Stereotype posted:

So is it legal to discriminate against people because of their politics? I think blue America should secede from red America and their Trump cult.

Gort posted:

I remember reading something on how much crime is committed with pistols as they're perfect for criminals due to being small and concealable. Meanwhile rifles have the issue of high rate of fire, range and penetration meaning stray rounds kill people rooms away through lovely drywall.

Would it be accurate to say that pump-action shotguns have the fewest drawbacks (EG: Crime, use for a mass-murderer) for legal use of the firearms available to the American civilian?

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

A deer might have three hundred or so dollars' worth of meat on it, all told. Kill three or four deer you might have a year's supply of organic, grass-fed, etc. meat.

Then, If you live in the middle of nowheresville and you've been going hunting for thirty years you already have all the infrastructure and training in place, so the additional costs are minimal, but the store is a gas station an hour's drive away that mostly just sells pre-processed prepackaged gunk.

captainblastum posted:

Yes, this is precisely my argument and not an idiotic strawman.

Potato Salad posted:

that post / name combo though, holy poo poo

JeffersonClay posted:

It's really important that gun violence, which is 14 times more likely to kill black men than white men, continue unabated so I can play at revolution out in the woods.

Moatman posted:

Christ that was a long post. Took a half hour to write.

Moatman posted:

I was really bored waiting for my class to start and have had all those feelings stewing around in my head since the shooting happened.

steinrokkan posted:

The lesson is that nobody should have any rights whatsoever because otherwise emotionally stunted assholes will cling to them to defend their choice to be a drag on society.

Office Pig posted:

https://twitter.com/politico/status/915973660191739904

Ugato posted:

I'm curious if you have this somewhere just to c/p in or you actually typed all of it out again

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

I think the most practical path is probably to start requiring licenses for any public transport of a firearm, with background checks and screenings and training and renewal requirements.

There are too many guns out there for anything else to be practical, but the more they're just a drat nuisance, the fewer and fewer people will bother.

Office Pig posted:

https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/916005625481502720
you wanna do this? Let's loving do this.

BarbarianElephant posted:

Well, maybe then guns should be at least as regulated as cars. Because currently they are much less regulated.

BarbarianElephant posted:

How so? Are guns taxed, registered, and insured?

Jaxyon posted:

It's 100% legal for me to go to a car show and buy a municipal bus and start working routes.

My illegal food truck business is booming as well. We are food grade "X".

JeffersonClay posted:

The best part about gun chat is the outliers who'd normally be posting about guillotines and siezing the means of production who suddenly become deeply concerned with constitutional rights, legal precedent and the efficacy of government regulation.

MechanicalTomPetty posted:

Tropical Storm Nate is on a direct course for New Orleans right now and will likely become a hurricane within the next few days. Most predictions have it staying pretty weak but, well, they said much the same thing about Maria...

JeffersonClay posted:

Not at all, anarchism was totally my jam when I was fourteen.

Tarantula posted:

But I don't even see gun control advocates bring it up

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Rigel posted:

3rd amendment is not really confusing, though. Its useless, but we're not confused about its meaning.

R. Guyovich posted:

shut up about posters and do the politics posts. if out of some weird masochism dr posts in the thunderdome you can rake him over the coals there

GreyjoyBastard posted:

I'm absolutely 100% on board with the hypothetical proposition "there are gun control measures that have an unacceptable cost benefit ratio despite saving nonzero lives". But then, I HAVE been an economist for around a decade. Even did some safety cost benefit work! Number of lives saved per dollar, looking for innovations to recommend and ranking stuff.

For those playing along at home, I don't recall any states offhand willing to spend more than twelve million bucks per life saved, and the standard is usually more like six million or less? Relatedly this is why Trump's dumb budget plan to cut the Chemical Safety Board makes me mad, because if they save, like, one life a decade and have no other benefit whatsoever, they're a pretty good deal.

Condiv posted:

i would wager that there are a poo poo ton of sex offenders among the rich and powerful

Old James posted:

Condiv, just because Obama spent time around Hollywood celebrities does not mean he had any knowledge of what Harvey Weinstein was up to.

Who would tell him? Obama is a busy guy

Old James posted:

If you met Brad Pitt would you talk about your favorite movies he starred in, or would you tell him about how your Boy Scout leader made you share his sleeping bag?

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

He sortof does, presuming he has no direct knowledge. It's the same reason that newspapers will refer to criminals as "the alleged criminal" even though the criminal is on tape committing the crime, a la the '"Who can believe it? Me, David Garvin, stealin' TV's?" bit from Role Models. Stating it that way avoids opening yourself up to a theoretical later slander lawsuit (i.e., Weinstein is charged, the jury does not convict, he sues for slander). It also at least theoretically helps avoid, as much as possible, potential complications if Weinstein is ever charged with a crime and then argues that potential jurors are tainted because Obama said all those hurtful lies etc.

Both of those are relatively negligible issues admittedly but once you've gotten into the mindset and habit of that kind of phrasing -- and lawyers generally have -- you keep using it out of habit. This is especially true if the statements were written by spokespeople or spokeslawyers.

Koalas March posted:

Hello, I am a black identity extremist.


In short: gently caress the FBI, and gently caress white fragility.

DrHammond posted:

What in tarnation is an "opinion on black identity"?

bird food bathtub posted:

I'm visiting Florida for work and all I can say is gently caress this place I hope it drowns. Sorry Florigoons, take one for the team.

Lightning Knight posted:

Do you use the post office?

Lightning Knight posted:

You're conservative/not leftist, aren't you?

Potato Salad posted:

You're white, aren't you?

Nevvy Z posted:

You have to vote for them in the democratic primary for that to happen.

Ogmius815 posted:

persuadable voters

Koalas March posted:

Oh Snapple! posted:

Like no loving poo poo.

I don't particularly like Pelosi but she is objectively very loving good at her job of whipping House votes and that is valuable as all hell.

Boon posted:

Good job indeed.

Trabisnikof posted:

Why do you oppose the Public Option and regulating carbon emissions?