• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.

HyperionX

Member
Neither, just amused by the insane comparison.

I've compared the NRA to the KKK before. It's nothing new for me. And given the number of deaths and maimings annually, I feel it is quite fair too.

But still, if you look globally, in the real world, rather than just on paper...

If you look at the development world, those are widely held rights. You would be arguing something fundamental contradictory to all evidence to claim otherwise.

Believing that magical totems cause all our problems sounds like an excuse to avoid addressing violence.

It will likely reduce the main cause of violence by a substantial degree, going by the evidence.

That study doesn't show shit:

It correlates three variables, and poorly. If you use homicides in general or even non-gun homicides you get the same correlation within acceptable bounds. It also works so that if you increase suicides it increases homicides.

Violence, especially as doled out by the state through the drug war or not, is a much simpler and much more addressable cause (theoretically, in a democracy, theoretically) than the belief that a massive violent seizure of weapons and ammunition will decrease violence.

You know where's great examples of less violent states? All those less violent states everyone always points to. I think the U.S. should copy them in pulling back on the large scale state violence before they copy them on violating citizens rights.

You've claimed zero evidence to the contrary though. This is just your opinion. Furthermore: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-hemenway-guns-20150423-story.html

The vast majority of scientists who study this issue agree that guns make society more, not less dangerous. It would be pretty silly to arguing against them at this point.

EDIT:
Connecticut didn't seize the existing weapons and ammunition of owners.

You don't have to seize guns all at once, or at all, to have real gun control. A gradual reduction of gun ownership, with provisions for grandfathering clauses and various other exceptions, are sufficient to do so, as Connecticut has shown.

Like I said before, you're stuck in 2010 or so with your pro-gun rhetoric. Most of this stuff has already been discredited and isn't even brought up anymore in more recent discussions.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I've compared the NRA to the KKK before. It's nothing new for me. And given the number of deaths and maimings annually, I feel it is quite fair too.
Makes sense considering you don't seem to see any difference between actions and just words.

If you look at the development world, those are widely held rights. You would be arguing something fundamental contradictory to all evidence to claim otherwise.
But nobody was talking about anything but globally.

You've claimed zero evidence to the contrary though. This is just your opinion.
Furthermore: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-hemenway-guns-20150423-story.html

The vast majority of scientists who study this issue agree that guns make society more, not less dangerous. It would be pretty silly to arguing against them at this point.
So a poll of a set of people who performed surveys becomes science and fact in a matter that is only a question of morals and opinion.

You don't have to seize guns all at once, or at all, to have real gun control. A gradual reduction of gun ownership, with provisions for grandfathering clauses and various other exceptions, are sufficient to do so, as Connecticut has shown.
There are over 300 million guns in the United States. Good luck denting gun violence with a century long reduction in the rate of growth of legally registered guns.

And I thought you wanted to repeal the Second Amendment and violate the right entirely? What do you care about the means in which to strip people of their rights? Do it like a band-aid. Right off!

Most of this stuff has already been discredited
This is the problem. You think individual rights can be "discredited" by the opinion of others.

EDIT:
I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues
heh
 

ivysaur12

Banned
d5JyM7L.jpg



Gonna sleep now

laughing too hard can't breathe
 

HyperionX

Member
Makes sense considering you don't seem to see any difference between actions and just words.

Not sure what you're saying here.

But nobody was talking about anything but globally.

The developed world is part of the globe. A lot of the undeveloped world has these rights too. I do not feel you are debating honestly anymore. That feels like a moving of the goalpost.

So a poll of a set of people who performed surveys becomes science and fact in a matter that is only a question of morals and opinion.

A poll of scientists in the field. To other argue otherwise puts you in the same spot as the global warming deniers.

There are over 300 million guns in the United States. Good luck denting gun violence with a century long reduction in the rate of growth of legally registered guns.

You literally are just ignoring evidence at this point. The Connecticut example happened through only about 10 years and had a major effect.

And I thought you wanted to repeal the Second Amendment and violate the right entirely? What do you care about the means in which to strip people of their rights?

You're basically trying to poison the well at this point. You originally argued that it is impossible to have gun control without violent removal of them, which has been show to be incorrect. Reverting to ad hominem style tactics doesn't change the nature of the debate.

This is the problem. You think individual rights can be "discredited" by the opinion of others.

You're basically begging the question now. You've constructed a worldview a single document can prove the existence of a right, but no amount of disagreement, nor pointing the negative side-effects of side idea with that document can disprove it. This is the same type of argument as "the Bible proves the existence of God because the Bible said so." I've seen it before and its an obvious fallacy.

EDIT:

heh

Those aren't fields relevant to the issue.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Well, we should require insurance for guns too but the NRA made that is impossible.
Hey, if you want the state to decide which people and corporations to protect from liability, you get what you get.

Everybody has to buy insurance now anyway. I'm sure HHS can whip up some regulations withholding subsidies from gun owners and such. At least until President Walker repeals all of Obamacare.
 

benjipwns

Banned
The developed world is part of the globe. A lot of the undeveloped world has these rights too. I do not feel you are debating honestly anymore. That feels like a moving of the goalpost.
Let me try and help you here:
But the thing is, look at the state of gun rights globally; it is clearly not a right at all.
Look at the state of free speech globally, it is clearly not a right at all.
Look at the state of gay marriage globally, it is clearly not a right at all.
Look at the state of voting globally, it is clearly not a right at all.

-

You literally are just ignoring evidence at this point. The Connecticut example happened through only about 10 years and had a major effect.
I'm ignoring evidence?
we compared Connecticut’s homicide rates after the law’s implementation to rates we would have expected had the law not been implemented

-

You've constructed a worldview a single document can prove the existence of a right, but no amount of disagreement, nor pointing the negative side-effects of side idea with that document can disprove it.
No, I haven't. The individual right exists independent of the U.S. Constitution's clear and powerful protection of that individual right.

A poll of scientists in the field.
Those aren't fields relevant to the issue.
Bullshit. He's selecting the field he wants to survey.

You're basically trying to poison the well at this point. You originally argued that it is impossible to have gun control without violent removal of them, which has been show to be incorrect.
Please, explain in a logical and cohesive manner how you would drastically reduce the number of guns in the United States at a rate that would eliminate mass shootings without seizing existing guns. Of which I remind you again, there are 300 million legally owned.

I'll even grant you whatever figures you want for the causation.
 
Hey, if you want the state to decide which people and corporations to protect from liability, you get what you get.
I want the state to mandate people with dangerous machinery to be required to carry liability insurance. We already do this. It's called car insurance. Mandate the same for guns.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I want the state to mandate people with dangerous machinery to be required to carry liability insurance. We already do this. It's called car insurance. Mandate the same for guns.
Car insurance is a condition of a state granted privilege. You don't need it or a license to operate only on private property. (Though I'm sure there's some states that are stupid and try this.)

You can't mandate "gun insurance" because gun ownership isn't a privilege but a Constitutionally protected individual right. You have to repeal the Second Amendment.

Without state protections from liability, insurance in general would be a more common thing.
 

HyperionX

Member
Let me try and help you here:

Your ducking the issue with semantics. This is becoming absurd.

I'm ignoring evidence?

The Connecticut law prevented certain people from get guns relative to the expected rate. So yes, you are ignoring evidence at this point.

There's more too: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390

It appears that gun laws reduce violence in most states as well, though I'd imagine you'd dismiss it as more correlation not causation.

No, I haven't. The individual right exists independent of the U.S. Constitution's clear and powerful protection of that individual right.

You're claiming something with zero evidence again. This feels like another begging the question fallacy too.

Bullshit. He's selecting the field he wants to survey.

Your opinion over that of an actual scientist on which field is relevant. Again, provide some evidence claiming otherwise to his findings.

Please, explain in a logical and cohesive manner how you would drastically reduce the number of guns in the United States at a rate that would eliminate mass shootings without seizing existing guns. Of which I remind you again, there are 300 million legally owned.

By preventing those who too dangerous to own guns from acquire them, along with gradual tightening of the rules preventing more people from acquiring them. Again, restrictions similar to what happened in Connecticut can reduce the rate of homicide relative to what might be over a 10 year period.

Then I'll remind you that 300 million is also fewer than the number of Iphones Apple sells every 2 years. This is not a large number if that's what you're getting at.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I'm not ducking anything, you said globally, I used other global examples to discredit the so-called "right" to vote, free speech and be homosexual.

Relative to the expected rate by the researchers. In fact if you look at figure 1 you'll see that it matches the control states (equally weighted for some reason) and the drop started years before the law was passed. Synthetic Connecticut (aka the researchers expected rate) doesn't have any subsequent drop. Yet every other state does despite not passing the same law. (I have no idea why they didn't make any legible tables.)

And yes again, I recommend reading the actual things you link because they always admit they're working off of nothing but simple correlation:
Third, we were unable to control for the enforcement of firearm laws or the exploitation of loopholes, which may vary between states. Fourth, although we adjusted for many state-based factors associated with firearm fatalities, there may be additional factors not considered in our model that are relevant (eg, city laws and police enforcement). However, we included nonfirearm suicides and nonfirearm homicides in some of our analyses to control for the potential role of additional factors. We found little evidence of substitution—rates of firearm-related deaths were not correlated with rates of nonfirearm violent death in the multivariable model. Fifth, although we found that states with more legislation have lower fatality rates, ie, are “safer” states, in a cross-sectional ecological study we could not determine if the greater number of laws were the reason for the reduced fatality rates.
You'll also note, which they didn't, that their graphs inverse with violent crime in general. Which would "prove" (under your scientific terms) that increased gun laws create more violent crime.

Something I also find absurd no matter how many studies of the UK and Aussieland you waive at me conservatives. (It increases reporting I bet, not actual crime.)

You're claiming something with zero evidence again.
I already explained how it's an individual right. You dismissed it because the right can be violated. You aren't ever going to agree that you're denying rights even though you've stated it's a right and you want to deny it.

Your opinion over that of an actual scientist on which field is relevant. Again, provide some evidence claiming otherwise to his findings.
Dude, he's not a fucking scientist anymore than I am. He's a PhD in economics. And what he did was have his students find 300 people he then called for their opinion. That's not fucking science anymore than me writing one dissertation to nab a PhD in poli sci and then polling Metaphoreus 300 times on King v. Burwell is science. (My way is MORE science because my dissertation would probably be more enjoyable to read and polling Metaphoreus 300 times and just "adjusting" the results with a model will save money over actually calling 300 people.)

By preventing those who too dangerous to own guns from acquire them, along with gradual tightening of the rules preventing more people from acquiring them

Then I'll remind you that 300 million is also fewer than the number of Iphones Apple sells every 2 years. This is not a large number if that's what you're getting at.
I'm sure that's comfort to all the families of those shot dead because you wouldn't do anything to prevent gun violence except say bad people shouldn't have them and less people should legally have them maybe down the road in a century or two perhaps.

You're as culpable as all those non-NRA members who won't join the NRA.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Quinnipac:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us08272015_Ueg38d.pdf

Vice President Joseph Biden runs slightly better than former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton against leading Republican contenders in the 2016 presidential sweepstakes, and has the best favorability rating among top Republican and Democratic candidates, according to a Quinnipiac University National poll released today.

Donald Trump leads the crowded Republican pack with 28 percent, up from 20 percent in a July 30 national survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University. This is the highest tally and widest margin for any Republican so far in this election. Ben Carson has 12 percent, with 7 percent each for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. No other Republican tops 6 percent and 11 percent are undecided.

Trump also tops the “no way” list as 26 percent of Republican voters say they would definitely not support him. Bush is next with 18 percent.

Clinton leads the Democratic field with 45 percent, down from 55 percent July 30, with U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont at 22 percent and Biden at 18 percent. No other candidate tops 1 percent with 11 percent undecided. This is Sanders’ highest tally and closest margin.

Clinton tops the Democrats’ “no way” list with 11 percent.

“Liar” is the first word that comes to mind more than others in an open-ended question when voters think of Clinton. “Arrogant” is the word for Trump and voters say “Bush” when they think of Bush.
Biden tops Trump 48 – 40 percent. He beats Bush 45 – 39 percent and gets 44 percent to Rubio’s
41 percent.
Clinton edges Trump 45 – 41 percent. She gets 42 percent to Bush’s 40 percent and gets 44 percent
to Rubio’s 43 percent.
Sanders edges Trump 44 – 41 percent and edges Bush 43 – 39 percent. Rubio gets 41
percent to Sanders’ 40 percent.

If Trump runs as a third party candidate, Clinton gets 40 percent, with 24 percent each for Bush and Trump.

Jeb Bush has a negative 32 – 41 percent favorability rating among all voters, with Clinton getting a negative 39 – 51 percent score, her worst ever. Ratings for other top contenders are:
48 – 39 percent for Biden;
Negative 36 – 54 percent for Trump;
41 – 27 percent for Rubio;
32 – 28 percent for Sanders.

Trump and Clinton have the worst scores among top candidates on honesty:
Clinton is not honest and trustworthy, voters say 61 – 34 percent, her lowest score ever;
Trump is not honest and trustworthy, voters say 54 – 38 percent.


Also, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...mp-can-t-be-allowed-to-represent-america.html
Last week on Larry King Now, Morrissey sealed his place as one of popdom’s most incendiary cultural critics by dropping unfiltered, unapologetic, and eloquently devastating truth bombs in the face of contemporary America—and he isn’t done critiquing everyone from President Obama to 2016 GOP hopeful Donald Trump.

...

“Obama, is he white inside? That’s a very logical question—but I think he probably is,” Morrissey pondered aloud last week to a smitten Larry King in a rare televised conversation in which he also addressed suicide, his cancer scare, and his notorious butt-groping at the fingers of the TSA.
 
Biden's favorables will drop when he enters the race but I'd imagine they'll remain higher than the rest of the field. If anyone can pull off running a semi-positive campaign it's him. He doesn't have to attack Clinton, who is bombing on her own; nor will he attack Sanders. He can also run on a "things used to work in this town" type criticism of republicans.
 
All this talk proves is people for what ever reason. rambling about the states, to "the constitution protects it!" (It doesn't heller's wrong) to the "we can't do it so don't try" they all agreeing

We value guns more than lives (be it for abstract feelings of rights, or fun). We're OK with days like yesterday. Words are cheap. We have to many guns, and whatever roadblocks we put up to not attempting to reduce their number were encouraging days like today. Study after study proves this.

More guns = more gun violence

I don't even care about your methods thoughts on bans or whatever. But if you don't think there needs to be a reduction, then your saying, again according to heaps of studies your OK with more violence since their is a direct correlation with more guns and more fun violence (even account for poverty, mental health and all the other excuses)
 

benjipwns

Banned
All this talk proves is people for what ever reason. From Benji's rambling about the states, metas "the constitution protects it!" (It doesn't heller's wrong) to the "we can't do it so don't try"

Is again, we value guns more than lives be it for abstract feelings of rights, or fun. We're OK with days like yesterday. Words are cheap.
I value lives, that's why I don't want Great Americans thrown in cages for extended periods with their lives and families lives dragged through the mud into the gutter over something so innocent as owning or desiring to own a gun or any other object that won't harm anyone until an entirely separate, and most importantly, decided and hopefully already illegal act is committed.

If you aren't prepared to deploy the violence necessary to seize the weapons and ammunition and make possession a serious felony, then you're okay with it. And if you aren't willing to even speak towards a desire to decisively end the violence that's begetting the violence then you're more than okay with it.

That's how The Dream Ticket of Scott Walker/Joe Biden is going to lay it out to the American people.

But if you don't think there needs to be a reduction, then your saying, again according to heaps of studies your OK with more violence since their is a direct correlation with more guns and more fun violence
Or you know what correlation fucking means. And why it's parsecs different from causation.

and who's against a little fun violence from time to time?
 

benjipwns

Banned
Biden's favorables will drop when he enters the race but I'd imagine they'll remain higher than the rest of the field. If anyone can pull off running a semi-positive campaign it's him. He doesn't have to attack Clinton, who is bombing on her own; nor will he attack Sanders. He can also run on a "things used to work in this town" type criticism of republicans.
When Hillary goes to prison, how much do you think Biden beats Sanders by in Iowa?
 

HylianTom

Banned
Woo! Obama's in town today for Katrina+10 festivities! (But I'm avoiding them ALL. Ready for this week to be over with.) #traffic

I won't partake in the gun fun, except to brag that my husband & I's third date was at a shooting range.

And I love that comic. "SCOTUS ad infinitum!" would look good on a t-shirt..
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Mission Possible: Secure the Nomination by March 1.

Bernie Sanders is soaring in the polls. Joe Biden is making increasingly loud noises about joining the race. But Hillary Clinton’s campaign staffers are working methodically to build the fail-safe they think can secure the nomination, and it’s pegged to a single day on the calendar: March 1, 2016. Super Tuesday.

That’s when, according to their plans, Clinton’s financial advantage, combined with early planning and strategizing, can deliver the knockout punch.
Some of this is the product of a compulsion to avoid the mistakes made in 2008 that allowed Barack Obama to swoop in. Indeed, her aides began planning for Super Tuesday before the campaign even launched, back when her inner circle was more worried about Martin O’Malley than Sanders.

But uncertainty in Brooklyn about how Clinton will fare in the early-voting states increases the urgency of organizing in the March states.
Eleven states will vote on March 1, including delegate-heavy Texas, Virginia and Colorado. And while her aides say that Clinton can and will compete vigorously in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, her fate will depend on dispatching challengers in March — something she critically failed to do last time around.
If it works, the former secretary of state will have wrapped up the party’s nomination before spring ends — with only 32 states and two territories having voted — thereby avoiding the kind of protracted battle that consumed much of 2008.
Already, the focus is shifting to those later states. While Clinton still visits the February states regularly — she was in Iowa on Wednesday — in recent weeks her campaign and fundraising stops in the March states have skyrocketed in frequency, while her team sends in surrogates for public events and staffers for behind-the-scenes meetings with local influencers.

Legions of elected officials who’ve backed Clinton have been headlining regular organizing meetings — like when Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin and one of his predecessors in the governor’s mansion, Madeleine Kunin, held an in-state event for Clinton less than a week after Sanders kicked off his own campaign, blocks away from his launch site.

And, in the clearest sign yet that the campaign is looking straight at Super Tuesday states, it recently hired its first paid staffer there: a former top aide to Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, tasked with delivering Clinton that state’s caucuses. More similar hires are expected in the coming weeks.

“The Clinton campaign is clearly getting a huge head start on this, being able to put the resources on the ground. Others can do it, but the question is how big a head start she gets,” said Mo Elleithee, a veteran of Clinton’s 2008 campaign.
“When we did move past the early states [in 2008], they [the Obama team] had a leg up. They had the boots on the ground, they had the organizational infrastructure, they had the press relationships that we didn’t have. So when the history is told of the 2008 campaign, that is an important piece of it.”

Still, Sanders in particular is working to throw roadblocks in Clinton’s way by doing some organizing of his own. The Vermonter’s camp disputes the notion that Clinton’s organizing will be enough to deliver her the nomination by Super Tuesday.
“I concede that they start off with an advantage because Secretary Clinton has been through this before and has a network of supporters, but we’re coming at this as someone who is new to the process — much as President Obama was in 2008,” said Tad Devine, Sanders’ top strategist. “Having worked for Walter Mondale [in 1984], I saw how a candidate who’s not well known — in that case Gary Hart — could make waves on Super Tuesday in the wake of success in New Hampshire.”
While Clinton appears to maintain a significant lead in Iowa polling, a pair of recent surveys has shown Sanders ahead in the Granite State as most others show the two in something close to a dead heat.

“If you’re able to generate early support and momentum, and able to develop a lead in terms of pledged delegates, it’s very, very hard for someone to catch up to the front-runner,” explained Devine, detailing Sanders’ own hope. “Even in [Super Tuesday] states where we don’t think we’ll win, we think we can effectively split delegates.”

Nonetheless, the fact remains that Sanders’ massive rallies in liberal cities haven’t stopped Clinton from keeping large leads in national polling and most other states with reliable surveys. And while he has pledged to campaign in red states, Sanders’ travel schedule has not been as focused on the March states as Clinton’s.
As far as those destinations go, Clinton has already spent time — or announced upcoming appearances — in Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Virginia. It’s an itinerary she can afford to maintain thanks to her campaign’s deep pockets.

“There is definitely much more outreach from the Clinton camp than the others,” said a prominent and unaffiliated Democrat in Massachusetts, one of the states where Devine said he thought Sanders could seriously compete for delegates (along with Minnesota and Colorado). “In the past, a lot of campaigns have used Massachusetts like an ATM, so people have really appreciated it so far.”

That appreciation is all part of the plan to mimic Obama’s 2008 organization, which ultimately overwhelmed an unsuspecting Clinton campaign that started building in-state operations too late in many of these states.

“It was about this point eight years ago where, in my part of the universe, I began to see the Obama campaign’s long ballgame. It was late summer, early fall when I would get calls from reporters in Georgia saying, ‘[Obama campaign manager] David Plouffe just did a conference call with us about the Georgia plan.’ The next day I’d get the call from Tennessee, or Wisconsin,” said Elleithee, who now runs Georgetown University’s Institute of Politics and Public Service.

“We were very focused on the four early states and maybe a couple of Super Tuesday states, but at the press level we weren’t doing that level activity. But here they were. Some of it might have been smoke and mirrors, but knowing what we know now, they were looking way down the road, and it gave them a tremendous advantage.”
This time around, Clinton’s campaign paid staffers for the first 10 weeks of her campaign to build organizations in all 46 states that vote after February. Each of those states now has volunteer networks operating with varying degrees of intensity.

In some — like Virginia, where the state party led by close Clinton friend Gov. Terry McAuliffe has hired 69 paid staffers for its November 2015 state Senate elections — the campaign is fully expected to take over existing party or campaign infrastructures.
Such preparation, said Elleithee, is evidence that Clinton’s campaign has been incorporating Obama’s tactics — and that Sanders had better step up his own organization soon.
If he can’t seriously start planning for March, Elleithee explained, “it becomes very difficult.”
“Math is math, as we learned the hard way in 2008.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...er-tuesday-firewall-121781.html#ixzz3k1GeOkGC
 
Or you know what correlation fucking means. And why it's parsecs different from causation.
How could you ever prove direct causation? These studies are the best information available and the most comprehensive data we have on the topic, it is hard to dismiss them when the alternative is "because I think this will happen". Not that I want any part in this debate haha
 

dramatis

Member
Code:
2. (If Republican or Republican Leaner) Are there any of these candidates you would 
definitely not support for the Republican nomination for president: Bush, Carson, 
Christie, Cruz, Fiorina, 
Gilmore, Graham, Huckabee, Jindal, Kasich, Pataki, Paul, Perry, 
Rubio, Santorum, Trump, or Walker? (Totals may add up to more than 100% because multiple 
responses were allowed)
REPUBLICANS/REPUBLICAN LEANERS......................
				Wht    POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
			Tea    BrnAgn CONSERVATIVE  Mod/
		Tot 	Party  Evang  Very   Smwht  Lib    Men    Wom
Trump		26     21     27     23     25     32   23     29
Bush		18     28     22     21     18     13     22     12
Christie	14     22     17     16      9     18     17     11
Paul		14     10     12     14     11     19     15     13
Graham		13     21     13     16      9     13     16      9
Huckabee	9      9      8     10      7     12     10      8
Perry		9      6      8      9      5     12     11      6
Gilmore		9      7      7      9      7      9    11      6
Santorum	8      6      5      7      5     14     10      6
Pataki		8      5      6      9      6     10     11      6
Jindal		7      5      6      7      6      9      9      5
Cruz		7      2      8      6      3     13      9      4
Kasich		7      7      8      8      5      8      9      5
Walker		6      4      4      5      6      9      9      3
Fiorina		6      9      6      5      4      8     7      4
Rubio		6      5      6      5      3     10      8      3
Carson		5      3      4      5      3      8      8      2
No/No one	27     28     26     25     28     24     29     25
DK/NA		9      2      9     10      9      7      7     11
This is just a bit funny. I wonder where the aversion to Lindsey Graham comes from. With Jeb we could guess his brother, with Christie we could probably guess the Obama hug, with Paul maybe the government shutdown and his shrill performance. Trump, we don't have to guess.

Trump is polling [21% of] the Hispanic vote against Hillary. Pack it up.

Bernie seems to perform pretty middling amongst Hispanics when up against Jeb or Rubio.
 
Or you know what correlation fucking means. And why it's parsecs different from causation.

and who's against a little fun violence from time to time?

Yeah! Those two reporters could have fallen over dead even without the bullets. We can't know for sure if they'd be alive without being shot so nothing should be done.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Code:
2. (If Republican or Republican Leaner) Are there any of these candidates you would 
definitely not support for the Republican nomination for president: Bush, Carson, 
Christie, Cruz, Fiorina, 
Gilmore, Graham, Huckabee, Jindal, Kasich, Pataki, Paul, Perry, 
Rubio, Santorum, Trump, or Walker? (Totals may add up to more than 100% because multiple 
responses were allowed)
REPUBLICANS/REPUBLICAN LEANERS......................
				Wht    POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
			Tea    BrnAgn CONSERVATIVE  Mod/
		Tot 	Party  Evang  Very   Smwht  Lib    Men    Wom
Trump		26     21     27     23     25     32   23     29
Bush		18     28     22     21     18     13     22     12
Christie	14     22     17     16      9     18     17     11
Paul		14     10     12     14     11     19     15     13
Graham		13     21     13     16      9     13     16      9
Huckabee	9      9      8     10      7     12     10      8
Perry		9      6      8      9      5     12     11      6
Gilmore		9      7      7      9      7      9    11      6
Santorum	8      6      5      7      5     14     10      6
Pataki		8      5      6      9      6     10     11      6
Jindal		7      5      6      7      6      9      9      5
Cruz		7      2      8      6      3     13      9      4
Kasich		7      7      8      8      5      8      9      5
Walker		6      4      4      5      6      9      9      3
Fiorina		6      9      6      5      4      8     7      4
Rubio		6      5      6      5      3     10      8      3
Carson		5      3      4      5      3      8      8      2
No/No one	27     28     26     25     28     24     29     25
DK/NA		9      2      9     10      9      7      7     11
This is just a bit funny. I wonder where the aversion to Lindsey Graham comes from. With Jeb we could guess his brother, with Christie we could probably guess the Obama hug, with Paul maybe the government shutdown and his shrill performance. Trump, we don't have to guess.

Trump is polling [21% of] the Hispanic vote against Hillary. Pack it up.

Bernie seems to perform pretty middling amongst Hispanics when up against Jeb or Rubio.

I honestly believe Carson would give the democratic candidate the most trouble in a general election. I really hope he flames out fast in the next few months.
 
Or you know what correlation fucking means. And why it's parsecs different from causation.

and who's against a little fun violence from time to time?

There's causation. We know how they died. Guns. We can compare to other countries, and discount other differences. That's causation

More guns = more violence. Unless Americans are genetically more violent or the weather is causing everything

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...e_the_risk_of_homicide_accidents_suicide.html

Not that I want any part in this debate haha

There's no debate in this country. Or even this forum. Guns are fun and freedom.

Its a pointless conversation, more people will die and that is a direct result of a wealth of guns and very little regulation
 

benjipwns

Banned
How could you ever prove direct causation? These studies are the best information available and the most comprehensive data we have on the topic, it is hard to dismiss them when the alternative is "because I think this will happen". Not that I want any part in this debate haha
They could try to at least create a regression model that shows causation. These don't even do that.

I'd still call bullshit on it being science because the variables suck and it's not science but at least that'd be better than someone saying "these things correlate, but we have no idea of the path of causation in any manner and we can't isolate alternative relevant variables" and someone else yelling about how THE SCIENCE IS PROVEN YOU DENIER!

Take climate chaos, they have a piece of shit causation model, but they have a causation model. That's why they don't say things like "well, CO2 tracks with temperature and temperature tracks with CO2 but we don't have any idea of what's causing it" like these studies do. And they try to isolate out other variables.

The one paper literally says "we don't have other variables that'll fit so...um...anyway the next point is..."

The one that tests policy doesn't actually test policies, it tests Brady Grades, entirely different policies can lead to the same Brady Grade. And the Grade is tiered and based on what's originally marked as an opinion by an openly biased group. (Less than ideally, and this is how I've done it in papers is you take multiple groups and put their scores together like the ADA and ACU.) It's why they've got big ass jumps in their one graph. You'd get the same jumps if you plotted gun homicides and The Heritage Foundation's budget grades probably. (Graph would probably look similar too.)

Yeah! Those two reporters could have fallen over dead even without the bullets. We can't know for sure if they'd be alive without being shot so nothing should be done.
There's causation. We know how they died. Guns. We can compare to other countries, and discount other differences. That's causation
For being the Party of Science and "the world is too complex" when actual discussion of the scientific method comes up or the complexity of multiple individual actors making multiple individual decisions that all goes out the window. Correlation becomes causation because like two things together! And magical totems can be stricken from sight through chants not action solving all problems forever.

Repeal the Second. Outlaw every gun in private hands, confiscate them all at military gunpoint, throw heavy felonies at anyone caught in possession of one.

There's your simple solution, why aren't you taking it? Why are you trying to pretend that a little tougher background check here, a tiny bit of registration there will stop lunatics from using guns either legally or illegally obtained from committing crimes with them?

Wipe the streets, every gas station, residence, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse of any and all firearms and ammunition. And follow up on it. Or you don't actually give a shit about putting a dent into American private sector gun violence. You just want to take pot shots at politicocultural boogeymen.
 
This is just a bit funny. I wonder where the aversion to Lindsey Graham comes from. With Jeb we could guess his brother, with Christie we could probably guess the Obama hug, with Paul maybe the government shutdown and his shrill performance. Trump, we don't have to guess.

Graham is McConnel with extra arrogance. Dude has the charisma of a pan with bits of food that you left soaking for too long in the sink and it now has that weird fungal film on top.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I'd say Paul's anti-American pro-Obama hard-left foreign policy, and for Graham he's pro immigration and pro Johm McCain. And he's one of those Washington assholes who shows up on every Sunday show.

The funny thing to me is that 9% know Jim Gilmore exists enough to determine they'll never vote for him.
 
Repeal the Second. Outlaw every gun in private hands, confiscate them all at military gunpoint, throw heavy felonies at anyone caught in possession of one.

There's your simple solution, why aren't you taking it? Why are you trying to pretend that a little tougher background check here, a tiny bit of registration there will stop lunatics from using guns either legally or illegally obtained from committing crimes with them?

I'm not. I underlined my stance earlier in the post to fenderputty.

I'm not in agreement with my parties stance, its too meek.

I want Australian regulations in america

I'm done talking about this in this thread. Its pointless. There'll be another thread in OT in a week or two.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Graham is McConnel with extra arrogance. Dude has the charisma of a pan with bits of food that you left soaking for too long in the sink and it now has that weird fungal film on top.

That's a pretty damn good visual. I can't argue with it.

He seems to be his party's Cassandra. He recognizes the trajectory, he's trying to warn others, and his words are largely going unheeded. It probably contributes to his dour demeanor.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Mission Possible 2: Demography and Geography Favor Clinton Nomination

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/

Clinton’s strength with nonwhite voters

The principal reason for Clinton’s continued polling edge in the face of her email struggles is her consistently overwhelming support among nonwhite voters. In Fox News’ latest poll, Clinton only led Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT) by 19 points, 49%-30% (with Biden at 10%). However, she earned the backing of 65% of nonwhite Democrats to Sanders’ 14% and Biden’s 12%. When it’s been reported in surveys, Clinton has often been at over 60% among minority Democrats. As long as Clinton remains at near parity in the white vote (among whites she trailed Sanders by six in the Fox poll but led by 12 in CNN’s newest survey), her strength among nonwhites should buoy her in a number of states. Consider Map 1 and Table 1, which lay out the nonwhite participation in the 2008 Democratic primary and the 2016 delegate totals from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the American territories.

The primary and caucus schedule

As far as American demographics go, many observers have pointed out the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire are notably unrepresentative states. Not only are the Hawkeye and Granite states very white, but they also have large populations of white liberals, many of whom are currently supporting Sanders. So it’s not shocking that Sanders has shown strength in the two leadoff states, particularly in New Hampshire, which abuts his home state of Vermont (Sanders has led Clinton in the two most recent polls of the Granite State).

But after those two states vote, Clinton’s support among nonwhite voters may well prove to be a huge difference maker for the former senator and first lady. Table 2 lists the calendar as of Aug. 27 and denotes the level of nonwhite participation in the 2008 Democratic primaries and caucuses (using the same color scheme as in Map 1).

The electorates of Nevada and South Carolina, which are third and fourth in the primary process, will look nothing like those in Iowa and New Hampshire. The Silver State contest will have one of the larger shares of Latino voters, even with a lower-turnout caucus format. In light of racial political polarization, the Palmetto State will have a majority black Democratic primary electorate. Three days after South Carolina votes (it’ll be a Leap Year in 2016), the “SEC Primary” will occur. Although some non-Southern states will vote that day, most attention will be on major Southern states such as Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. Three states voting on March 1 — Alabama, Georgia, and Texas — will likely have majority nonwhite primary electorates, while North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia will probably all have electorates that are at least one-third nonwhite. In fact, of the delegates in the states that have contests up through March 1, 72% will come from states that had at least 20% nonwhite primary and caucus electorates in 2008. These states, among them Arkansas (in some ways still Clinton’s home — she won 70% there in 2008), will be in a position to pledge a fair number of delegates to Clinton, strengthening her as we move deeper into the campaign.

Conclusion

We can’t know what will happen with Clinton’s email scandal or if Biden will enter the race. But there are data that suggest Clinton remains in a relatively strong position because of her seemingly entrenched support among nonwhite Democrats. Most states don’t look like Iowa or New Hampshire demographically, which may buoy Clinton’s nomination chances. After the Hawkeye and Granite states’ contests, the schedule quickly moves into states that Clinton will probably be favored in, assuming she retains the levels of support from nonwhite voters that have mostly stayed with her despite the email affair.

What it really comes down to is this: There is no Barack Obama in this cycle’s Democratic field. Neither Joe Biden nor Bernie Sanders are likely to fill that role, and Clinton’s solid support among nonwhite voters may endure even if Biden throws his hat in the ring, positioning her to remain the favorite in the long run.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I want Australian regulations in america
Legal semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns?

In the state of Victoria Figures show Victorians have handed in 18,814 guns to be destroyed - easily exceeding the Victorian Government's prediction that 10,000 guns would be given up. 15,184 replacement pistols were imported. The buyback is a joint initiative by the federal and state governments. Victorians have handed in more guns than shooters in any other state, 40% of the 46,072 weapons collected nationwide. Shooters have also handed in 228,063 gun parts. Almost $60 million compensation has been paid nationwide

A 2013 report by the Australian Crime Commission said a conservative estimate was that there were 250,000 longarms and 10,000 handguns in the nation's illicit firearms market. The number of guns imported to Australia legally has also risen, including a 24 per cent increase during the past six years in the number of registered handguns in NSW, some of them diverted to the black market via theft or corrupt dealers and owners
A 2014 report stated that approximately "260,000 guns are on the Australian “grey” or black markets"
93% of people replaced their seized firearms with at least one, if not more, to replace their loss

Sounds like a complete and utter failure. They shouldn't have done a buy-back, that should have been outright seizure with a fine for wasting the state's time collecting the weapons. And none of this leaving any legal guns horseshit, completely outlawed. Federal drug trafficking like felonies for mere possession of a firearm by a non-public official.

In September 2008 then Senator Bob Brown questioned the need for 300,000 hand guns in Australia suggesting it was time for a dramatic reduction in numbers saying "There is no reason for so many hundreds of thousands of handguns, including effectively hand machine guns, to be available in Australia.".
Also, we should ban Australia, that continent is more dangerous than any firearm.
 
I'm not. I underlined my stance earlier in the post to fenderputty.

I'm not in agreement with my parties stance, its too meek.

I want Australian regulations in america

I'm done talking about this in this thread. Its pointless. There'll be another thread in OT in a week or two.

Firstly from what I've read, Australian laws are ridiculous. They ban all semi autos. I own a semi auto shotgun that would be banned in Australia. It's a 20 gauge, has a long barrel, a long stock, a plug in the chamber and fancy woodwork. It is a hunting gun in every facet.

Secondly, the conversation in here is infinitely better than in the OT after the media makes a shooting highly visible. I literally had someone wish me death yesterday because I don't support bans, even though I support tighter regulation.

Thirdly, this reactionary bullshit from liberals that know fuck all about guns is a large reason we don't get more support for meaningful change. Ban the AR-15 because it look scary. Ignore larger caliber rifles. Not one gun owner would be ok with that.

Instead why not limit clip size in all guns including hand guns. Makes federal regulations requiring mechanisms that slow the reloading of a clip. Something we do in California but not in red states.

You keep trying to pull the heartstrings in your arguments by bringing up yearly gun deaths. As if dont already rationalize death / harm on a near daily basis for things I do, consume and own. If your so concerned with reducing this number you'll listen to PD and focus on illegal trafficking and straw purchases. It's the most meaningful way to impact that number. Much of what we are discussing here might reduce mass shootings or the deaths caused by one. The mandatory safe talk and increased liability might reduce accidental deaths. Both of these are small portions of that number though. They're just the most visible.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
I don't think it's that surprising that Biden's favorability numbers are that high when he hasn't declared himself a candidate yet. Those will inevitably drop if/when he does.

I'm really ready for this to be a 1v1 race.
 

HyperionX

Member
I'm not ducking anything, you said globally, I used other global examples to discredit the so-called "right" to vote, free speech and be homosexual.

You're effectively ignoring the developed world (and much of the undeveloped world) and looking at exclusively dictatorships by your definition of global. This is absurd, since you clearly have to look at the developed work and countries that are democracies.

Relative to the expected rate by the researchers. In fact if you look at figure 1 you'll see that it matches the control states (equally weighted for some reason) and the drop started years before the law was passed. Synthetic Connecticut (aka the researchers expected rate) doesn't have any subsequent drop. Yet every other state does despite not passing the same law. (I have no idea why they didn't make any legible tables.)

The synthetic version of Connecticut is a weighted average of other states with similar demographics and homicide rates. As explained here:

We use the synthetic control group approach of estimating policy impacts of Abadie, Diamond, and
Hainmueller (2010)9
to create a weighted combination of states that exhibits homicide trends most
similar to Connecticut’s prior to the law’s implementation (1984-1994). This weighted combination
of states can be thought of as a “synthetic" Connecticut, whose homicide trends in the post-law
period estimate the post-1994 trends that Connecticut would have experienced in the absence of
the law change.

And yes again, I recommend reading the actual things you link because they always admit they're working off of nothing but simple correlation:

You'll also note, which they didn't, that their graphs inverse with violent crime in general. Which would "prove" (under your scientific terms) that increased gun laws create more violent crime.

Something I also find absurd no matter how many studies of the UK and Aussieland you waive at me conservatives. (It increases reporting I bet, not actual crime.)

Unless we have the capacity of create a literal control country, all studies are going to be of the correlation kind. It may not be "proof" but it is the best we have. Seriously, if you can't provide anything but suggest that this type of evidence simply isn't good enough for you, then either concede the point or admit that no amount of real world evidence is going to change your mind.

Which study has graphs that show increases in the crime rate? Either I'm lost or your referring to something that isn't there.

No clue what you mean by UK or Aussieland either. Though Australia did see a huge drop in homicide rate after passing their gun control laws: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-23/katter-wrong-on-gun-deaths/4904576 so whatever you trying to get at, it's probably wrong in some way.

I already explained how it's an individual right. You dismissed it because the right can be violated. You aren't ever going to agree that you're denying rights even though you've stated it's a right and you want to deny it.

This is more begging the question. You need to explain why it is a right, not just use circular reasoning to claim it's a right by definition.

Dude, he's not a fucking scientist anymore than I am. He's a PhD in economics. And what he did was have his students find 300 people he then called for their opinion. That's not fucking science anymore than me writing one dissertation to nab a PhD in poli sci and then polling Metaphoreus 300 times on King v. Burwell is science. (My way is MORE science because my dissertation would probably be more enjoyable to read and polling Metaphoreus 300 times and just "adjusting" the results with a model will save money over actually calling 300 people.)

This is pure ad hominem. Economists are generally considered to be scientists. And no, that analogy is not valid because he clearly stated he polled 300 unique scientists who all have published in peer reviewed journals.

I'm sure that's comfort to all the families of those shot dead because you wouldn't do anything to prevent gun violence except say bad people shouldn't have them and less people should legally have them maybe down the road in a century or two perhaps.

You're as culpable as all those non-NRA members who won't join the NRA.

This is incoherent rambling of some kind, I'm sure of it.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
But the thing is, look at the state of gun rights globally; it is clearly not a right at all.

That isn't how we decide what are rights. In fact, in the United States, many of our constitutional rights were specifically intended to repudiate the absence of same in Europe. Plus, as I suggested in passing in an earlier response to another poster, the right to effective self-defense is a corollary of any half-serious right to personal security. And the right to possess and use firearms is the average person's most effective means of self-defense.

I know, you'll now cite that website listing only 800ish uses of a gun for self-defense this year, but a gun doesn't need to be fired to be an effective deterrent, and unfired guns don't make the news. So I don't find that count persuasive.

You've claimed zero evidence to the contrary though. This is just your opinion. Furthermore: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-hemenway-guns-20150423-story.html

The vast majority of scientists who study this issue agree that guns make society more, not less dangerous. It would be pretty silly to arguing against them at this point.

benji's already addressed this, but that's not science. And contrary to the author's take, it is science, not an opinion poll of 300 academics that the author considers worthy of participation, that produces reliable information about the world.
 

HyperionX

Member
That isn't how we decide what are rights. In fact, in the United States, many of our constitutional rights were specifically intended to repudiate the absence of same in Europe. Plus, as I suggested in passing in an earlier response to another poster, the right to effective self-defense is a corollary of any half-serious right to personal security. And the right to possess and use firearms is the average person's most effective means of self-defense.

You're saying that we decide rights purely on the basis what a few hundred slave holding white men felt 200 years ago. This is not much of an argument, and society has move on since then.

I know, you'll now cite that website listing only 800ish uses of a gun for self-defense this year, but a gun doesn't need to be fired to be an effective deterrent, and unfired guns don't make the news. So I don't find that count persuasive.

Then you should find the argument that self-defense is not very effective either as persuasive: http://www.armedwithreason.com/more...-new-study-finds-dgu-is-ineffective-and-rare/

The study found that in incidents where a victim used a gun in self-defense, the likelihood of suffering an injury was 10.9 percent. Had the victim taken no action at all, the risk of injury was virtually identical: 11 percent. Having a gun also didn’t reduce the likelihood of losing property: 38.5 percent of those who used a gun in self-defense had property taken from them, compared to 34.9 percent of victims who used another type of weapon, such as a knife or baseball bat.

What’s more, the study found that while the likelihood of injury afterbrandishing a firearm was reduced to 4.1 percent, the injury rate after those defensive gun uses was similar to using any other weapon (5.3 percent), and was still greater than if the person had run away or hid (2.4 percent) or called the police (2.2 percent). These results were similar to previous research on older NCVS data which showed that, while using a firearm in self-defense did lower a person’s risk of subsequent injury, it was less effective than using any weapon other than a gun.

benji's already addressed this, but that's not science. And contrary to the author's take, it is science, not an opinion poll of 300 academics that the author considers worthy of participation, that produces reliable information about the world.

300 authors who have peer reviewed papers is quite different that what benji is claiming.
 
Firstly from what I've read, Australian laws are ridiculous. They ban all semi autos. I own a semi auto shotgun that would be banned in Australia. It's a 20 gauge, has a long barrel, a long stock, a plug in the chamber and fancy woodwork. It is a hunting gun in every facet.

Secondly, the conversation in here is infinitely better than in the OT after the media makes a shooting highly visible. I literally had someone wish me death yesterday because I don't support bans, even though I support tighter regulation.

Thirdly, this reactionary bullshit from liberals that know fuck all about guns is a large reason we don't get more support for meaningful change. Ban the AR-15 because it look scary. Ignore larger caliber rifles. Not one gun owner would be ok with that.

Instead why not limit clip size in all guns including hand guns. Makes federal regulations requiring mechanisms that slow the reloading of a clip. Something we do in California but not in red states.

You keep trying to pull the heartstrings in your arguments by bringing up yearly gun deaths. As if dont already rationalize death / harm on a near daily basis for things I do, consume and own. If your so concerned with reducing this number you'll listen to PD and focus on illegal trafficking and straw purchases. It's the most meaningful way to impact that number. Much of what we are discussing here might reduce mass shootings or the deaths caused by one. The mandatory safe talk and increased liability might reduce accidental deaths. Both of these are small portions of that number though. They're just the most visible.
edit:
I'm done arguing this. You like guns. America likes guns. America will continue to have more days like yesterday because of our love of guns. I just hope its never anybody I know being the inevitable victim of the consequence of this love (I can't wish nobody suffers because its an inevitability, days like yesterday are a requirement for our "right to bare arms")

In summary: There is no need for guns. The kill. They shouldn't be an automatic right. We should severely and radically reduce their availability
 

benjipwns

Banned
Unless we have the capacity of create a literal control country, all studies are going to be of the correlation kind. It may not be "proof" but it is the best we have. Seriously, if you can't provide anything but suggest that this type of evidence simply isn't good enough for you, then either concede the point or admit that no amount of real world evidence is going to change your mind.
There hasn't been any amount of real world evidence presented. Correlation is not and cannot ever be proof or anything close to it. Showing causation, even in the pathetic non-science that is the social sciences, is not a difficult task. These studies not only don't show it, they state that they don't show it. You're going past the authors own words to impart claims they themselves never made.

No clue what you mean by UK or Aussieland either. Though Australia did see a huge drop in homicide rate after passing their gun control laws: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-2...deaths/4904576 so whatever you trying to get at, it's probably wrong in some way.
This is just perfect.

This is more begging the question. You need to explain why it is a right, not just use circular reasoning to claim it's a right by definition.
The fundamental right is that a human being owns themselves. And thus they own the products of their labor. If they wish to apply this to obtain the ownership of a firearm, they have that right because this does not in anyway infringe on the rights of another. (Unless they're stealing it obviously.)

The mere existence of a gun, the ownership of a gun, the firing of a gun, does not automatically infringe upon the rights of another. As there is no conflict of rights between any individuals, let alone infringement, there is no need to determine priority of rights.

300 authors who have peer reviewed papers is quite different that what benji is claiming.
That were self-selected (twice!) and asked a survey of their opinions, not anything resembling a synthesis of any of their research.
 

Teggy

Member
A little break from the gun control talk:

Ann Coulter said:
70% of Latinos will NEVER vote GOP.
Who cares if they have a "favorable" impression?
They still won't vote GOP!

They won't vote for us anyway, so let's just be racist!
 

benjipwns

Banned
This entire thing is backwards. Again and again, nobody has justified a reason
Because there isn't a need to justify a reason to enjoy your individual rights. The onus is on your fellow citizens to convince you of the necessity of giving up your rights to their authority.

If their convincing is of the method "or else WE'LL SHOOT YOU" so be it. But the onus is still on them.
 
Because there isn't a need to justify a reason to enjoy your individual rights. The onus is on your fellow citizens to convince you of the necessity of giving up your rights to their authority.

If their convincing is of the method "or else WE'LL SHOOT YOU" so be it. But the onus is still on them.

I've said nobody is going to convince this country. After racism, its probably one of our worst traits as a nation. We're too much in love with metal toys. My feeling is just we're morally bankrupt because we view fun and enjoyment (that can be replaced) over lives.
 

benjipwns

Banned
It's not morally bankrupt to prefer liberty to false security.

Or the violent authoritarianism necessary to wrest all the guns from American citizens.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
edit:
I'm done arguing this. You like guns. America likes guns. America will continue to have more days like yesterday because of our love of guns. I just hope its never anybody I know being the inevitable victim of the consequence of this love (I can't wish nobody suffers because its an inevitability, days like yesterday are a requirement for our "right to bare arms")

In summary: There is no need for guns. The kill. They shouldn't be an automatic right. We should severely and radically reduce their availability

Well 22 children being slaughtered did not bring about it, who knows what will?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom