3>I would like to see this happen. I don't think it will. I don't <3>think the average gun-owner will take any notice of what is happening <3>until they break down HIS door.  <3>BUT I will go on record publicly to the effect that I will contribute a <3>minimum of $1,000.00 to the buy-out fund if it can be organized and made <3>viable. Anybody else want to put their money where their mouth is?  :) <3>There ar 50+ MILLION gun owners out there. If - and it's a big and <3>not very realistic if - we got hold of CNN, the anti-gun bullshit would <3>STOP RIGHT THERE. Why won't it happen - because nobody will get off their <3>ass and MAKE it happen. Nuts.  Any NRA headquarters weenies listening to this man. Any RTKBA organization honcho listening. It's time to stop fighting the Brady's and the Schumer's (now there's an interesting meaning to the acronynm BS) from the comfort of the office....we had better get serious with our time and money and get after it or we might just as well pack it in now. ---  . OLX 2.2 . Gun control advocates must have had a sanity by-pass!
speaking of the sick bastard, i noticed he attends Kent State University.   i guess we have come full circle here. Someone from Kent favoring excessive force by the govenment to subdue polically incorrect thinking.
In article <C5stLG.Fwq@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:  > 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.  Seeing as how people are willing to quote the FBI quoting cultists who just yesterday were deranged and not to be trusted (hmm the FBI 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.  Maybe true, partly true, or false.
lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:  >IOWA:  All firearm related bills are dead.  Senate File 303 >dealing with off-duty police officers carrying concealed remains >viable.  	The *POWER* of the word processor and a stamp at work. The fact that around here the state rep generally lives no more than nine miles from any constituent doesn't hurt, either.
In article <C5sv88.HJy@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:  > >> >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.  > > > >Do YOU eat all your food cold? >  > Ever hear of electric ovens or microwaves?  Very popular. > Electric stoves outside metro-areas especially. >   Microwaves don't work very well with no electricity Mr Engineer.  > --  > <><><><><><><><><><> Personal opinions? Why,  <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> > <>  BRENT IRVINE  <> yes.  What did you think <> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  <> > <><><><><><><><><><> they were?.......        <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
In article <1993Apr20.124518.886@batman.bmd.trw.com> auerbach@batman.bmd.trw.com writes: >Women stand up for your right to be just as stupid as men.  Our new Attorney General seems determined to do so. In the past few days she has said:  	She hopes the King beating will not reduce public confidince 	in law enforcement.  	The tactics of using tear gas and driving tanks through 	walls in Waco were intended to further a "peacefull solution" 	to the crisis.  	Those same tactics were intended to prevent a mass suicide, 	but she never expected the sect to react by killing themselves.  It's comforting to know, at least, that she wasn't Clinton's first choice...
In article <1r8m19INNeph@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes: />/:/g j:Maybe they WANTED it to look like murder. He had 50+ days. I think this was :>coming the whole time. He didn't even put the children in the buried bus or :>the underground bunker during the CS seige. He put them up into the tower :>to die. : :	Is CS gas lighter or heavier than air?  Do you know?  If the  CS is heavier than air... most chemical weapons are...
dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:  >jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:  >>*	The tanks were collapsing interior walls and ceilings putting people >>	at great risk.  >Dear, dear. They could have COME OUT.  Then by your logic, the Jews in Europe in the 1930's were the cause for the Holocaust.  Hitler told them to leave and because they didn't they brought the whole thing on themselves.  Because as you say, they could have COME OUT of Germany.  >>*	There was no group instruction of any kind from Koresh or his  >>	aids after the tank invasion (referring to any kind of suicide >>	pact or counter-assault efforts.)   >It's ultimately irrelevant who "lit" the fire.  They had ample opportunity >to LEAVE.  Same for the Jews in Europe 1930's.  >While he was there.  Anyway, outsiders RARELY see abuse.  It's a secretive >thing.  All we have to go on are the court documents in the Jewell case >and the mistrial in California.  You don't see any evidence of the abuse -- therefore it must be taking place? As you point out everwhere but here, it is irrelevant to this case.  The ATF is not in charge of investigating child abuse.  >>*	No one was ever held against their wills and could have left at any >>	time.  The people who were murdered in the fire were there by their >>	own choices.  >EXACTLY.  By their OWN CHOICE.  In obvious contradiction to the statements made by the F. B. I.  >I have NEVER judged them by their religion, but by their ACTIONS.  And just what are those actions that you are judging them by? Their refusal to let the government control their lives? Their refusal to submit to unconstitutional laws?  Their refusal to behave like cowards?  Some of Texas' heros could have taken the cowardly way out too and surrendered the Alamo.  After all, all they had to do was COME OUT.  They stayed as you say by their "OWN CHOICE".  Problem is not everyone chooses to act like a groveling dog in the face of insurmountable odds.  But as you point out, they certainly do have that right.    >If they had lived a quiet, religious life as they claimed, there would >have been no raid, no siege, and no deaths.  Instead, they chose courses >of action at every turn that were at the very least STUPID, if not >IRRATIONAL.  The first was to stockpile weapons.  The second was to >shoot federal agents.  The third was to stay inside.  Bull.  They did, in fact, live a quiet, religious life -- as they claimed. The warrant was not issued because they "stockpiled weapons".  It is not against the law to own as many guns as you want -- yet (Except in  Virginia).The warrant was issued for some "gun parts" that are about the size  of a half-dollar.  Certainly worth the lives of so many people, don't you  think?  >Just as we don't blame a cop who shoots a kid who had pointed a toy >weapon at him, I don't think the FBI deserves blame in this case.  You can forget that WE business.  I certainly do blame them.