advertisement

THE WEEK IN COMMENTS: Conceal and carry on campus, Prop. B and mobile advertising

Sunday, October 17, 2010 | 6:12 p.m. CDT; updated 12:09 p.m. CDT, Monday, October 18, 2010

Every week, readers of ColumbiaMissourian.com offer their opinions on the news and the Missourian's coverage of it. Here, we offer you a digest of some of the conversations we found most interesting.

COLUMN: Conceal and carry could defuse campus violence

Comments: 16/Commenters: 10

Local columnist Corey Motley discussed shootings on college campuses and spoke in favor of allowing conceal and carry so that students could defend themselves in a violent situation.

Kristin Collins agreed with Motley by saying that she believed the death toll during campus shootings would be decreased if someone could carry a gun and stand up to the shooter. She did suggest stricter policies on who is allowed to have a gun license and carry on campus, though. Robert Partyka disagreed because he felt that college students would not have enough experience and would not be trained to handle the situation as well as police officers.

J. KARL MILLER: Tasers and breeding laws aren't broken, so no need to try and fix them

Comments: 49/Commenters: 13

In this column, Miller urged people to vote and did not endorse any specific candidates. Instead, he commented on two propositions that will be on the November ballot: Prop. 2 to prohibit the use of Tasers by police and citizens and Prop. B to tighten laws surrounding dog breeding.

Ray Shapiro and Shelley Powers debated the topic of Prop. B back and forth. Powers said that the article does not mention that many breeders and other organizations are behind the proposition, and she said she is for Prop. B because she has read many reports about unorganized kennels that are mistreating dogs. Shapiro said that he would like to see the proposition reworded and does not believe it is protecting the people and organizations that the idea was intended to benefit.

Columbia explores potential ban on advertising trucks

Comments: 11/Commenters: 8

A few City Council members said that the council would discuss Tiger Mobile Advertising's trucks because they might break the sign ordinance. The council referred the situation to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Robert Stinnett said that the council should focus on other issues because this advertising has been noted as successful, which is a good thing in the struggling economy. Jereny Elson disagreed saying that the advertisements are annoying and not environmentally friendly. Elson also stated that the truck advertisements are different from advertisements on buses because buses also serve another purpose.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements