Opinion article from local paper - Page 7

**CingularDuality** · 09-28-2004, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

http://www.grandlodgefop.org/
http://www.defenselink.mil/
http://www.fightcrime.org/ (Currently unresponsive [for me at least], but Google lists it has having existed yesterday)

Umm, could you link to where it says they're lobbying congress to eliminate gangs? You're really stretching, y'know... I was going to just say that you can't, that there is no anti-gang lobby on the hill. But maybe there is, I dunno for sure...

Regardless, my point has been made. Anti-gun people aren't really looking to fix the real problem.

**Pokerface** · 09-28-2004, 01:43 AM

http://www.fightcrime.org/faq.php

Quote:

Fight Crime: Invest in Kids:

* Researches and evaluates the effectiveness of crime-prevention strategies
* Develops policy recommendations and analyzes the crime-prevention impact of public policy proposals.
* Educates opinion leaders, policy-makers and the public through briefings and the mass media about effective crime prevention programs.
* Gives voice at the national and state levels to the crime prevention concerns and recommendations of police, prosecutors and crime victims as well as experts in fields such as child and youth development and criminology.
* Serves as an information clearinghouse for journalists, policy-makers and the public.

wickerman · 09-28-2004, 09:16 AM

You're completely missing (avoiding?) the point, pokerface. He's asking for ONE link to an organization SOLELY DEVOTED to eliminating gangs. Something like www.antiganglobby.org. NOT organizations who may also happen to have eliminating gang violence as one of their goals. The anti gun lobby is well-funded and solely focused on eliminating guns, find one that focuses on gangs. I doubt you'll find one (may be wrong, but I don't know of any organization like that).

Maybe there should be a ban on bows and arrows too, they're only designed to kill. Slingshots, I believe, were originally created as a tool for hunting/war. Want to ban those too?

Why not just go all out and ban ANYTHING that can propel an object with sufficient velocity to penetrate, render unconscious, bruise, startle or otherwise inconvienience anyone else? Let's ignore the fact that there are people who are completely and utterly worthless and will find ways to harm regardless of what gets outlawed and just focus on the tools they use to carry out their barbarism.

**CingularDuality** · 09-28-2004, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

http://www.fightcrime.org/faq.php

I'm not seeing "gang", "organized crime" or any similar term in that faq at all...

**Pokerface** · 09-28-2004, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I'm not seeing "gang", "organized crime" or any similar term in that faq at all...

Boy, you and I have both lost a lot of respect for each other this thread. :P

"Gives voice at the national and state levels to the crime prevention concerns and recommendations of police, prosecutors and crime victims as well as experts in fields such as child and youth development and criminology."

Remember, this is a political group, so they say in ten words what we'd say in one.

**CingularDuality** · 09-28-2004, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

Boy, you and I have both lost a lot of respect for each other this thread. :P

"Gives voice at the national and state levels to the crime prevention concerns and recommendations of police, prosecutors and crime victims as well as experts in fields such as child and youth development and criminology."

Remember, this is a political group, so they say in ten words what we'd say in one.

That says nothing about organized crime, though! They're talking about keeping kids from becoming thugs in general. I'm talking about aggressively going after the organizations that are actively recruiting these kids.

Again, my point in this regard has already been made: anti-gun groups don't really care about the true problem, they just want to take guns out of everyone's hands.

**DudeMan** · 09-28-2004, 09:05 PM

why bother to argue with redneck yanks about guns.

still no real counter to the fact guns are owned to kill designed to kill and ultimatly end up killing

oh cingular dont call me ignorant pal, it aint needed dont liek the argument, then **** off out of my face but dont insult me.

**CingularDuality** · 09-28-2004, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

oh cingular dont call me ignorant pal, it aint needed dont liek the argument, then **** off out of my face but dont insult me.

It wasn't an insult, just a fact... The fact that you don't know something should not be insulting. There are lots of things that I'm ignorant of... Everyone is ignorant of things that they simply don't have any experience or education with.

You're right that most guns are designed to kill. Absolutes are rarely true, however. To say that all guns are designed to kill is an ignorant statement:

A real long range killer, huh?

**leejo** · 09-28-2004, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

dont call me ignorant pal, it aint needed dont liek the argument, then **** off out of my face

Pure poetry.

**DudeMan** · 09-28-2004, 09:35 PM

poetry or not. it is an insult, the statement displays ignorance, its an ignorant statemnt, and words to that effect are not insulting.

however, your ignorance deffinatly refers to the person, and the insult.

so dont try and tell me what it says.

oh and leejo, i dont care if its poetic, an eye for an eye.

wickerman · 09-29-2004, 10:12 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong but a gun is designed to propel an object at high velocity in a particular direction. It can be used to hunt, it can be used for sport (target shooting) and yes, it can be used to kill or injure. The problem is with the PEOPLE using the gun, not the gun itself. But the anti-gun arguments I've heard never deal with that.

"Let's take the guns away and then no one will ever get killed by bad people again" - bull**** argument.

Benny_ · 09-29-2004, 10:30 AM

I'm not sure which side this supports, but I thought it might change a few perceptions or perhaps peoples approach to this tired old argument. As Wicker and all pro gun people say - it's the person using it. As it is with potential WMDs. There are legitamate uses for the key ingredients of a potentially lethal bomb, which must me strictly regulated...are they allowed into the hands of 'everyday Joe'?

Quote:

Many industrial chemicals are closely related to chemical weapons; in fact several industrial chemicals were even employed as chemical weapons during World War I. Chlorine and phosgene were both used extensively by both the German, British, and French during the war. Although these substances are far less lethal than the nerve agents, they are quite common and have "many legitimate industrial applications" (Dunn, 5). Even more frightening is that an entire class of industrial chemicals are of a highly toxic nature. These are the organophosphates, in fact this is also the class of chemical to which sarin (GB) and VX belong. These chemicals are commonly used as insecticides and include parathion, an insecticide notorious for the threat it poses to those who use it. The lethal doses for the industrial chemicals of this class are in general ten to fifty times higher than those of the military agents, however they are still very dangerous with lethal doses ranging from 1.05 to 7.0 mcg/kg (Mullen, 253-254), which translates to .000698 kg for a 220 pound person. As one may realize that many of these industrial agents are well suited for use as a weapon, and that their legitimate uses make it particularly difficult to regulate sales

**CingularDuality** · 09-29-2004, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benny_

There are legitamate uses for the key ingredients of a potentially lethal bomb, which must me strictly regulated...are they allowed into the hands of 'everyday Joe'?

Good question. First of all, over here the right to pesticide wasn't something that the people that formed our nation thought should be in the document that our government is built upon. Once we get past that first issue, I suppose you have to look at other things: the effectiveness/cost of the agents in their legitimate roles, the effectiveness/cost of safer agents in the same roles, the feasability of restricting it's distribution or purchase, and the degree of difficulty that is entailed to turn the industrial agent into a weapon.

**leejo** · 09-29-2004, 12:21 PM

Exactly correct!

Not to beat a dead horse but Saddam Hussein was absolutely crazy about ridding his country of insects, apparently. Nobody's found any WMDs but the place was crawling with pesticides.

**TheFeniX** · 09-29-2004, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benny_

There are legitamate uses for the key ingredients of a potentially lethal bomb, which must me strictly regulated...are they allowed into the hands of 'everyday Joe'?

Depends: buy a gallon a pesticide, no one cares. Start stockpiling it, and men in black suits may appear at your door. The same thing applies to guns. But a few legal assault rifles, no one cares. Start stock-piling them and people get suspicious.

It's also hard to get these chemicals unless you are licensed. Get caught with a set of lock-picks when you aren't a licensed lock-smith and see what happens.

09-28-2004, 09:16 AM	#93 (permalink)
wickerman Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 37 Posts: 230	Re: Opinion article from local paper You're completely missing (avoiding?) the point, pokerface. He's asking for ONE link to an organization SOLELY DEVOTED to eliminating gangs. Something like www.antiganglobby.org. NOT organizations who may also happen to have eliminating gang violence as one of their goals. The anti gun lobby is well-funded and solely focused on eliminating guns, find one that focuses on gangs. I doubt you'll find one (may be wrong, but I don't know of any organization like that). Maybe there should be a ban on bows and arrows too, they're only designed to kill. Slingshots, I believe, were originally created as a tool for hunting/war. Want to ban those too? Why not just go all out and ban ANYTHING that can propel an object with sufficient velocity to penetrate, render unconscious, bruise, startle or otherwise inconvienience anyone else? Let's ignore the fact that there are people who are completely and utterly worthless and will find ways to harm regardless of what gets outlawed and just focus on the tools they use to carry out their barbarism. __________________

09-28-2004, 09:05 PM	#97 (permalink)
DudeMan Join Date: May 2003 Location: london England Age: 22 Posts: 3,258	Re: Opinion article from local paper why bother to argue with redneck yanks about guns. still no real counter to the fact guns are owned to kill designed to kill and ultimatly end up killing oh cingular dont call me ignorant pal, it aint needed dont liek the argument, then ** off out of my face but dont insult me. __________________ The Queen "Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life," Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community TheFeniX "Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do**"

09-28-2004, 09:35 PM	#100 (permalink)
DudeMan Join Date: May 2003 Location: london England Age: 22 Posts: 3,258	Re: Opinion article from local paper poetry or not. it is an insult, the statement displays ignorance, its an ignorant statemnt, and words to that effect are not insulting. however, your ignorance deffinatly refers to the person, and the insult. so dont try and tell me what it says. oh and leejo, i dont care if its poetic, an eye for an eye. __________________ The Queen "Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life," *Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community* TheFeniX "Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

09-29-2004, 10:12 AM	#101 (permalink)
wickerman Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 37 Posts: 230	Re: Opinion article from local paper Correct me if I'm wrong but a gun is designed to propel an object at high velocity in a particular direction. It can be used to hunt, it can be used for sport (target shooting) and yes, it can be used to kill or injure. The problem is with the PEOPLE using the gun, not the gun itself. But the anti-gun arguments I've heard never deal with that. "Let's take the guns away and then no one will ever get killed by bad people again" - bull**** argument. __________________

09-29-2004, 12:21 PM	#104 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Opinion article from local paper Exactly correct! Not to beat a dead horse but Saddam Hussein was absolutely crazy about ridding his country of insects, apparently. Nobody's found any WMDs but the place was crawling with pesticides.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Usage of Local VOIP	munchkin	Red Orchestra - Tactics and Mission Discussion	4	03-19-2006 09:46 PM
Sociology Paper	Phantom	The Sandbox	4	11-17-2005 02:49 PM
Paper slips vs. double-wide DVD Cases	Diceman	General Discussion	7	11-01-2005 02:46 AM

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links