Support NeoGAF

[Macho Madness]

21 babies in a neonatal ward.

Sounds more like that would be a mental health problem.

 

[Macho Madness]

Do you see how easy that was?

 

[Fenderputty]

My feeling is just we're morally bankrupt because we view fun and enjoyment (that can be replaced) over lives.

My first GF taught me to see through guilt trips.

We're also morally bankrupt because we drink, enjoy iPhones, contribute to the illicit drug trade, drink coke and eat shitty chicken sandwiches from chick
Fil a.

The best way to get a gun owner to gloss over is do what you're doing.

 

[pigeon]

I'm really sad that the gun control conversation came back to PoliGAF because it universally inspires the worst, least nuanced, angriest posts. There's a reason why we usually don't talk about it, although admittedly it's that Manos was banned.

Here's a fun Yglesias post from this morning:

A new Quinnipiac University poll shows Hillary Clinton coasting to a crushing victory in a three-way race against Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, winning 45 percent of the vote, compared with 22 for Sanders and 18 for Biden.

And the good news for Clinton doesn't stop there.

* The poll shows Clinton beating Jeb Bush head to head.
* The poll shows Clinton beating Marco Rubio head to head.
* The poll shows Clinton beating Donald Trump head to head.
* The poll shows Clinton winning in a landslide in scenarios where Trump runs as an independent.
* The poll did not test Clinton against Scott Walker or other possible nominees.

So how did the media report this poll showing that if the election were held this week Hillary Clinton would win? Well, as bad news for Hillary Clinton!

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9214461/clinton-poll-lead

 

[benjipwns]

Well 22 children being slaughtered did not bring about it, who knows what will?

Foreign terrorism.

We trust Americans, even if they are those who choose to be black or gay.

But if something like happened at Westgate happened in the United States. That'd be the climate in which you could destroy personal protection rights for our lifetimes.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

She should be, because he is.

Yes, it's an accurate and good idea.

She basically said that the other candidates were like Trump except with boring personalities and without bad hair today, lol.

 

[Macho Madness]

My first GF taught me to see through guilt trips.

We're also morally bankrupt because we drink, enjoy iPhones, contribute to the illicit drug trade, drink coke and eat shitty chicken sandwiches from chick
Fil a.

The best way to get a gun owner to gloss over is do what you're doing.

And that's where you lose me. Guns are literally murder weapons. Designed to kill. They're not comparable to anything else that people "own and love" because of that fact. They are instant death machines with no other practical purpose besides target shooting. When you compare them to other things that weren't made with the intent to kill in mind, it's hard to muster up sympathy for your potential lost liberty in gun control.

I didn't want to start talking about gun control here so that'll probably be that.

 

[RustyNails]

I'm really sad that the gun control conversation came back to PoliGAF because it universally inspires the worst, least nuanced, angriest posts. There's a reason why we usually don't talk about it, although admittedly it's that Manos was banned.

Here's a fun Yglesias post from this morning:



http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9214461/clinton-poll-lead

It's been my personal constant source of hilarity that Chris Christie is nowhere near top in these polls.

 

[HyperionX]

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.

At the very minimum, it would require control and experiential groups in the hundreds of thousands of people, where one population is subject to a gun law and the other is not. That isn't feasible. Correlation is the best we have, and there is a lot of it.

This is just perfect.

I assuming you're admitting its true then.

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.

Again, you're making the same argument that can be used to defend Jim Crow laws. You're defending something that fundamental exists to take other people's rights away, even if itself doesn't not technically do this.

That were self-selected (twice!) and asked a survey of their opinions, not anything resembling a synthesis of any of their research.

It was a poll of scientists on their feelings on the subject, similar to what we do when we poll scientists on global warming. It is not research in that sense, but it is revealing as to what is the likely outcome of any study regarding gun violence and gun control.

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

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

It's pretty clear at this point that it is a gain in real security.

 

[benjipwns]

And that's where you lose me. Guns are literally murder weapons. Designed to kill. They're not comparable to anything else that people "own and love" because of that fact. They are instant death machines with no other practical purpose besides target shooting. When you compare them to other things that weren't made with the intent to kill in mind, it's hard to muster up sympathy for your potential lost liberty in gun control.

Guns are inanimate objects with no goals, motives or mystical powers. They're tools. And nothing more.

Just because I use a Fiskars brand tree pruner to cut up all my victims bodies doesn't possess them all with evil intentions. They still work fine for cutting tree branches and won't impart any thoughts into you.

The instant you start banning ownership of things because you can't see any reason for having them is the instant you've opened up loss of the right to own anything.

 

[HyperionX]

I'm really sad that the gun control conversation came back to PoliGAF because it universally inspires the worst, least nuanced, angriest posts. There's a reason why we usually don't talk about it, although admittedly it's that Manos was banned.

Curious, were you around when the Iraq war was starting? The emotion charge was pretty similar back then. I think largely it is due to it being a real life or death issue.

Guns are inanimate objects with no goals, motives or mystical powers. They're tools. And nothing more.

They're tools designed to kill. There is strong evidence that taking them away from people dramatically reduces the number of deaths per year.

Just because I use a Fiskars brand tree pruner to cut up all my victims bodies doesn't possess them all with evil intentions. They still work fine for cutting tree branches and won't impart any thoughts into you.

The instant you start banning ownership of things because you can't see any reason for having them is the instant you've opened up loss of the right to own anything.

We're back to lead paint and nuclear bombs again.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

To be fair, if climate change or a Trump presidency turns America into Mad Max, the people hording guns are going to look pretty fucking clever.

 

[benjipwns]

At the very minimum, it would require control and experiential groups in the hundreds of thousands of people, where one population is subject to a gun law and the other is not. That isn't feasible. Correlation is the best we have, and there is a lot of it.

Explain the rest of the social sciences then. They find causation under standard statistical practices all the time.

Again, you're making the same argument that can be used to defend Jim Crow laws. You're defending something that fundamental exists to take other people's rights away, even if itself doesn't not technically do this.

Yeah, same exact argument. Jim Crow was the state's infringement on the rights of all citizens. Same exact thing as an individual right to own something that doesn't infringe on another rights.

It was a poll of scientists on their feelings on the subject, similar to what we do when we poll scientists on global warming. It is not research in that sense, but it is revealing as to what is the likely outcome of any study regarding gun violence and gun control.

So you're saying it's a tool to detect prevailing bias in the field.

They're tools designed to kill.

Yes, yes, the mystical rituals performed deep in the bowels of the Earth where the plants true cores lie impart their killing ways into the design and from there into the bloodstream of anyone who comes in eye contact with the object for more than two seconds. Leaving a mad rush of fury and desire to see others become their victims.

Unless they work for the state, in which case it's Thursday.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm really sad that the gun control conversation came back to PoliGAF because it universally inspires the worst, least nuanced, angriest posts. There's a reason why we usually don't talk about it, although admittedly it's that Manos was banned.

It "inspires the worst" because its life and death. I really can't emotionally take people dying and then have the debate policed so some people don't get angry about the way you talk about their recreational toys.

Its draining. Its sad. Its not normal. It happens nowhere else.

Seeing the video from his perspective just reinforced the ease of these weapons and their utter incompatibility with society

 

[speculawyer]

21 babies in a neonatal ward.

I find it easier to be more empathetic with the children since the babies have not had as much experience to develop sentience.

 

[benjipwns]

It "inspires the worst" because its life and death. I really can't emotionally take people dying and then have the debate policed so some people don't get angry about the way you talk about their recreational toys.

Its draining. Its sad. Its not normal. It happens nowhere else.

How about all those fucking lives ruined and ended because of the states "war" on drugs and terror?

Nothing draining or sad there?

No, let's go after individual rights more, not ask the American state to stop throwing innocents in cages or murdering their entire families in our name, claiming they're protecting us.

That's not life and death. That's not something to get angry about. The men with their toys blowing up wedding parties and murdering civilians because "they should have had a better father" and the President making fun of the fact that he's got a fucking kill list of innocent citizens and foreigners.

Yeah, the occasional shooting and the immediate need we have for mass violent confiscation of guns and destruction of all sorts of individual rights. That's what we really need to get emotional about. Not the violence perpetuated in our name. For our good.

 

[speculawyer]

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, Donald 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
Donald 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. Donald Trump, we don't have to guess.

Donald 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 love that two of the favorable poll leaders are also the 'would not support' leaders. The party is so split. And the split is driving them into unelectable territory.

 

[HylianTom]

I'm really sad that the gun control conversation came back to PoliGAF because it universally inspires the worst, least nuanced, angriest posts. There's a reason why we usually don't talk about it, although admittedly it's that Manos was banned.

Here's a fun Yglesias post from this morning:

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9214461/clinton-poll-lead

You can tell that:
(A) the media really doesn't like her
(B) they're pretty bored with the Democratic side of the race
(Edit: now I see that the article has covered these. Damn. Teaches me to skim beforehand!)

If I'm a reporter charged with following her, I'd be a bit jealous of my colleagues who are getting to cover the clown-style clusterfuck on the other side of the ballot.

 

[HyperionX]

Explain the rest of the social sciences then. They find causation under standard statistical practices all the time.

Those are usually things that can be shown with much smaller control and experimental groups. Whether a drug cures a particular diseases is completely different from one of those large scale studies of the effectiveness of a law. By your standards, we will never know the answer as well whether things like the Affordable Care Act work.

Yeah, same exact argument. Jim Crow was the state's infringement on the rights of all citizens. Same exact thing as an individual right to own something that doesn't infringe on another rights.

A very large aspect of Jim Crow was that it allowed private individuals the option to not serve blacks if they didn't want to. You can make the same argument that it is just right to private property that doesn't harm society unless someone acted on it, and the civil rights act was a removal of liberty in that sense.

So you're saying it's a tool to detect prevailing bias in the field.

It is not helpful for your cause when your realize most scientists who study that field strongly disagree with your viewpoint.

Yes, yes, the mystical rituals performed deep in the bowels of the Earth where the plants true cores lie impart their killing ways into the design and from there into the bloodstream of anyone who comes in eye contact with the object for more than two seconds. Leaving a mad rush of fury and desire to see others become their victims.

Unless they work for the state, in which case it's Thursday.

We have a lot of evidence that it makes society much more dangerous. It's lead paint and nuclear bombs again.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

How about all those fucking lives ruined and ended because of the states "war" on drugs and terror?

Nothing draining or sad there?

No, let's go after individual rights more, not ask the American state to stop throwing innocents in cages or murdering their entire families in our name, claiming they're protecting us.

That's not life and death. That's not something to get angry about. The men with their toys blowing up wedding parties and murdering civilians because "they should have had a better father" and the President making fun of the fact that he's got a fucking kill list of innocent citizens and foreigners.

Yeah, the occasional shooting and the immediate need we have for mass violent confiscation of guns and destruction of all sorts of individual rights. That's what we really need to get emotional about. Not the violence perpetuated in our name. For our good.

This is the equivalent to what about "black on black crime"?

A complete non sequitor

I support ending the war on drugs and am not onboard with many aspects of our war on terror (though I support alwakis killing)

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Mississippi State shooter and Pokemon shooters were apprehended before they got to kill anyone (MState was today, Pokemon shooters a few days ago), so this week could have been even worse.

 

[benjipwns]

Trillions of dollars given to the worst criminal scum on Earth to help them murder and butcher millions. No biggie. Who cares.

Some people get shot. WE ARE THE REAL SCUM OF THE EARTH. It's time to violently suppress our individual rights!

Real suffering enforced and back on the poor and most vulnerable of the planet including millions of children because of some misguided notion of "tough foreign policy" we need some more of that. Maybe Israel can nuke some cities, that would be great.

An unregistered entrepreneur got shot because he doesn't have a path of valid dispute resolution, fuck that shit, booorrrring.

A young white reporter got shot?!? By a black man? It's time to get serious about infringing on individual rights!

 

[Macho Madness]

I'm reading all of benji's posts in Frank Underwood's voice. It's helping.

 

[benjipwns]

This is the equivalent to what about "black on black crime"?

A complete non sequitor

No it isn't, you're the one who's been writing diatribes about the terrible men and their "toys" and how they're the worst human beings on earth and how we don't deserve life on this planet because we won't violently strip them of their right to own "metal toys" and how it's just too much you can't handle it emotionally.

But when the fuck have you ever given a shit for any the victims you've killed? Because I haven't seen it in here. Maybe I missed it when you shredded the American government for murdering in your name to the extent you're having an emotional breakdown over a single shooting and acting like the world has ended because we can't immediately wish all guns away from private hands. Into the safe hands of our protective state which will never use them wrong.

 

[Crisco]

The U.S. economy grew 3.7% in the second quarter, a very big upward revision than the first officialestimate, 2.3%, according to the Commerce Department's measure of gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity. Economists projected the new number to be 3.2%.

Obama's economy! No wonder the candidates can only talk about illegal immigration, planned parenthood, and other fake problems. They have nothing else lol.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Trillions of dollars given to the worst criminal scum on Earth to help them murder and butcher millions. No biggie. Who cares.

Some people get shot. WE ARE THE REAL SCUM OF THE EARTH. It's time to violently suppress our individual rights!

Real suffering enforced and back on the poor and most vulnerable of the planet including millions of children because of some misguided notion of "tough foreign policy" we need some more of that. Maybe Israel can nuke some cities, that would be great.

An unregistered entrepreneur got shot because he doesn't have a path of valid dispute resolution, fuck that shit, booorrrring.

A young white reporter got shot?!? By a black man? It's time to get serious about infringing on individual rights!

Again. I'm not talking about any of that. I don't understand what the connection is.

I'm talking specifically about one issue. Our high gun violence rate in the US. You bringing up foreign policy has nothing to do with it.

No it isn't, you're the one who's been writing diatribes about the terrible men and their "toys" and how they're the worst human beings on earth and how we don't deserve life on this planet because we won't violently strip them of their right to own "metal toys" and how it's just too much you can't handle it emotionally.

But when the fuck have you ever given a shit for any the victims you've killed? Because I haven't seen it in here. Maybe I missed it when you shredded the American government for murdering in your name to the extent you're having an emotional breakdown over a single shooting and acting like the world has ended because we can't immediately wish all guns away from private hands. Into the safe hands of our protective state which will never use them wrong.

I never said their the worst people on earth, i've never said they don't deserve life. I've never argued for violently doing anything.

And I've not supported all of those things. and its not a single shooting. I've made tons of post about guns over the years, I've argued against a strict castle doctrine, I've blasted our gun laws in regards to Zimmerman, and the hundred of other times someones been shot.

I'm not having a emotional breakdown, I'm exasperated at the debate over guns what we use bullshit philosophy to justify it. That we can't live like other anglo countries were people don't have to live in fear of gun violence. And this weird perfect world or no complaint justification you have is weird because you don't normally buy into fallacies like that.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Obama's economy! No wonder the candidates can only talk about illegal immigration, planned parenthood, and other fake problems. They have nothing else lol.

Scott Walker tried talking about the economy by demanding that we cancel a Chinese diplomacy visit because reasons.

It did not go well, but nothing does for him.

 

[benjipwns]

By your standards, we will never know the answer as well whether things like the Affordable Care Act work.

And this is why the social sciences aren't like other sciences.

A very large aspect of Jim Crow was that it allowed private individuals the option to not serve blacks if they didn't want to.

No, a very large aspect of Jim Crow was that it forced individuals to act in ways that infringed on the rights of all citizens.

It is not helpful for your cause when your realize most scientists who study that field strongly disagree with your viewpoint.

Irrelevant, my point was that twice self-selected surveys of the opinions of people is not science.

 

[benjipwns]

Again. I'm not talking about any of that. I don't understand what the connection is.

I'm talking specifically about one issue. Our high gun violence rate in the US. You bringing up foreign policy has nothing to do with it.

One makes you sad, weeping, raging at THE MEN AND THEIR TOYS, completely broken as a human being. Unable to even discuss the topic despite writing extensively before deleting. Even though you had nothing to do with it.

The greater mass murder and suffering done in your name, no biggie. Yeah, I oppose that, but if it continues, oh well, what can ya do. (Oh, and killing a U.S. citizen without trial is cool beans. As long as it's not done by guns in private hands.)

 

[NYCmetsfan]

One makes you sad, weeping, raging at THE MEN AND THEIR TOYS, completely broken as a human being. Unable to even discuss the topic despite writing extensively before deleting. Even though you had nothing to do with it.

The greater mass murder and suffering done in your name, no biggie. Yeah, I oppose that, but if it continues, oh well, what can ya do.

So I can't oppose gun access if I don't solve world peace? And I use the word toys because they're justification has been "they're fun"

This conversation is pointless.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Benji, using Soviet Union language is a bad look.

 

[HyperionX]

And this is why the social sciences aren't like other sciences.

Agreed. But it doesn't mean that it therefore must be wrong just because they can't prove things with complete certainty.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Investigation done by former WSJ reporter: Planned Parenthood videos were altered to the point of having no value as evidence in legal basis:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/us/abortion-planned-parenthood-videos.html?_r=0

Gonna keep fucking this chicken for another few years though.

Agreed. But it doesn't mean that it therefore must be wrong just because they can't prove things with complete certainty.

Medicine: Not a real science.

 

[B-Dubs]

Investigation done by former WSJ reporter: Planned Parenthood videos were altered to the point of having no value as evidence in legal basis:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/us/abortion-planned-parenthood-videos.html?_r=0

Gonna keep fucking this chicken for another few years though.

No shit?

 

[benjipwns]

So I can't oppose gun violence if I don't solve world peace?

You don't just oppose gun violence you want to violently strip people of their individual rights in the hope that it'll somehow end murder. (If I read your now deleted pieces correctly.)

But you're just fine having a U.S. citizen murdered without a trial.

I've never seen a single ounce of this emotion from you regarding the criminal acts of the U.S. government. Acts it commits in your name, claiming it has your consent. Acts that violate the rights of U.S. citizens and foreign citizens. Acts that harm thousands to millions. And constantly.

Vester Flanagan didn't act in your name. He didn't claim your consent. His actions were his own and his alone. There was no real stopping him. This is why they're isolated incidents. Maybe he could have been blunted, but the man was full of rage against the racism crushing him every day like the watermelon that was in the office.

I can't fathom why his individual actions are so inflammatory that they demand the immediate punishment of ones fellow and innocent citizens. While the rest, does it even warrant a mention? Does it ever get more than a "oh yeah we should stop that"? Do we ever stop and think that when we're condoning (and this will be cliche but roll past it) the violence of the state in our name to do things we know is criminal, we know is wrong, we know is more despicable than anything Vester did, when we go beyond that and cheer it on that does more harm than any gun ownership by anyone ever could?

We as a society accept, cheer and clamor for the violation of individual rights at home and abroad. We demand and get violence on a massive scale. A system wide promotion of violence against innocents in a never-ending cycle.

And when one individual acts, the first instinct is to punish everyone who didn't do wrong? The plan is to treat ourselves as potential future threats, not fellow citizens with equal rights. The state is protecting us when it's putting people on lists. Suppressing individuals rights to self defense, to travel freely, to speak, etc.

All this condoned violence, in our names, with the claim of our consent. Nothing to worry about.

Tools being misused, that's it.

But what's another difference between our culture and those other cultures, outside of gun laws, outside of demographics. Their states, they aren't as violent against their own citizens. Look at their prisons. Look at their "drug wars" and hell, look at their actions in the war on terror. (Outside of France, bad example.)

Life is supposed to be so complex we can't handle it and need the state. And yet the solutions are always ready made "proven" one-size fits all, that always work one way. The individual gives up liberty and the state gains safety.

I'll let you off the hook, I was really replying to you more because you were the one expressing it, even if it's now gone from the pages, than anything specific to you.

We dismiss the continued mercilessly imposed suffering for the rush of the 24/7 narratragedy cycle.

I include Trump as part of that latter.

 

[benjipwns]

Medicine: Not a real science.

Medicine isn't even in the same ballpark, you can actually TEST it for one thing.

How do you replicate political science research? Input the same data into the same model. If you recanvass you're not replicating the original survey, you're producing new data. It's not really falsifiable.

Agreed. But it doesn't mean that it therefore must be wrong just because they can't prove things with complete certainty.

I never said they "must be wrong" I disputed your claim that they "proved" anything. Or even found anything beyond a correlation.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You don't just oppose gun violence you want to violently strip people of their individual rights in the hope that it'll somehow end murder. (If I read your now deleted pieces correctly.)

No, I want to reduce murder (I use gun violence because its not only about death or mass shootings or even muder) because I don't feel people should have the "right" to own a gun without a justifiable reason, and without registration and classes.

Tools being misused, that's it.

My point for revoking or curtailing this right is that its not being misused. This is its purpose.

I'm a utilitarian (and I think most Americans are too, their not following a deontological rules that must be followed in all cases as libertarianism believes ) I see no upside to gun ownership. I don't value abstract legalistic arguments as freedom as worthy of considering. Its why we disagree and I think its why I don't get as angry about foreign policy. This is such a simple justification for a ban or severe limitation on their ownership. Its a lot harder to weight bad and good with foreign policy.

I'd like to end the debate now because I like you and I think the last paragraph why we disagree and why anything is A) time wasting B) preventing us from sharing out shared dislike for washington and especially the media talking heads

 

[Sianos]

wait wait wait

When did our argument slide from being about legislating the actions already taken by responsible gun owners to ensure that irresponsible gun owners do not cause or enable avoidable tragedies wherein innocent people have their freedoms taken away to the maximum possible extent (as in, are killed) (and to also ensure that the actions of irresponsible gun owners do not lead to responsible gun owners having their freedoms attacked) to being about a de-facto gun ban?

Legislating responsibility with a regard to gun ownership is a plan most responsible gun owners should definitely be behind considering they, by definition, already act responsibly. So requiring them to, for instance, pass a psych examination or continue storing their guns in a gun safe when their guns are not on their person should not be a big deal at all, considering that these are things they, by definition, already do.

It also makes it harder for people for whom gun possession has been deemed a credible threat to public safety to acquire guns and makes it easier to prosecute those non-law-abiding irresponsible people who have illegally acquired guns. These laws would minimize the trade-off in freedoms for responsible gun owners whilst maximizing the amount of tragedy prevented without entirely taking away freedoms.

 

[ivysaur12]

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news...cle_6702c44b-0243-51f8-861c-1df0b462cd92.html

A mistake by representatives of the Business Loop 70 Community Improvement District means a sales tax increase the district needs to thrive will require approval by a single University of Missouri student.

On Feb. 28, Jen Henderson, 23, became the sole registered voter living within the community improvement district, or CID, meaning she is the only person who would vote on a half-cent sales tax increase for the district.

The Columbia City Council established the district on a 5-2 vote in April in response to a petition from a group of property owners in the CID boundaries. The “qualified voters” in a CID are capable of levying various taxes or assessments within the boundaries of the district to fund improvement projects. Under state law, decisions to impose sales taxes in a CID are to be made by registered voters living in the district boundaries. If no such registered voters are present, property owners vote.

Many homes surrounding the university-owned property where Henderson resides were not included in the district when it was drawn because district organizers wanted a district free of residents.

CID property owners levied a property assessment within the district after the city council’s April vote. The rate is about a half-cent per $100 of assessed value for properties within the district, and organizers say it should bring in about $50,000 annually.

The CID planned to hold an August election to enact a half-cent sales tax, projected to bring in about $220,000 of additional revenue for capital improvement projects. CID Executive Director Carrie Gartner said when CID officials contacted the Boone County Clerk’s Office about holding the election, they found out Henderson registered to vote with her Business Loop address in February.

For more than a year and a half, as property owners in the “Loop” area worked to get the CID and tax increases established, they banked on that sales tax vote being their own.

When asked if the CID would be financially viable without the sales tax increase, Gartner said “no.”

Gartner said the CID has incurred “significant debt” the district hoped to pay down through the tax, including more than $100,000 it owes the city and for legal representation, $55,000 owed to Jack Miller of True Media and a $60,000 line of credit with Landmark Bank.

Gartner said Monday that, at the suggestion of Boone County Clerk Wendy Noren, the CID’s board of directors tried to keep the identity of the sole voter private because of “concerns with her privacy during this sensitive situation.”

Noren said she told the CID about Henderson’s registration in May.

Henderson said she doesn’t want her involvement with the CID to be private. She said Gartner initially approached her in June to explain the goals of the CID and ask her to consider “unregistering her vote” so the property owners could make the decision. The more she researched the situation, Henderson said, things “just didn’t seem to be as good as they were saying to me at first.”

Gartner “tried to get me to unregister, and that’s pretty manipulative,” Henderson said. “The district plan and the district border is manipulative, too.”

Gartner said she did nothing illegal when contacting Henderson and was surprised Henderson viewed her contact negatively.

Noren said she spoke with Henderson about withdrawing her registration but that the clerk’s office only does so “very occasionally” and does not recommend it.

Henderson said she doesn’t plan to give up her right to vote and feels negative about an increased sales tax — but has not made a decision about how to vote. Henderson said her concerns include vague project outlines, Gartner’s pay, Business Loop improvements she said will help businesses but not nearby residents and how an additional sales tax would affect low-income people purchasing groceries and other necessities.

“Taxing their food is kind of sad, especially when” Gartner “is going to be making like $70,000 a year off of this whole deal,” Henderson said. “These people make a quarter of that. They can barely afford to go buy food, and you’re taxing their food.”

Gartner said the board has two options: hold the election or not. She said if the board decides to forego the election or Henderson votes “no,” it will likely use the property assessment to begin paying off the district’s debt.

“Obviously, it would not be the same organization and could not function in the way we envisioned,” Gartner said.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news...cle_6702c44b-0243-51f8-861c-1df0b462cd92.html

.

 

[pigeon]

It "inspires the worst" because its life and death. I really can't emotionally take people dying and then have the debate policed so some people don't get angry about the way you talk about their recreational toys.

I mean, the social security tax is life and death. Lead paint is life and death. Politics is about life and death. Guns are personal.

The gun control debate is a lot like abortion -- one side sees it as a fundamentally obvious life and death issue, the other sees it as a fundamentally obvious personal liberty issue. And just like abortion, the actual mainstream American position is actually much more nuanced and compromising, which is problematic for everybody arguing about it because they've painted themselves into a philosophical corner by justifying the most extreme version of their thesis and can't find a way back to the middle.

I'm not tone policing, I'm pointing out that the mainstream American position is in support of specific new regulations and limits on gun ownership and use, including a majority of gun owners. That's an area on which the NRA, with their maximalist position, could usefully be severed from their base by an Obama-style strategy of isolating the extremists. That's an area on which agreement can be reached even with people who believe in gun ownership as a right. That's an area on which we can get policy victories and, yes, improve on a life and death issue.

Given this, why are you spending a hundred posts debating whether guns should be completely banned with somebody who denies the fundamental legitimacy of the state? How exactly did you see that argument going? What did you expect to get out of it?

And it's a little silly to then suggest that benji's position represents all America. benji probably doesn't even represent ONE American. Partly because of the sovereign nation surrounding him at all times and partly because based on the timing of his post history he lives in China or something.

I mean, I'm not trying to give you shit about this, because obviously it's an important issue for you, but I think you are shadowboxing a little bit here.

 

[B-Dubs]

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news...cle_6702c44b-0243-51f8-861c-1df0b462cd92.html

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Trump: Jeb's fundraising haul is 'honestly the only thing he has. Without that, he's got nothing. Zero.'

Trump is a horrible person, but he's got some good punch.

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

I'm not sure why I should feel bad about taking away a "freedom" such a gun ownership that made complete and total sense in 1776. Personal gun ownership is an anachronism and something that would have been changed if our constitution wasn't made to be nearly impossible to change.

Beyond that, I disagree with a lot of the Constitution. It's a flawed document created by flawed people and is hurt even more by the fact that changing it is incredible difficult. I'll never understand the people that hold it up to be some mighty beacon of personal liberty and freedom. Just as I'll never understand people who believe that the status quo of 1776 is in any way applicable to 2015.

Whenever anyone mentions even altering gun laws to maybe just allowing people to own bolt action rifles and shot guns it instantly becomes this over the top quest to violently strip people of their personal liberties and freedoms enshrined in this centuries old flawed document. Is the war on drugs bad? Yes. Does our government overstep its boundaries? Yes. Was the war on drugs and government overstepping responsible for Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Charleston, and now this most recent shooting? No and No. There is no reason that these issues can't be discussed at the same time and deflection to the first two does nothing but attempt to downplay the mass shootings.

The idea that you need a gun to protect yourself or your preservation of self only exits in a world where guns are as widespread as they are here. It's depressing.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

to pigeon, I've acknowledged "the reality". I disagree with your abortion argument on philosophical or moral grounds (I grant pro-lifers with solid moral stance that's consistant, gun owners single out one tool). Though I agree its similar in its political geography

I wasn't really responding to benji at first and its sometimes difficult to see the highlighted and not respond even knowing it would go nowhere. My main frustration and still is with people who take utilitarian arguments with everything but guns. And that's their right but it seems wrong.

I seriously do want to stop talking about this though.

 

[benjipwns]

which is problematic for everybody arguing about it because they've painted themselves into a philosophical corner by justifying the most extreme version of their thesis and can't find a way back to the middle.

Wednesdays at 8pm on ABC.

Given this, why are you spending a hundred posts debating whether guns should be completely banned with somebody who denies the fundamental legitimacy of the state? How exactly did you see that argument going? What did you expect to get out of it?

He actually didn't, most of the posts with me are Hyperion mainly, APK mostly tussled with Fenderputty before he edited out some emotional posts and I hopped on him for the common sentiment I see normalizing the very violence being deplored.

 

[speculawyer]

No it isn't, you're the one who's been writing diatribes about the terrible men and their "toys" and how they're the worst human beings on earth and how we don't deserve life on this planet because we won't violently strip them of their right to own "metal toys" and how it's just too much you can't handle it emotionally.

They are not terrible men nor close to being the worst human beings on the planet. What a fucking pathetic strawman. They are just people who have a hobby involving an object that ends up killing thousands of people every year. I used to own a set of lawn darts. I don't anymore and you cannot buy them. I got over it. They can too.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Trump is a horrible person, but he's got some good punch.

Trump is a broken clock, right twice a day.

 

[ivysaur12]

Wednesdays at 8pm on ABC.

They're not going to cancel The Middle for a while, or they'll just move The Goldbergs there.

 

[benjipwns]

Was the war on drugs and government overstepping responsible for Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Charleston, and now this most recent shooting? No and No.

That's where you're wrong my friend, but we can't talk here in the open without any gear, come over into the alley, I have some pamphlets in my van.