• 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

*facepalm* First, what makes it a wrong question? Keep in mind that this is not a mutually exclusive thing.

Second, you have been expounding not asking any of the questions. See how very, very dumb a response that was on their part…unless the NRA expected uncomfortable answers. Because if you are looking to sell snake oil the more ignorance there is the better. :(


Why, then?

Keep ignoring the real questions just like your liberal pals and we will end up with more useless laws that get more people killed.
 
Then make that argument and not that it reduces crime.

Well explain how I knew exactly what he was talking about but you didn't? It is not his job to teach you how comprehend a simple concept.
 
Keep ignoring the real questions just like your liberal pals and we will end up with more useless laws that get more people killed.
“Keep ignoring the real questions” he says, as ignores my [very real] questions. :lamo

What questions am I ignoring?
 
Well explain how I knew exactly what he was talking about but you didn't? It is not his job to teach you how comprehend a simple concept.

It's everyone's job. Too much gets decided based on mistaken reasoning.
 
All those have to do with after the fact penalties. We also need to develop better preventative measures. Building more prisons doesn't solve the problem and cost more taxpayer dollars than preventative measures.

after the fact penalties are part and parcel of "innocent until proven guilty"....prisons are part of that too..... i'll take it you are not a fan of that doctrine?

you better build more prisons... your side is trying your damnedest to make more criminals and you'll need to house them somewhere
 
after the fact penalties are part and parcel of "innocent until proven guilty"....prisons are part of that too..... i'll take it you are not a fan of that doctrine?

you better build more prisons... your side is trying your damnedest to make more criminals and you'll need to house them somewhere

I don't think that is what he is saying. If there is some sound prevention, it might not be a bad idea to try and identify such measures.
 
Former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in the head more than two years ago during a mass shooting in a Tucson parking lot, opened the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing Wednesday with a call to action on gun violence.

"Speaking is difficult but I need to say something important," she said in a slow, deliberate voice to the dais of senators. "Violence is a big problem, too many children are dying, too many children. We must do something.
"Americans are counting on you," she said.
- Senate gun hearing opens with Giffords' call for action

As I was reading the article I came across a perfect example of what I feel the problem is with the "gun restriction" crowed...

Giffords husband astronaut Mark Kelly, added this statement paraphrased...

"Called for legislators to close the loophole that allows private sellers to sell their guns without background checks, strengthen gun trafficking penalties for trafficking, and eliminate limitations on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study gun violence.

He also called for "a careful and civil conversation about the lethality of the firearms we permit to be legally bought and sold.
"

What does the center for disease control have to do with gun crime? This should worry people as they are trying to use a completely unrelated government body to manufacture, yes manufacture another reason to strip our 2nd amendment rights.

The last highlighted statement is just beyond stupid as far as I am concerned. If I am at the point where I am actually aiming a weapon at someone in defense of my life, loved ones or even property I want it to be as lethal as possible if it has come to that point. So only police and government should have "lethal" firearms?

This whole gun restriction mess is getting out of hand.

I don't care if it reduces crime, increases crime or a mix of the two.
I'm not in favor of having my rights restricted.

We don't restrict speech further, because people make threats of violence or say mean things to each other, that may cause more violence.
 
after the fact penalties are part and parcel of "innocent until proven guilty"....prisons are part of that too..... i'll take it you are not a fan of that doctrine?

you better build more prisons... your side is trying your damnedest to make more criminals and you'll need to house them somewhere


hopefully, by that time we will have released those convicted of victimless crimes so that there will be ample room for those who violate the stiffer and better enforced gun laws
 
“Keep ignoring the real questions” he says, as ignores my [very real] questions. :lamo

What questions am I ignoring?

I was talking about the questions in your article, not any questions you had, you had none. :lol:
 
I don't care if it reduces crime, increases crime or a mix of the two.
I'm not in favor of having my rights restricted.

We don't restrict speech further, because people make threats of violence or say mean things to each other, that may cause more violence.

Don't try and make sense, it only confuses them more.
 
It's everyone's job. Too much gets decided based on mistaken reasoning.

Well accept the correction and move on to the subject at hand. The article and it's related gun restrictions etc.
 
Don't try and make sense, it only confuses them more.

I'm getting tired of the crap reasoning here.
Restrict guns, because they kill people.

Well a lot of things are involved, but I'm betting one of the primary causative agents is free speech.
Lets restrict that too.
 
I was talking about the questions in your article, not any questions you had, you had none. :lol:
1) The questions in my article? WTH?
2) You didn’t notice the question mark punctuation in the text you were quoting? :lamo Around these parts (AKA the English speaking world) we generally us those to denote questions.
 
Well accept the correction and move on to the subject at hand. The article and it's related gun restrictions etc.

As long as there is no more faulty reasoning. ;)
 
I'm getting tired of the crap reasoning here.
Restrict guns, because they kill people.

Well a lot of things are involved, but I'm betting one of the primary causative agents is free speech.
Lets restrict that too.
You are “getting tired of crap reasoning” so you thought you’d contribute to it?

:monkey:monkey:monkey:monkey

Trollolololo primate, trollolololo!
 
You are “getting tired of crap reasoning” so you thought you’d contribute to it?

:monkey:monkey:monkey:monkey

Dance primate, dance!

Absolutely, inane remarks about restricting rights, to "save" people when there is no proof that it could save one person, is retarded.
Dancing monkey's don't count as a thorough response.

There is great potential is reducing violence, if we make free association and free speech restricted.
Why not go this route too?
 
Absolutely, inane remarks about restricting rights, to “save” people when there is no proof that it could save one person, is retarded…</snipped degradation into the absurd>
When there is no evidence it could be. However that is not actually the case.

So DING, DING, DING! A tired crap reasoning is you!
 
1) The questions in my article? WTH?
2) You didn’t notice the question mark punctuation in the text you were quoting? :lamo Around these parts (AKA the English speaking world) we generally us those to denote questions.

I am sorry. I gave you credit for keeping up with what you were posting, I guess not. No problem. I will ignore you then.
 
That is readily apparent.

I never said excuse, that is your imaginings. But how about you explain insisting on addressing violent crime before social ills?

We have 2.3 million people in jail, another 5 million on parole. We haven’t exactly been throwing a ****ing Kindergarden picnic. :roll:
Yeah...we kinda have made it a picnic. People are in and out of jails and they run the jails while they are in. Its always the same bull****. "We want to do something about violence" great...attack those committing the violence! "Oh...no...its not their fault. Life is hard, they have it rough, we have to help them" OH...My bad...I thought you wanted to target VIOLENCE. "No...we want to target guns and the law abiding citizens and pretend we are doing something about violence". Ah...well...that DOES make more sense...
 
Yeah...we kinda have made it a picnic. People are in and out of jails and they run the jails while they are in. Its always the same bull****. "We want to do something about violence" great...attack those committing the violence! "Oh...no...its not their fault. Life is hard, they have it rough, we have to help them" OH...My bad...I thought you wanted to target VIOLENCE. "No...we want to target guns and the law abiding citizens and pretend we are doing something about violence". Ah...well...that DOES make more sense...
Exactly how many million people in jail would it be before it stopped being a picnic? We already have 1/4 of the world’s inmates, should we be shooting for 33%? 40%? 50%? Higher?

P.S. So these myriad of shootings are occurring in our [picnic] correctional facilities, now?
 
Exactly how many million people in jail would it be before it stopped being a picnic? We already have 1/4 of the world’s inmates, should we be shooting for 33%? 40%? 50%? Higher?

P.S. So these myriad of shootings are occurring in our [picnic] correctional facilities, now?

All of the violent offenders. See...that's the difference. You are the kind of person that thinks stink causes ****. The number of violent offenders in prison is IRRELEVANT. It's not how many. Its what they are.
 
Exactly how many million people in jail would it be before it stopped being a picnic? We already have 1/4 of the world’s inmates, should we be shooting for 33%? 40%? 50%? Higher?

P.S. So these myriad of shootings are occurring in our [picnic] correctional facilities, now?
but we have 5% of the world's population
so what if we also have the world's largest gulag
[/s]
 
but we have 5% of the world's population
so what if we also have the world's largest gulag
[/s]
Only if we have that many people committing violent crimes.
 
Back
Top Bottom