waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <C4u3x5.Fw7@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes: >I don't know how anyone can state that gun control could have NO >effect on homicide rates.  I don't think anyone is arguing that there would be no effect. But there would be no _net_ _positive_ effect. You also have to  consider the negative side: Law abiding citizens, armed with  fireamrs (pistols for the most part), prevent between 80,000 (National Crime Survey) and 1,000,000 (Dr. Kleck) crimes each year. (Those are the extremes. Most studies find the number to be 500,000 to 600,000.) About 1% of those crimes are homicides, so private ownership of firearms _saves_ approximately 5,000 lives each year. There are roughly 12,000 criminal homicides and fatal accidents involving guns each year. For there to  be any net benefit, you would have to show that gun control measures would disarm over 40% of the criminals currently using guns. That would be very hard to do: According the the federal BATF, only 8% of criminals buy their guns over the counter. Since gun control laws, by their very nature, only effect legal sales, such a law would remove all the benefits of armed, law-abiding citizens while having only a minimal effect on armed criminals (who, by and large, get their guns illegally.)  That doesn't sound like a net benefit to me.    >...There were over 250 >accidental< handgun >homicides in America in 1990, most with licensed weapons.  Since most were with licensed weapons, I assume you are not supporting "reasonable" laws (i.e. waiting periods, background checks, licenses, etc...). Since only a complete ban would  alter the statistic you refer to, I assume that's what you are supporting.  By the way, 1135 people dies in 1986 from falling down stairs. 250 accidental handgun deaths isn't significant next to  other household accidents.  >...More >American children accidentally shot other children last year (15) >than all the handgun homicides in Great Britain.  1080 children under the age of 10 died by drowning, 69 from  drinking poisonous household chemicals (like Drano), 139 from falls. If the real goal is to reduce the tragic, accidental deaths of children, wouldn't a ban on drain cleaners be a  better palce to start? (Or, perhaps, restricting ownership to professionals like plumbers?)  >...Please... no dictionary arguments about RATES vs >TOTAL NUMBERS, okay?  They're offered for emphasis, not comparison).  While you might call it "emphasis", refering to completely two statistics in the same sentence _implies_ a comparison. If it isn't valid, and you put the numbers together to convince people you are right, the kindest thing I could call it is propaganda.
On 21 Apr 93 05:06:08 GMT, Tim Smith (tzs@stein.u.washington.edu) wrote: > feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes: > >We have NO evidence that BATF & FBI would not have started shooting > >when and if people had started coming out of the burning building.  > Oh?  How about the press?  If the BATF & FBI were going to shoot people > leaving a burning building, don't you think they would get rid of the > press first?  Oh, you mean something like moving the press back to a single location, 2 miles away from the "compound"?  The press was allowing into foxholes in Vietnam, but it's "too dangerous" to allow them near the Branch Davidians?...  There's something skewed about the logic here.   -- Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
In article <C5tEnu.112F@ns1.nodak.edu>, green@plains.NoDak.edu (Bill Green) writes:  > And a few other questions.  Like I said, I believe the actions taken, in > general, were proper.  But I still have some reservations.  We've heard a lot of talk about brainwashing in Waco but the brainwashing of the general population never ceases to amaze me. Here is an example of action being taken which results in the worst possible outcome and despite people's deep intuition telling them something is wrong the programming will still cut in and say that the agents probably acted in good faith. NO THEY DIDN'T. They either did not have enough information to act in good faith or else they acted knowing the risk. Sums up human stupidity all over and one of these days it will destroy the fucking planet: "Oh sorry. Didn't think they would respond by launching a strike. All our best calculations told us they were bluffing."
I don't know what Traders is claiming, but it appears to me that the Oakland Tribune has censored gun ads in the past.  Likewise for the San Francisco Chronicle, and I have never seen a gun ad in the San Francisco Examiner.  Specifically, about a year ago on Thursdays, when Traders placed its ads, the Chron. ad would not have any graphics representing any handgun sale, though text could list it.  The Trib. would run a graphic of a handgun.  The Examiner would not have a Traders ad at all.  Over the past year while Oakland politicians have made a lot of noise about measures to fight crime the Trib stopped taking the Traders ad, then started publishing it, but without any handgun graphic, then stopped, then started.  Since the Trib. was sold some months ago it has not had the Traders ad.  During one of these non-ad interludes a Traders employee told me that the Trib. had refused to take their ads.  Yes, the usual Chron. Thursday ad was there today, with graphics representing rifles, safes, etc. as usual.
In article <93111.141747JCEHC@CUNYVM.BITNET>, <JCEHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes: Path: nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!news.ysu.edu!psuvm!cunyvm!jcehc Organization: City University of New York Date: Wednesday, 21 Apr 1993 14:17:47 EDT From: <JCEHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> Message-ID: <93111.141747JCEHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Should Anybody be Permitted to Own a .50 BMG rifle? Lines: 26     For the moment, forget about BATF incompetence or FBI hubris.  Did anybody catch Rep. Charles Shumer on the news last night holding up a .50 BMG cartridge and rhetorically asking if anybody should be allowed to own one of these.  (I presume he meant the rifle for which it is chambered and not the cartridge which you can get for a buck.)    So what's your guess for the upcoming anti-gun agenda:  1.   A ban on heavy caliber rifles. (read .50 BMG)  2.   A ban on "sniper rifles"  3. A ban on "stockpiling" guns and ammunition.   BTW: Shumer is perhaps the most misinformed congressman I have seen on      the news. I wonder how he finds the floor in the morning. ------- MICHAEL F. GORDON JCEHC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU  "Vote as you shot."  (19th Cent Republican campaign slogan )   Shumer is not mis-informed, he knows full well what he is doing.  If you look at his other votes, and positions as an agent of redistribution of wealth & property in this country, to him guns and personal freedom  are incompatible with his obvious world-view. They are a threat to the 'order' he would impose.  	R  -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "It [collectivism vs individualism] is an ancient conflict. Men have come close to the truth, but it was destroyed each time and one civilization fell after another. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."     -- Ayn Rand : 'Roark's speech from the _Fountainhead_' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I don't speak for my company. We hire the 'Politically Correct' to do that.
american and european universities were full of Angry Young People(tm) that wanted to overthrow the government, and wouldn't think twice about lobbing a molotov cocktail at the national guard (military police in Europe.)  Certainly, it would have been very bad form to take anything the System(tm) said at face value.  This was in the end of the sixties and the begining of the seventies, I'm told. I was too young to remember.  Something wrong happened along the way, I'm afraid.  Maybe the west became just too comfortable, or maybe I was born too late :(  Yours, disappointed with with the youth of today,  PS: 1) Half smilies implied.     2) There *is* a difference between lining up 90 people against the        wall and executing them, and causing their deaths through negligence/        imcompetence.  I honestly hope we witnessed the latter.  As they say,        the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.     3) I'm sure the Abused Children(tm) from the compound are much         safer now. --
In article <1993Apr22.000020.23999@Csli.Stanford.EDU>, cower@csli.stanford.edu (Richard Cower) writes:  > CNN just reported the ATF and the FBI have begun killing everyone in the > United States. A press release stated this action was required because > bugs had revealed that many people were doing something illegal in their > homes, and statistical data indicated that those who weren't might someday > do something illegal. An ATF spokesperson, just before he shot himself, stated > that "this would clean up things once and for all".  For those of you still unsure whether this is satire, the jury is still out:      "Also yesterday, even though the compound no longer exists, the      US attorney's office here released formerly sealed documents,      including a search warrant and related affidavits, that authorities      planned to use when the siege was over.      "These documents did not include the original warrants the Bureau of      Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms had in late February, which to this      day have never been released.      "...one of the documents indicated the agency planned to seek      samples of Koresh's handwriting not only to verify that he had      signed for some gun purchases, but also that he espoused      'certain doctrines hostile to law enforcement and particularly      the ATF.'"  So, one of the charges against Koresh seems to be Contempt of Cop -- he expressed hostility to the BATF.  That chilly feeling in your gonads is  perfectly normal, folks... it should go away in about 51 days.          The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.         ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ         abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz  That should save them the trouble of subpoena-ing samples.  Heavens knows  I want to cooperate fully, meinherren. --
God forgive me for being an American who pays taxes to a government that commits atrocities like the Waco Massacre of 1993. --  Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
In article <1993Apr4.4332.33144@dosgate>, nigel.allen@canrem.com (nigel allen) writes: > Here is a press release from Handgun Control Inc. >  >  Sarah Brady Calls On Governor to Veto NRA Bill; Bayh Urged to > Follow Clinton's Lead >  To: State Desk >  Contact: Cheryl Brolin of Handgun Control Inc., 202-898-0792 >  >    WASHINGTON, April 2 -- In a letter today to Indiana Gov.  > Evan Bayh, Sarah Brady, wife of former White House > Press Secretary James Brady and chair of Handgun Control Inc., > called on the governor to veto NRA-backed "preemption" legislation > (S.B. 241), which would wipe out existing local gun laws and > prohibit localities from enacting future regulations governing the > sale, possession or transfer of firearms. >    "I'm counting on Gov. Bayh to show the same kind of political > courage President Clinton showed as governor of Arkansas, when he > twice vetoed this type of special-interest legislation," Mrs. Brady > said, referring to Clinton's veto of NRA-backed preemption bills in > 1989 and 1991. >   I knew that Cutie would sell us out.  Full-blooded Democrat, he is :-)  Seriously folks, if it can happen here (remember?  we all got gun racks on our 4x4s), it can happen anywhere.  Now to get that letter ready.  `Dear  Cutie, as one who didn't vote for you, I can sincerely say I am unhappy...'   >  -30- > --  >  Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada  nigel.allen@canrem.com > -- > Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario > 416-629-7000/629-7044  Those who know what's best for us Must try to save us from ourselves -- RUSH -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Jason Alley                  || The opinions expressed were given to me      | | Earlham College, Richmond IN || by aliens living in my pancreas.             | | AlleyJa@Yang.Earlham.Edu     || The Empire never ended.                      |
gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes: >nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes: >}    They assembled a frightening arsenal of weapons   >What, exactly, did you find frightening about their weapons?      The lethality in small part, but mostly what I found frightening  was the fact that they were wielded by people who believed that they  ate breakfast every morning with Jesus Christ. Now I wasn't there in  Galilee back in the Roman occupation, so I don't know for certain that  David Koresh was not Jesus Christ, but I strongly suspect that he was  not (even aside from the fact of never having seen them in a photograph  together).  >}by circumventing laws which were intended to prevent such a buildup.  > >Which laws are you making reference to?      I admit I can't cite a specific, but if there isn't a law against  purchasing grenade components and assembling them into functioning units  then perhaps we need one. All second ammendment arguments aside, I'm just  not sure that I like the idea of private citizens with hand grenades.
cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: :jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes: :> Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect :> them. Resistance is useless.  : :Don't tell me -- you're the "Borg Warner," right?  HAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  Hee, hee.  <chuckle>  This was absolutely fabulous.  I nearly fell out of my chair laughing. Wonderful!  Mr. Tavares, my hat is off to you again!   Mike Ruff
If anyone is keeping a list of the potential contributors,  you can put me down for $1000.00 under the conditions above
hambidge@bms.com wrote: : In article <C4psoG.C6@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:  : >: Rate := per capita rate.  The UK is more dangerous. : >: Though you may be less likely to be killed by a handgun, the average : >: individual citizen in the UK is twice as likely to be killed : >: by whatever means as the average Swiss.  Would you feel any better : >: about being killed by means other than a handgun? I wouldn't. :  : >What an absurd argument.  Switzerland is one-fifth the size of the : >UK with one-eigth as many people therefore at any given point on : >Swiss soil you are more likely to be crow bait.  More importantly, : >you are 4x as likely to be killed by the next stranger approaching : >you on a Swiss street than in the UK.  : You are betraying your lack of understanding about RATE versus TOTAL : NUMBER. Rates are expressed, often, as #/100,000 population. : Therefore, if a place had 10 deaths and a population of 100,000, the : rate would be 10/100,000.  A place that had 50 deaths and a population : of 1,000,000 would hav a rate of 5/100,000.  The former has a higher : rate, the latter a higher total.  You are less likely to die in the : latter.  Simple enuff?  For chrissakes, take out your calculator and work out the numbers. Here... I've preformatted them for you to make it easier:  			handgun homicides/population 			---------------------------- 	Switzerland :	24 /  6,350,000 	         UK :    8 / 55,670,000  ... and then tell me again how Switzerland is safer with a more liberal handgun law than the UK is without...by RATE or TOTAL NUMBER. Your choice.
Woops.  I'm not sure if I screwed up, but this is either forgery or some  sort of mistake (aborted post that didn't abort) on my part.    Bogus article below if seen in another post should be ignored..    --------------------------------------------------------------------------- / iftccu:talk.politics.guns / bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) /  3:29 pm  Apr 13, 1993 / / iftccu:talk.politics.guns / papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) /  1:49 am  Apr 12, 1993 / In article <92468@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH) writes: > >I certainly hope this is somebody's idea of a joke, as poor as it it... >My earlier posting mentioning an illegal firearms MANUFACTURING site being >searched for by the Feds in the Florida area was evidently ignored..  Let's look at this critically: 1.How many guns did this illegal manufacturing site make compared to -------------------------------------------------------------------- <and so on...>
In article <lteid7INN88q@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:  [re McElwaine]  > Is there NOWHERE on the net that this guy WILL NOT POST?  I just heard this week that he has started on COMPUSERVE flying models forum now.  Sigh. --
>What does this <censored> from NORWAY think he's doing telling us >how to run the place?  I wanna know... somebody please 'splain. > >Guess how NORWAY survived the Third Reich?  Give you a hint, >it wasn't by passive resistance the way the Danes did it....
kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:  >the dismissal or resignation of Lloyd Bensen, Secretary of the Treasury,   In case you haven't sent it yet, it's "Bentsen", not "Bensen".
In article <1993Apr14.175931.66210@cc.usu.edu> slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes: >> (BTW - Which parts should be secure?  Criminal >> records, ie convictions, are typically considered public information, >> so should that info be secure?  Remember, the population includes >> parents checking prospective childcare worker.) > >	Like I said, I'm not sure of the details.  But it seems to me that you >could access medical information without giving out a name, or any other >information.  Medical info without a name/body attached is completely useless for treatment.  >The article I mentioned the the earlier post described a debit >card type transaction in which neither the store nor the BANK, knew who was >withdrawing the money.  Thus making it as secure as cash, for some purposes, but far less secure for others.  >	Parent's checking a babysitter shouldn't need access to the information >stored in the card.  Sure they do.  The prospective sitter may have a nasty habit of molesting kids three or four months into the job.  The references may not have known him long enough or may not have picked up on this yet.  Remember, criminal conviction info is public, so if you're going to argue for an ID card, other people are going to have a strong argument that it disclose public info.  >things.  I think anything that you choose to keep unknown should be.  Thus making it useless for negative information.  >could have it so that only doctors can access medical information, police >criminal records etc etc.  Yeah right.  How are you going to keep doctors from spilling the beans?  (We already know that you can't keep cops from disclosing info, but at least that info is typically supposed to be public anyway.)  >	Like I said, it's best if you read the article for yourself.  The article discusses technology, not appropriate policy.  It also fails to deal with "what happens if the folks with the secrets blab".  -andy
In article <1993Apr21.051417.23137@husc3.harvard.edu>, kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim) writes:  > 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.  Shooting those .44 cal. blanks, I suspect.  Them movie guys is dangerous.  > QUESTION: > What will Californians do with all those guns after the Reginald > denny trial?  Practice with them, I hope. --
Excerpts from netnews.talk.politics.guns: 18-Apr-93 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD ! by jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu  > Yea, there are millions of cases where yoy *say* that firearms > 'deter' criminals. Alas, this is not provable. I think that that > there are actually *few* cases where this is so.   excerpted from a letter I wrote a while ago:       Although less apparent to those who have not researched the facts, personal protection is as legitimate a reason  as sport for the private citizen to own a gun.  The most recent research  is  that  of Dr. Gary Kleck of the  Florida  State University  School of Criminology.1  He found that  handguns are  more  often  used by victims to defeat  crime  than  by criminals to commit it (645,000 vs. 580,000 respectively  in this  study).  These figures are even more encouraging  when you  consider the number of crimes that never occur  because of  the  presence  of a gun in the hands  of  a  law-abiding private  citizen.  In a National Institute of Justice  study of  ten state prisons across the country they found that 39% of  the  felons  surveyed had aborted  at  least  one  crime because  they believed that the intended victim was  armed., and  57% agreed that "most criminals are more worried  about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."2      One  of the most heinous of crimes is that against  the women  of  this country.  It has been my recent  observation that  more  women  are purchasing handguns  for  defense  in response  to  the  present danger of these  assaults.   This should be taken as encouraging news if the events of Orlando Florida  are any indicator.  In the late 1960's  the  female populace was plagued with a series of brutal assaults;  just the  publicity of the record number of women buying guns and obtaining training resulted in an 88% decrease in  rape  for that  area,  the  only city of its size in  the  country  to experience a decrease of crime for that year.  Additionally, a 1979 US Justice Department study of 32,000 attempted rapes showed  that overall, when rape is attempted, the completion rate  is 36%. But when a woman defends herself with  a  gun, the completion rate drops to 3%.   1 G Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America Aldine de Gruyter, NY, 1991 2 JD Wright & PH Rossi Armed and Considered Dangerous:  A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, Aldine de Gruyter, NY, 1986 -------  __________________________________________________________________________ [unlike cats] dogs NEVER scratch you when you wash them. They just become very sad and try to figure out what they did wrong. -Dave Barry
In article <C5JGz5.34J@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes: >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. >Kirk Hays - NRA Life, seventh generation.  I first read and consulted rec.guns in the summer of 1991.  I just purchased my first firearm in early March of this year.