Here we go again---------
http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...E-USA.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C3-politicsNews-2
http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...E-USA.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C3-politicsNews-2
From Reuters:US facing wave of murders and gun violence
- Thread starter MoW
- Start date
Oh, that's right England's crime rate skyrocketed and they then had to ban kn..., uh, never mind.VERY debatable article on rising murder rates...
Thought you all would be interested in this. Just came off the Reuters wire"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060820/pl_nm/crime_usa_dc
Soft gun laws to blame, eh? I suppose all the "assault rifles" quote at the end of the article were legally purchased and registered...
Thought you all would be interested in this. Just came off the Reuters wire"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060820/pl_nm/crime_usa_dc
Soft gun laws to blame, eh? I suppose all the "assault rifles" quote at the end of the article were legally purchased and registered...
silicon wolverine
New member
Some people in teh MS are just too stupid to get it. Ive gotten to the point where i ignore thier blather.
SW
SW
Yeah I had this coworker from Massachusetts who would say, "Man you don't need guns, just study martial arts like me" This guy was a twig! He would say to me, "Man I could take you." I've got at least 40 pounds on him and I doubt he works out at all. Anyway, he was telling me how you need a license to buy a rifle. Isn't that the gayest thing? He infuriated me but we made fun of him, we called him Squidward and Brown-nose because he'd kiss the supervisors ass (who also joined in and actually named him Squidward). Ever notice Gun-Control advocates are kind of slimey?
Esquire M Busterbury
Moderator
Maybe if they spent less time on...
Consensual crimes, they could spend more time on terrorists AND violent criminals...but as long as they're content pissin in the wind.
I really must recommend (again) this book I just read called "Ain't nobody's business if you do. The absurdity of consensual crimes in a free society." They make quite a compelling arguement against putting people in jail when they fail to harm ANOTHER's person or property. Among the arguements is the increased time/resources to tackle such 'real' crimes such as rape/murder/etc...But as long as we're making such grand strides in the war on drugs/gays/and people who generally just want to be left the funk alone...
We're free to kill ourselves in so many ways, to arrest me for possessing an herb while the officer is smoking a cigarette just REALLY chaps my rear. Jesus's favorite curseword was HYPOCRITE. Free society my ***...
Consensual crimes, they could spend more time on terrorists AND violent criminals...but as long as they're content pissin in the wind.
I really must recommend (again) this book I just read called "Ain't nobody's business if you do. The absurdity of consensual crimes in a free society." They make quite a compelling arguement against putting people in jail when they fail to harm ANOTHER's person or property. Among the arguements is the increased time/resources to tackle such 'real' crimes such as rape/murder/etc...But as long as we're making such grand strides in the war on drugs/gays/and people who generally just want to be left the funk alone...
We're free to kill ourselves in so many ways, to arrest me for possessing an herb while the officer is smoking a cigarette just REALLY chaps my rear. Jesus's favorite curseword was HYPOCRITE. Free society my ***...
Man, is that article ever written from a standpoint of ignorance!
First thing that came to my mind was, why are they talking about Massachusetts -- don't they know that Massachusetts is supposed to be a gun-violence-free utopia?!
I think their implicationis that surely we need more anti-gun laws if there is a growing murder problem in MA! What they are not realizing is that the failure of the stringent anti-gun laws in MA have proven themselves incapable of being what prevents murder.
"Boston, once a model city in America's battle against gun violence, is poised to eclipse last year's homicide tally, which was the worst in a decade."
When was Boston a "model city...against gun violence"? What made it so -- just the fact that you really can't carry there legally? SO WHAT?! Anybody ever expected that would stop criminals from doing it?! :barf: What a joke.
You get to the third page of the article and lo! there is a quote from HCI...er, the "Brady Center" (strange, the guy's name is Daniel Vice).
Is there an opposing viewpoint offered, from someone, sayyyy... from the NRA?! NOPE!
When I was in college, taking journalism classes, it was made clear that OBJECTIVE JOURNALISM REQUIRED that we have the other side included, to give balance and avoid the appearance of bias or slant. Reuters appears ignorant of this basic tenet. The article is a disgusting propaganda piece.
It mentions the "Crime Emergency" in Washington, D.C. It doesn't mention that guns are BANNED there!!
Need we say more?
edit: Okay, I just noticed the graphic next to the "article" -- did you check it out? It's a photo of an outdoor sculpture, made of molded "arms" (i.e. human limbs) formed into the shape of an AK-47. Behind it is a placard that says "Control Arms".
So obviously, there is no effort on the part of Reuters to be objective regarding this subject. It's an advocacy piece, plain and simple.
-azurefly
First thing that came to my mind was, why are they talking about Massachusetts -- don't they know that Massachusetts is supposed to be a gun-violence-free utopia?!
I think their implicationis that surely we need more anti-gun laws if there is a growing murder problem in MA! What they are not realizing is that the failure of the stringent anti-gun laws in MA have proven themselves incapable of being what prevents murder.
"Boston, once a model city in America's battle against gun violence, is poised to eclipse last year's homicide tally, which was the worst in a decade."
When was Boston a "model city...against gun violence"? What made it so -- just the fact that you really can't carry there legally? SO WHAT?! Anybody ever expected that would stop criminals from doing it?! :barf: What a joke.You get to the third page of the article and lo! there is a quote from HCI...er, the "Brady Center" (strange, the guy's name is Daniel Vice).
Is there an opposing viewpoint offered, from someone, sayyyy... from the NRA?! NOPE!
When I was in college, taking journalism classes, it was made clear that OBJECTIVE JOURNALISM REQUIRED that we have the other side included, to give balance and avoid the appearance of bias or slant. Reuters appears ignorant of this basic tenet. The article is a disgusting propaganda piece.
It mentions the "Crime Emergency" in Washington, D.C. It doesn't mention that guns are BANNED there!!
Need we say more?
edit: Okay, I just noticed the graphic next to the "article" -- did you check it out? It's a photo of an outdoor sculpture, made of molded "arms" (i.e. human limbs) formed into the shape of an AK-47. Behind it is a placard that says "Control Arms".
So obviously, there is no effort on the part of Reuters to be objective regarding this subject. It's an advocacy piece, plain and simple.
-azurefly
Yup! Technically, they should have the LOWEST gun crime rates anywhere, but they don't. And articles ("news" sources) like this one fail to connect the facts. Tight control: high crime. Relaxed control: low crime.
There is NOWHERE ON EARTH where gun control and gun bans can be shown to have reduced murder, crime, or even gun use/abuse.
And still they don't get it. It really seems as though this kind of article would have to have been written by a truly delusional person. How can they miss the point so profoundly?!
-azurefly