• 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

Catawba said:
No one has suggested they will prevent all murders with guns. Its about reducing the numbers.

Typo, see the corrected edit.
Click to expand...

Reducing numbers of what?
 
ChrisL said:
But I'm the one who asked YOU a question. How would your laws prevent murders with guns?

And if mass shootings occurred less often before the ban and after the ban, then what's your point?
Click to expand...

he is stating the happened less during the ban.... he's done so repeatedly.... he's a big believer of "correlation = causation"

the DOJ study on the ban doesn't make the same mistakes he does... and they concluded the ban had no real effect on crime either way... the University of Pennsylvania study cited the same effect.
studies by the Brady bunch and other gun control supporters have claimed crime decreased because of the ban... the brady bunch even funded a study or 2 to prove their predetermine claim.
 
Thrilla said:
he is stating the happened less during the ban.... he's done so repeatedly.... he's a big believer of "correlation = causation"

the DOJ study on the ban doesn't make the same mistakes he does... and they concluded the ban had no real effect on crime either way... the University of Pennsylvania study cited the same effect.
studies by the Brady bunch and other gun control supporters have claimed crime decreased because of the ban... the brady bunch even funded a study or 2 to prove their predetermine claim.
Click to expand...

That's just effing insanity. AS IF criminals would purchase a gun in the legal way, especially those who are planning on committing crimes, especially when they know they are going to have a background check.
 
ChrisL said:
Reducing numbers of what?
Click to expand...

Reducing the availability of cheap and easy guns for criminals and crazies in 40 states.
 
ChrisL said:
That's just effing insanity. AS IF criminals would purchase a gun in the legal way, especially those who are planning on committing crimes, especially when they know they are going to have a background check.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point, currently in 40 states, criminals and crazies can buy cheap guns at gun shows without a background check.
 
Catawba said:
That's the whole point, currently in 40 states, criminals and crazies can buy cheap guns at gun shows without a background check.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ChrisL said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Catawba said:
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.
Click to expand...

Did you purposefully ignore the rest of my post?
 
Catawba said:
I only addressed the relevant parts.
Click to expand...

The whole thing is relevant, so if you would please address the rest of my post I would appreciate it.
 
ChrisL said:
The whole thing is relevant, so if you would please address the rest of my post I would appreciate it.
Click to expand...

What part do you feel was relevant that I did not address?
 
Catawba said:
What part do you feel was relevant that I did not address?
Click to expand...

One would think that if a person takes the time to post, it's all relevant. Maybe an answer would be in order...
 
Black Manta said:
It's a high velocity bullet. What needs to be studied? It makes you dead or seriously wounded. I don't need the government to spend money to tell me this. Why does the government want to waist time and money? Because they want to use it as an excuse.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ChrisL said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Catawba said:
Since you are just interested in my definition, I would include all semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines.
Click to expand...

which is why we get moronic laws such as california calling this an "assault weapon" even though there is ZERO cases of such a weapon being used in homicide ( I realize you don't know what this is-its an olympic target pistol made by Walther and its an "assault weapon" because its a semi auto pistol that takes a magazine in front of the handle

It also costs a couple thousand dollars and has no history of criminal misuse. This is what happens when anti gun imbeciles write laws that are based on cranial-rectal inversion rather than caring about stopping criminals

wgsp2201.jpg
 
Catawba said:
And I believe the basis in 1994 was saving lives, which has been established. The guns were designed to kill many more people without changing mags.
Click to expand...

stop lying it has not been established
 
Spring99 said:
Yes, Drivers Licenses could include "gun ok" in their magnetic strip.

Or our DMV records could simply list "gun ok" and gun dealers could run our licenses through a reader and this simple firearm certification system would tell you if the buyer is ok or not ok to buy a gun.

But the fact is the only folks who are opposed to universal background checks are folks who want it to remain easy for criminals to get guns through private sales.
Click to expand...

the gun banners oppose this because it does not require universal registration to work
 
head of joaquin said:
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?
Click to expand...

How did Adam Lanza acquire his weapons?
 
Spring99 said:
So after someone is convicted of a felony, they will have to renew their DL so that it says "no gun" on it?
Click to expand...

have you ever bee to a felony ARRAIGNMENT--one of the first things they do is to require the defendant surrender his passport if he is released on bond. I just saw a guy arraigned who was an armed pilot who refused to turn in his badge and issued firearm when he lost his job as a pilot. The Federal Air Marshall testifying at his detention hearing noted that the state of Ohio had already revoked his CCW permit. It would be easy enough for the court to take someones DL and immediately have it changed to NO FIREARM
 
Spring99 said:
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.
Click to expand...

how many pro gun advocates (gun extremists to NY left-wingers I suppose) want criminals buying guns? who benefits the most from criminal misuse of firearms? we NRA members or people wanting to ban guns

we oppose universal registration or the government knowing what guns we have. I have no problem with the suggestion that we have a mark on our State DL and REQUIRING private sellers to see that before they sell you a gun. No registration and if I am a felon and I am caught and I rat you out or you were the original buyer of the gun and thus you are listed on the 4473 which can be found, then you get in trouble.
 
Thrilla said:
I read her post.. I couldn't find where she stated background checks were a violation of the 2nd
Click to expand...

you could fill up the library of congress with all the misstatements Catawba makes about the posts of others
 
Catawba said:
Reducing the availability of cheap and easy guns for criminals and crazies in 40 states.
Click to expand...

are you telling me weapons sold by legitimate gun dealers and private collectors are CHEAPER than black market guns?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
One would think that if a person takes the time to post, it's all relevant. Maybe an answer would be in order...
Click to expand...


:lamo You haven't been here very long, have you?
 
Catawba said:
I don't make a habit of responding to irrelevant comments. I find their irrelevancy stands on its own! :cool:
Click to expand...

OMG there are just not enough :lamo emotes allowed on this forum to laugh at just how funny and hypocritical this statment of yours is. YOU are the one that claimed that there was 100 years of courts saying that the 2nd amendment only applied to militias YOU are the one that brought it up and now when I ask for proof via court cases of your statment you call it irrelevent? You've just exposed how much of a liar you are Catawba.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom