• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate gun hearing opens with Giffords' call for action

Let's do it, see if it reduces gun violence, and find out. Generally knowledge is useful to thinking people and societies and I expect knowing the backgrounds of potential gun owners would be the same.

Or do you want to keep doing nothing while the bodies pile up?

ten years proved it didn't

lets get rid of all the unconstitutional gun laws for ten years (such as the ban on new machine guns) and gun free zones and see what happens.
the only bodies that would pile up are the criminals. and perhaps a few gun banners which would be ok with me too since criminals and gun banners tend to have the same mentality
 
Stop lying, it has been established.

not at all-no objective study found that and major anti gun foundations said it didn't do anything. in 96 RENO commissioned an expensive study of Law enforcement officers and almost 90% said the ban was a waste of time. Jan the man suppressed the release of that study. Fortunately I was in a position to read the entire study
 
I actually don't have a problem with that particular proposal. The only problem is that it isn't going to stop crime and murder. There are plenty of other ways criminals can get weapons. As a matter of fact, I've read that sometimes a criminal will have someone else buy a gun FOR them, such a spouse or other family member with a clean record.

Another point I would like to make is that most of the time in school shootings, the shooters are young people with no prior records. So, in actuality, it would probably be useless.

*raises hand* I have a felony record...guess what...I can hold a gun and use it any time that I want to.

*note ChrisL...this post was not directed at you*
 
are you telling me weapons sold by legitimate gun dealers and private collectors are CHEAPER than black market guns?

Resellers, if they are not stupid, generally sell the guns for more than they paid for them so they make a profit. So guns bought at a gun show in Virginia, or the other 40 states that allow private gun sales without background checks, and resold in NYC, California, or Chicago, etc where they have strict gun laws, are going to be more expensive on the black market.
 
No one has said it will stop crime an murder. What it will do is make it harder and more expensive for criminals and crazies to get guns.

No, it won't make it harder. More expensive? Maybe, unless of course they steal the gun or get someone with a clean record to buy them a gun. Of course you are assuming that a gun in the black market will be prohibitively expensive. Even those on the black market are subject to the whims of a free market system..ie competitors.
 
Knownothingism, the basis of all conservative thought.

Knowledge about how death and injuries from guns in homes relates to what type of guns, the number of guns, the age of the owners, the family structure, etc., all leads to useful knowledge that can provide the public with information to reduce gun injuries or death.

But of course gun lovers don't give a tinker's damn about that.

All of which has nothing to do with the CDC.
 
Let's do it, see if it reduces gun violence, and find out. Generally knowledge is useful to thinking people and societies and I expect knowing the backgrounds of potential gun owners would be the same.

Or do you want to keep doing nothing while the bodies pile up?

Its been done already. The 1994 ban remember? (assuming you're old enough) And guess what...the DOJ determined that the ban did not reduce gun violence at all.
 
not at all-no objective study found that and major anti gun foundations said it didn't do anything. in 96 RENO commissioned an expensive study of Law enforcement officers and almost 90% said the ban was a waste of time. Jan the man suppressed the release of that study. Fortunately I was in a position to read the entire study

Thanks for sharing your opinion!


"There were 7 mass shootings in 2012 and a record number of casualties."

fatalities3x495.gif


A Special Report on the Rise of Mass Shootings in America | Mother Jones
 
your mother jones idiocy proves nothing. remember-those assholes don't count any shooting that was stopped by an armed citizen before the killer racked up at least four murders
 
Knownothingism, the basis of all conservative thought.

This would only apply to people like yourself I would imagine.

Knowledge about how death and injuries from guns in homes relates to what type of guns, the number of guns, the age of the owners, the family structure, etc., all leads to useful knowledge that can provide the public with information to reduce gun injuries or death.

If they actually new something about guns, none of this would be necessary. In fact all the data can be extrapolated from existing data already, without wasting more money and time.

Those of us that are real thinkers know this is nothing more than a liberal ploy to use the CDC to ban guns, nothing more.

But of course gun lovers don't give a tinker's damn about that.

No we don't, because it is a lie.
 
Yes, adding "gun ok" info to one's DL data strip, would make things more convenient.

However, I think gun extremists would oppose this, simply because it would stand in the way of criminals being able to buy guns.

Only two groups of people would be seriously affected by Universal Background checks: criminals and the seriously mentally impaired. These are the folks pushing for no new gun laws.

Or anyone that likes keeping more of their hard earned money. The Obama plan is to pay $30 to $50 to a FFL dealer to enable this simple federal "service", to protect us from ourselves.
 
Let's not go off on a tangent now. Focus. You have not legitimately addressed anything in my post. Drugs, pedophilia, etc. are not rights, are they? God never said women couldn't vote. That was men. You see how that works?

This argument is a waste of time. It's circular. Here's how this works:
"Nobody needs a Bushmaster"
"You have no right to say what I need"
"But you don't need it. And it is more dangerous than other guns"
"Handguns kills more people than bushmasters"
"But Bushmasters are more deadly than handguns"
"Handguns kill more people, so it's a waste of time to ban the AR-15 and other whatever weapons"
"But there's no reason not to do it"
"So that's the logic?"
"The logic is that you don't need a Bushmaster"
END

So I will address your points:
Now you are just being ignorant. We ALREADY have laws in place that prevent such things. Get a grip on your fear. You fear the WRONG people, and you are wanting to take out your frustration with criminals on law-abiding citizens.

Actually, you're the one that fears guns, because you have a gun due to your fear that somebody with a gun will attack you. I have nothing against somebody having a gun for the "just in case," but when people are arguing that every citizen needs a handgun, that's what fear sounds like. You can be responsible and have a plan for incidents such as break-ins without having a gun. You can also be very irresponsible with a handgun for self defense, as is evidenced by a handful of very recent stories around my home town regarding children shooting themselves and a crazy old man executing a 17 year old unarmed girl dying in his basement whom he had already shot.

But "you're just ready," right? Do you think parents who let their children drink pop are irresponsible? Or who let their children eat steak? Or who let their children ride bicycles? I bet you don't, because that's crazy, right? You have to be reasonable. Just like the fact that you have to be reasonable about what situations might come up in which you need self defense. You don't need a bushmaster for self defense. The only reason you'd need a bushmaster is if you needed to kill more people in less time, which is what psychopaths need, not citizens protecting their families.

I'm not afraid of criminals, which is why I can rationally say that I will never, ever, ever need an ar-15. And NEITHER DO YOU but it is MORE DANGEROUS when in the hands of CRIMINALS so STOP THIS RIDICULOUS ARGUMENT. This is about common sense. How about this: god would have given men guns for arms if he wanted us to shoot people. Would Jesus have shot first and asked questions later? Are you going for the Waco thing? Did those guys seem pretty pious? The religious argument is pretty weak, IMHO.
 
This argument is a waste of time. It's circular. Here's how this works:
"Nobody needs a Bushmaster"
"You have no right to say what I need"
"But you don't need it. And it is more dangerous than other guns"
"Handguns kills more people than bushmasters"
"But Bushmasters are more deadly than handguns"
"Handguns kill more people, so it's a waste of time to ban the AR-15 and other whatever weapons"
"But there's no reason not to do it"
"So that's the logic?"
"The logic is that you don't need a Bushmaster"
END

No, the logic is that you don't make the rules for other people, and it is not your decision to make for others. PERIOD.

So I will address your points:


Actually, you're the one that fears guns, because you have a gun due to your fear that somebody with a gun will attack you. I have nothing against somebody having a gun for the "just in case," but when people are arguing that every citizen needs a handgun, that's what fear sounds like. You can be responsible and have a plan for incidents such as break-ins without having a gun. You can also be very irresponsible with a handgun for self defense, as is evidenced by a handful of very recent stories around my home town regarding children shooting themselves and a crazy old man executing a 17 year old unarmed girl dying in his basement whom he had already shot.

Wrong! I don't own a gun. I've never said that "everyone" should have a handgun. NEVER have I said those words. YOU are the one trying to tell people what they need and what they don't need, as if your opinion matters the tiniest iota. My concerns are with the second amendment and our rights.

But "you're just ready," right? Do you think parents who let their children drink pop are irresponsible? Or who let their children eat steak? Or who let their children ride bicycles? I bet you don't, because that's crazy, right? You have to be reasonable. Just like the fact that you have to be reasonable about what situations might come up in which you need self defense. You don't need a bushmaster for self defense. The only reason you'd need a bushmaster is if you needed to kill more people in less time, which is what psychopaths need, not citizens protecting their families.

There you go again. As if you have some kind of clout to tell anyone what they need; people you don't even know, no less. Incredibly arrogant.

I'm not afraid of criminals, which is why I can rationally say that I will never, ever, ever need an ar-15. And NEITHER DO YOU but it is MORE DANGEROUS when in the hands of CRIMINALS so STOP THIS RIDICULOUS ARGUMENT. This is about common sense. How about this: god would have given men guns for arms if he wanted us to shoot people. Would Jesus have shot first and asked questions later? Are you going for the Waco thing? Did those guys seem pretty pious? The religious argument is pretty weak, IMHO.

Who cares if you're afraid or not? I know I don't. Point is, we have RIGHTS that need to be defended, OBVIOUSLY. BTW, I think your questions are stupid and useless.
 
It's funny how some people think that they have some kind of authority over other law-abiding citizens to tell them what they can and cannot own because of the actions of murderers and criminals. Some people are so friggin ignorant and arrogant it's not even funny. It's just pathetic and disgusting.
 
Actually, you're the one that fears guns, because you have a gun due to your fear that somebody with a gun will attack you. I have nothing against somebody having a gun for the "just in case," but when people are arguing that every citizen needs a handgun, that's what fear sounds like. You can be responsible and have a plan for incidents such as break-ins without having a gun. You can also be very irresponsible with a handgun for self defense, as is evidenced by a handful of very recent stories around my home town regarding children shooting themselves and a crazy old man executing a 17 year old unarmed girl dying in his basement whom he had already shot.

1) I don't think anybody here has said that everyone needs to have a gun, just that they should have the right to defend themselves with one, should they so choose.

2) A rifle, such as an AR-15, has many purposes. The most primary of which being hunting or self defense. Considering the latter situation, if you had to bet say, your life savings on a gun fight between Bob and Joe, where Bob has a .22 pistol, and Joe has a 5.56 mm AR-15, semi automatic with a large magazine, whom would you place your bet on? A more powerful weapon can overwhelmingly tip the odds towards the one that has it. Fact is, a homeowner having a more powerful weapon gives him much better chances of surviving the attack.

I've used the military equivalent to the AR-15, the M4, in combat. Despite what your girlfriend may tell you, size does matter.
 
The other thing here was Gabby calling for was a Stop to violence. Her word.....the Violence. It needs to be stopped now. It will be hard. We must do something now.

Terminology is another key. How does one stop another from being violent? Are people violent when they go to war? Is there some way to determine when a person will become violent? All this pandering to the camera and the media soaking it up while throwing every shooting that takes place now Right up front in the National News.

Dick Durbin is from Chicago yet all one need do is listen to him talk. As he doesn't have a clue as to what works. Everything with Guns laws and restrictions in Chicago are a failure. Criminals are not going to line up to register their guns. They are not buying their guns from Gun shops and some may go and buy them at gun shows. But one can bet they are legal or that there is nothing to prevent them from owning a gun. Criminals will use those with Minor Petty crimes to get guns or those who have no record. Even telling them to report the gun stolen. They will continue to steal guns. Break in to gun shops, train cars, trucks, and even the manufacturers.

As some have shown there are already databases for criminals in most states. Plus the Feds have their 3 Databases. There are states with laws concerning those with Mental handicaps from purchasing and or owning a firearm.

No one wants criminals to have guns. But no one is going to be able to stop them with gun control.

It's the Start of February and Chicago is keeping pace.....Wheres Gabby?
 
I'm fascinated by the "you don't need it" argument. People actually want government to decided what they need and don't need and to ban whatever it decides they don't need?
 
I'm fascinated by the "you don't need it" argument. People actually want government to decided what they need and don't need and to ban whatever it decides they don't need?

their attitudes establish, beyond any reasonable doubt, why the rest of us NEED effective weaponry
 
This argument is a waste of time. It's circular. Here's how this works:
"Nobody needs a Bushmaster"
"You have no right to say what I need"
"But you don't need it. And it is more dangerous than other guns"
"Handguns kills more people than bushmasters"
"But Bushmasters are more deadly than handguns"
"Handguns kill more people, so it's a waste of time to ban the AR-15 and other whatever weapons"
"But there's no reason not to do it"
"So that's the logic?"
"The logic is that you don't need a Bushmaster"
END

So I will address your points:


Actually, you're the one that fears guns, because you have a gun due to your fear that somebody with a gun will attack you. I have nothing against somebody having a gun for the "just in case," but when people are arguing that every citizen needs a handgun, that's what fear sounds like. You can be responsible and have a plan for incidents such as break-ins without having a gun. You can also be very irresponsible with a handgun for self defense, as is evidenced by a handful of very recent stories around my home town regarding children shooting themselves and a crazy old man executing a 17 year old unarmed girl dying in his basement whom he had already shot.

But "you're just ready," right? Do you think parents who let their children drink pop are irresponsible? Or who let their children eat steak? Or who let their children ride bicycles? I bet you don't, because that's crazy, right? You have to be reasonable. Just like the fact that you have to be reasonable about what situations might come up in which you need self defense. You don't need a bushmaster for self defense. The only reason you'd need a bushmaster is if you needed to kill more people in less time, which is what psychopaths need, not citizens protecting their families.

I'm not afraid of criminals, which is why I can rationally say that I will never, ever, ever need an ar-15. And NEITHER DO YOU but it is MORE DANGEROUS when in the hands of CRIMINALS so STOP THIS RIDICULOUS ARGUMENT. This is about common sense. How about this: god would have given men guns for arms if he wanted us to shoot people. Would Jesus have shot first and asked questions later? Are you going for the Waco thing? Did those guys seem pretty pious? The religious argument is pretty weak, IMHO.

tl dr but based on the comments of clear thinkers such as ChrisL its the normal anti gun psychobabble that has been rejected by the rational
 
I wonder how many gun extremists think Giffords got what was coming to her, as she was an advocate for tighter gun laws before she was a victim of attempted murder.
 
I wonder how many gun extremists think Giffords got what was coming to her, as she was an advocate for tighter gun laws before she was a victim of attempted murder.

Yeah, myself.....I wonder how many people in Chicago think Gabby is full of shiznit? :shock:

Course while you say she was for tighter gun laws.

Then Why hasn't she spoken on such in her own State and in front of her very own people of Arizona? :roll:
 
I wonder how many gun extremists think Giffords got what was coming to her, as she was an advocate for tighter gun laws before she was a victim of attempted murder.

really?

Giffords has supported gun rights.[103] In 2008 she opposed Washington D.C. prohibitions on possession of handguns in the home and having usable firearms there, signing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court to support its overturn.[103][104]
 
It's funny how some people think that they have some kind of authority over other law-abiding citizens to tell them what they can and cannot own because of the actions of murderers and criminals. Some people are so friggin ignorant and arrogant it's not even funny. It's just pathetic and disgusting.

Do you think people should be able to use legally use and purchase heroin? What would you say if (I'm going to assume that you are, in fact, against legalizing heroin) I told you how disgusting it is that anybody would think they have the authority to tell me what I can and cannot use. It's pathetic and it's disgusting.

This is called "debate politics." You can go elsewhere if you're offended by somebody disagreeing with you. Just because I and other people say things like "nobody needs ____" what that means is that in our opinion there is no use for ____. I told you that's what I meant and it's like you just don't get it. Frankly, I think you're very confused and in turn you are very confusing. You challenged my points but didn't understand analogy and were unable to put together a relevant response. Don't be so vigorous about getting a response from me, it made me think you were going to give me something worthy of my effort.

1) I don't think anybody here has said that everyone needs to have a gun, just that they should have the right to defend themselves with one, should they so choose.

2) A rifle, such as an AR-15, has many purposes. The most primary of which being hunting or self defense. Considering the latter situation, if you had to bet say, your life savings on a gun fight between Bob and Joe, where Bob has a .22 pistol, and Joe has a 5.56 mm AR-15, semi automatic with a large magazine, whom would you place your bet on? A more powerful weapon can overwhelmingly tip the odds towards the one that has it. Fact is, a homeowner having a more powerful weapon gives him much better chances of surviving the attack.

I've used the military equivalent to the AR-15, the M4, in combat. Despite what your girlfriend may tell you, size does matter.

I also think people should have the right to choose whether or not to own a gun so I'm with you there. The problem is that we're talking about using guns for self defense and I've looked around and asked others to look around and nobody here (myself included) has found a single instance, EVER, of a civilian successfully using an AR-15 to defend themselves when a .22 would have done the job just as well. Thank you for serving the country, but now that you're back here, you're not going to need to defend yourself against large groups of people trying to kill you. And what I mean by my use of the term needs, for some of those here who don't get it, is that there is no logical reason why any American civilian needs to shoot thirty rounds to defend themselves from a robber or mugger with the possible exception of those in the Mafia and in prominent drug cartels.

Even those in gangs do just fine with pistols.

Lastly, will you please tell VanceMack what you said to me - he's repeatedly told me a bushmaster is no more powerful than a .22 and is not capable of killing more people in the same amount of time. His girlfriend is the one you heard insisting that it's not about the size of the weapon, it's how the man operates it.
 
Back
Top Bottom