waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <93104.175256U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: >people are getting killed by gang violence every day?  Every single day I hear >about more people getting killed by gang violence and see some of the weapons >that are being confiscated.  Is Kratz claiming that he can reliably visually distinguish an M-16 from an AR-15?  That he can see the difference between a semi-auto and a full-auto UZI?  That he can see the difference between the various versions (some full-auto, some semi-auto only) of the M-11/9?  If so, I'd love to hear the details, if only because they'll demonstrate that Kratz is blowing smoke.  Considering that one can design a gun so that it looks just like another gun, yet have very different properties, and that that's quite common....  Most kids in my neighborhood were quite young when they figured out that my parents car wasn't much like Richard Petty's, even though it looked just like it (except for the paint job).  Things must have been different with Kratz.  >Sure it's on TV but why does that make a difference?  No, it doesn't, but that's irrelevant.  If visual inspection of the outside worked, TV would be acceptable, but since it doesn't, the fact that it's just as good as seeing in person doesn't mean much.  -andy gave Kratz a chance to back down on this in private
In article <93105.165359U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes: >In article <1993Apr15.184452.27322@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says: >>>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.) > >Excuse me but I do know what I safety is supposed to do.  Kratz comments above show otherwise.  >It's basic purpose - not to let the gun fire until you're ready.  Bingo - now the question is, does the Glock's qualify?  Let's see the evidence that Kratz uses.  >Christ, I've known that since I had my first Crosman air gun.  You don't >know me so don't make assumptions about what I know and don't know.  But first an aside.  Having an air gun proves nothing.  Moreover, my comments are based on what Kratz writes.  He's free to argue that he babbles in text but actually knows something off-line.  >>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. > >From the things I have read/heard Glocks are always knocked because of the >trigger safety.  They are supposedly harder to learn to use properly.  Harder than what?  I note that almost all revolvers work the same way, so it can't be "harder than revolvers".  >Every article that I have read can't be wrong about the damn thing.  Sure they can.  (Moreover, we know now that Kratz' sample is unrepresentative.)  We can look at the reasoning.  It is basically "these Glocks are dangerous because they're not like my 1911/S&W third generation."  Part of that is true, but since those same people don't claim that revolvers, which share the relevant property, are dangerous, we see that the argument fails.  >me to quote my sources because I don't keep a ton of gun magazines and/or  Why would I care?  I'm not looking for more bogus reasoning.  >rec.guns articles laying around.  Boy, you can't make a simple statement on >here without someone getting right on your ass.  One can make hundreds of simple statements without having anyone "getting right on your ass".  One merely has to make accurate simple statements.  Then you get "attaboy"s by mail and publically.  Accuracy is a severe burden, but most of us manage it.  -andy
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.    Such as?  Drunk drivers get back on the road in no time, to kill again.  Seems   the driver's license process does not work for this.  > When I got my drivers license, I HAD > to take a drivers safety class.    Because you wanted one while you were underage.  > I HAVE to be licensed to drive.    Only on public roads.  > My car > MUST be registered.    Only if it is to be driven on public roads, other than between segments of my   property.  > 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).    Only on public roads.  > Hmm, wouldn't manditory saftey classes, registration > of both the owner and gun, and manditory liability insurance be nice for > gun owners.  Perhaps, if it gave them permission to shoot in public roads and parks. :-)  >  > Paul Reimer > reimer@uinpluxa.npl.uiuc.edu  Jim  -- jmd@handheld.com
In talk.politics.guns, jagst18+@pitt.edu (Josh A Grossman) writes:  	Well Josh I agree with you to some respect...less your spelling 	errors.  The Gov'mnt always must win! even if they kill every 	man women and child....by GOD they must win at all costs......  	This happens over and over and over in this country.  Lets make 	excuses, get the worthless press to cover up everything, let the 	officials take the heat for top management stupidity etc...etc...  > I am sick with greif for the entire well being of this nation and the  > constitution in claims to protect. 	>  > Later, > Josh
The ATF agent interviewed on "Street Stories" reported that the raid was ill planned, and went ahead even when they (the BD's) knew the ATF was  coming. WHY?  I believe this raid was ill planned because they only had 2 days to plan it, and it was continued when failure was obvious because it had a bit part in the much larger political agenda of President Clinton. I would even  suggest that the loss of 4 ATF agents is inconsequential in this the context of his political agenda. It MIGHT even be beneficial to his agenda,  as it helps point up just how evil these assualt weapons are. Further proof might be that the ATF denied their agents (Street Stories report) requests for sufficient fire power.   Important dates:  Feb 25th - NJ assembly votes to overturn assault weapon ban. Feb 28th - Compound in Waco attacked.	     On Feb. 25th the New Jersey assembly voted to overturn the assault weapon ban in that state. It looked like it might be a tight vote, but the Senate in N.J. was going to vote to overturn the ban. It would not sit well to have an Eastern state overturn an assault weapon ban, given Clintons stated agenda on gun control. I suspect Clinton gave the order to get someone or some group with assualt weapons and have the press present (they were initially at the incident in Waco) to record the event for the TV audience. The agent  on "Street Stories" reported that a supervisor was urging them all to "get  ready fast", as "they know we are coming". I believe this attack continued,  even tho the probablility of failure was high,  because it came from the top  down. After the N.J. assembly vote, the ATF had a limited amount of time to come up with something, and the Wackos in Waco fit the bill nicely.
In article <CMM.0.90.2.735315429.thomasp@holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no>, Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes: > 	1. Make a new Newsgroup called talk.politics.guns.PARANOID or  > 	talk.politics.guns.THEY'R.HERE.TO.TAKE.ME.AWAY >  > 	2. Move all postings about waco and burn to (guess where).. >  > 	3. Stop posting #### on this newsgroup >  > 	We are all SO glad you're trying to save us from the evil  > 	goverment, but would you mail this #### in regular mail to > 	let's say 1000 people ???? > 	 >  >  >  > 	This is not a .signature. > 	It's merely a computergenerated text to waste bandwith > 	and to bring down the evil Internet. >  >  >                         Thomas Parsli >                         thomasp@ifi.uio.no  How about a group called talk.that.thomas.parsli.approves? --  Clinton Administration e-mail addresses | clintonhq@campaign92.org (MCIMail)     provided as a public service by     | 75300.3115@compuserve.com (CompuServe)     Jon Edward Shum (jon@mitre.org)     | clintonpz@aol.com (America Online)
In article <1r8vg9$rl5@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, mfrhein@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Frederick Rhein) writes:  > To Rob and all others that have been debating about the wood stove. >    The original post claimed that the ATF/FBI was pumping napalm into the  > building with the hopes that the wood stove inside would ignite it.  I responed > with why would the wood stove be lit in the first place?  It wouldn't be lit  > for heating purposes because of the weather in Texas.   Which statement is dead wrong, because our local posters have confirmed that  it was quite chilly that morning.  > Everyone now claims that it was for cooking.  No, we argue that it was not entirely unreasonable for a woodstove to be  operational.  > Stop and think about this.  CS gas was being pumped > into the building and I presume that everyone was wearing gas masks (either > bought or some type of makeshift type) and this had been going on for 6 hours. > I don't know if you have ever been around CS, but I have.  Being exposed to CS > gas was part of my Army training, so I know that without a mask it VERY  > uncomfortable and makes your eyes water, nose run, and makes you sick in  > the stomach.  And with the mask it is very difficult to drink water much less  > eat.  So my question now is "why were they cooking food?"  Obviously you missed my earlier posting about the physica of woodstoves. In brief, you can't turn your woodstove on and off like your gas range. It stays on all the time.  It even stays "on" for over 24 hours AFTER you shut it off (which is why most working woodstoves aren't ever "shut off" until spring). --
In <1r0qk5INNc5m@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com writes:  > In article <C5rynw.Iz8@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)   > writes: > > I balance my gut reaction to question authority together with the  > > independent facts as I see them on video.  I usually adopt the  > > scenario that is simplest and most plausible.  I do not generally  > > believe in conspiracy theories that involve complicated and unlikely  > > scenarios. > >  > Then answer the question:  Why was NO ONE ELSE permitted to talk to Koresh,     Koresh had a lawyer, Deguin(?) who he spoke to in person several times during the last few weeks.   > It cannot be denied that if they had left them alone, there would have been  >no fire yesterday.    This strikes me as a tad ingenous.  "If X had done/note done Y, then Z would never have happened."  I tend to place tha responsibility on the group/person actually committing the act, not on those whon "forced them to do it".    After all, to take an extreme example, if the British were not in Northern Ireland, the IRA would not be forced to place bombs in shopping centers.    That said, this whole sorry story was a totally unecessary, utterly fucked up mess from the get go.  semper fi,
In article <1qvff6INN9p4@clem.handheld.com>, jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) says: > >In article <93109.172450U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz >[...] > >> It is kind of funny though how you were the only one who picked up >> the part about my sister being a social worker and keeping me up to date on >the >> gang thing.  Everyone else seemed to just skim by that part. >> >> Jason > > >I guess that just means "Everyone else" was mistaken? > >Jim > >jmd@handheld.com >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >- Actually not Jim.  I just said that everyone else seemed to have skimmed by that part and not mentioned it.  You can get whatever meaning you want from it.
In article <1r3j2k$da2@menudo.uh.edu>, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes: > > :> 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? >  >   Minor quibble:  The assualt (and it was one) began near dawn.  The fire did > not break out for several hours.  I find it highly unlikely that the BD would > be cooking lunch while armored vehicles punch holes in their house and are > pumping in tear gas.   Look, I don't want to bore everybody here with the physics of woodstoves, but they're not anything like your Caloric gas range.  It takes about three hours for a woodstove to get hot enough to cook on, and afterwards  you can't just "shut it off" -- it will contain hot embers for over 24  hours even after you choke it COMPLETELY.  So it ain't exactly "light up the stove and cook me a batch of them  pancakes, Aunt J..."  If you use a woodstove for cooking, or even for heating your house at night, you will have it lit to SOME extent all  the time.  Trust me on this one, I speak from experience. --
Much of the dispute about the origin of the fire that destroyed the BD compound could be settled by examining the propane tank supposedly crushed by one of the army tanks when they breached the walls of the compound. If the the propane tank is flattened and has tread marks on it, then the BD's version of the cause of the fire would seem to be verified.  --  Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
In article <1993Apr3.221837.2324@news.duc.auburn.edu> bixledn@eng.auburn.edu writes: >In article 16193@cbnews.cb.att.com, lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes: >> No, you haven't read it very closely .  It says you may answer "No" if your >> civil rights have been restored; that can be done either by the feds' or a >> a state.  I think the feds stopped doing this for those convicted of violent >> felonies.  At least a dozen states still restore a felons civil rights, some >> immediately upon release, some after a waiting period.  I will post a list >> of the states later. >>  > >  A quick question, then Larry, If a person's civil rights have been restored,  >  then are they still considered a felon?  Good question; I don't know what the law considers them.  >  IMO, if rights have been restored, then it makes sense to me that the >  record of the felony, and everything else has been purged, and the >  person in question is no longer a felon.  I believe this is what happens in some states.
In article <C5t38G.IL@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes: > In article <1r1rad$7rl@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: > >In article <C5s0Ds.J54@news.udel.edu>, roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes: >  >   [The original question was about who started the fire and whether the  >    "madmen" were inside or outside the compound.  To which I replied on  >    the possible sanity level of those inside and outside.]  Was THAT your argument.  Well, you didn't make it very well.  You started  from the questionable premise that the fire was necessarily an act of insanity, rather than an act of negligence or an accident.  Recall, one survivor claims that the fire started when a tank knocked over a kerosene  lamp.  Kind of makes arguments regarding relative sanity somewhat moot, no?  > >> According to an Australian documentary made in the year before the stand off  > >> began, Koresh and his followers all believed he was Christ.  Koresh  > >> had sex with children and women married to other men in the compound.   > >> These were the "perfect children" resulting from the "great seed" of  > >> his "magnified horn".  Ex-members describe him in ways not dissimilar  > >> to the way Jim Jones has been described. > > > >Point noted.  Have you submitted YOUR faith and sex life for BATF clearance? > >Better hurry; I believe the deadline was April 15. >  > I paid my taxes.  There was no reference to sex or religion on the form.  "Nice evasive maneuver, Mr. Chekov, but they're still on our tail."  Let me ask it more plainly.  Which of the above complaints about David  Koresh's religious or sexual proclivities justified an armed raid by the  Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms?  > >> >:Two of the nine who escaped the compound said the fire was deliberately set  > >> >:by cult members.  > >> So, when they talk to the news reporters directly, and relate the same details,  > >> will you believe them?  > >Believe them?  I won't even RECOGNIZE them.  And neither will anyone else > >who doesn't know them personally.  > Do you believe they would put impostors before the national tv cameras?  It's not entirely far-fetched.  Nobody outside the compound would know  EVERYBODY inside the compound.  Don't forget, the BATF admits having  agents inside the compound, in any case.  > At this point, we are getting conflicting reports from the survivors. > Best wait til more light is shed upon them.  Of course, this is no  > good if you believe in eternal darkness.  I'm simply being the devil's advocate.  There's reasonable doubt by the boatload standing in the way of anybody totally swallowing the official  government story on Waco. --
In article <1993Apr5.015209.29431@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: |> In article <1993Apr2.231109.23378@msc.cornell.edu> srussell@msc.cornell.edu (Stephen Russell) writes: |> >ObGuns:  I'm moving to Arizona; everyone carries guns there.  If I don't, what |> >are the approximate probabilities that I'll get shot by the end of six months? |>  |> Under 1 in 20,000 assuming FBI statistics are meaningfull.  Of course, if you're a criminal, or hang around with criminals, or flash large wads of cash in the wilder parts of town, or utter verbal bigotry in the right public places, your chances of being shot are much higher.  Avoiding these behaviors, on the other hand, decreases your chances of being shot.  Something like 60% of all murders are criminals killing criminals.  Over 90% of murders are committed by people with a prior *known* history of violence.  Simplistic moral, suitable for my three year old, and most inane posters:  "Bad people do bad things - repeatedly."
hello,  I just want to make 2 points:  1) The FBI is not stupid. These people are chosen for their intelligence, education, loyalty to the government, etc. They are given much intensive training. So, to all of you who refuse to believe there could be any conspiracy here, and say that the FBI was just stupid, I say I don't believe it.  2) The FBI has acces to the latest in audio and video technology -- the latest digital systems. The FBI can manufacture evidence. Need a tape of Koresh saying, "light the fire", and you can have one. Need a thermal imaging video of three people lighting fires, and through the magic of computer graphics, you can have one. The thing is, manufacturing these pieces of evidence takes time. So it may be a few more days before we get to see them. Or maybe we just haven't heard any tapes or seen any FBI video is because it is: 	1) classified 	2) too gruesome for our eyes 	3) lost/got coffee spilled on it  Dwayne Jacques Fontenot
In article <1993Apr18.000152.2339 @gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:  > Surrender your arms. Soon enough,  > officers will be around to collect > them. Resistance is useless. They  >       ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^ > will overwhelm you - one at a time.  Are you certain you didn't mean to post  to alt.french.captain.borg.borg.borg?  You'd better rush home...I hear Kruschev  calling "Come to papa, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu!"
In article <C5vB3E.Ev5@sugar.neosoft.com>, kunkee@NeoSoft.com (Randy Kunkee) writes:  > Perhaps we are a little off track.  The discussion was about rewording > the 2nd amendment.  This specifically refers to the right to bear arms. > "Bear" and "arms" are key words here, no?  Is it too simplistic to say > that if you can't pick it up (ie. bear it), or if it is not a firearm > then it can be restricted without amending the constitution.  Firearm?  Let's not even consider long knives (swords), which were also common militia weapons in the 18th century, and which, if anything, are often restricted more heavily than firearms.  Whatever sense gun control makes, knife control makes even less. --
In article <1r1die$4t@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: >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.  Imagine, you have been under seige for almost two months by an enemy which you believe wants to kill you.  Suddenly, they pump tear gas into your building and punch holes in it with tanks.  Then a fire breaks out.  Do you run outside to be slaughtered, or stay and face your fate.  Check Ethiopia vs. Italy in WWII for some answers to that question.
The Waco Quiz  What would you do in the following hypothetical situations?  You have committed no crime.  The BATF conducts a "no-knock" raid. a) Hands in air. Say "Do you have a warrant?" Think of hefty suit settlement. b) Say "You have 1 second to identify yourself as a cop or I shoot." c) Shoot.  Heck, at least in federal prison you might get to have sex.  You have killed federal agents. They blast strange music at you. a) Come out with hands up. "I wish to turn state's evidence." Hope deal's good. b) Wait, figuring other federal agents will get bored and go on vacation. c) Wait. If they come after you there will be a chance to kill MORE g-men.  The FBI has you surrounded, asks you to come out immediately. a) Come out, figuring long prison term is chance to catch up on some writing. b) Stall. You just can't concentrate when you're on trial for some reason. c) Decide to write novel-length prophecy now while ideas are fresh in mind.  FBI calls and says they will use tear gas if you don't come out. a) Come out with hands up. Your radical bro-in-law hated getting gassed at UC. b) Get out your gas mask. Really, these feds will have to give up eventually. c) Shoot at vehicles delivering tear gas. It's rude to break down a man's door!  FBI calls and says they will use tanks to break down your walls. a) Come out with your hands up. Flimsy cardboard construction won't last long. b) With presence of mind, move flammable devices away from tinder-dry haybales. c) Spread some kerosene around and hit a match. Big Schwarzenegger ending.  Points are awarded in the following manner: 0 points for every (a) answer, -1 points for every (b) answer, and -2 points for every (c) answer. Count 'em up and compare with your friends!  If you answered (a) all the time, you are probably in jail, but alive. If you answered (b) all the time, you may still be holed up in your compound. If you answered (c) all the time, you are probably dead.  (Feel free to copy this and distribute to your friends.)