• 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

Black Manta said:
Yes I agree because the "persona" of someone is so much more important than our 2nd amendment rights. :roll:

I didn't think you had any evidence to support your claim...

Post-Sandy Hook Support for Gun Control Already Slipping - Post-Sandy Hook Support for Gun Control Already Slipping - Hit & Run : Reason.com
CNN/Time Poll: Slight dip in support for gun control measures in last month - CNN/Time Poll: Slight dip in support for gun control measures in last month – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
Senators say Obama’s proposal for gun control has little support - Senators say Obama

I don't think anyone can rest yet, but it is looking better.
Click to expand...



time will tell

my prediction is that we will see more gun control. but not enough
not until the next sandy hook massacre
 
Dwight said:
That is not the data that is pertinent to public policy and people being able to make better decisions. Think more along the lines of epidemiology type studies.
Click to expand...

What cause do we need to study? We already know...

Most gun crime happens in the US in population centers with populations of 250,000 or more. The vast majority of said crimes are in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. The cause? Gang violence and the drug war.

Any questions? Or are you going to keep making excuses for a waist of time and money that is only being used to strip gun rights in the name of public safety?
 
justabubba said:
time will tell

my prediction is that we will see more gun control. but not enough
not until the next sandy hook massacre
Click to expand...

So you got nothing, Noted.
 
Black Manta said:
So you got nothing, Noted.
Click to expand...

i have nothing - thus far
but it is early in this political cycle

i have gabby on my side
i think she will assure there is more control as a result
 
justabubba said:
i have nothing - thus far
but it is early in this political cycle
Click to expand...

And hoping for another school massacre, I get it.

justabubba said:
i have gabby on my side
i think she will assure there is more control as a result
Click to expand...

They said the same thing about quite a few people, how has that worked for you so far?

Then as I said a "persona" is much more important than rights, lol.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Can Giffords please explain her own state's "lax" gun laws having a violent crime rate ranked 18th and Illinois ranked at 11th with some of the nation's strictest gun laws? What matters is not gun control but criminal control.

States' crime rates show scant linkage to gun laws - Washington Times

FBI Violent Crime Stats--Gun Ownership Up/Crime Rates Drop - Handguns
Click to expand...

Do you guys know what a causal relation ship error is?

National Research Council, 2004: The initial model specification, when extended to new data, does not show evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws reduces crime. The estimated effects are highly sensitive to seemingly minor changes in the model specification and control variables. No link between right-to-carry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is only once numerous covariates are included that the negative results in the early data emerge. While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change. Finally, some of the point estimates are imprecise. Thus, the committee concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.

http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/
 
Black Manta said:
What cause do we need to study? We already know…

Most gun crime happens in the US in population centers with populations of 250,000 or more. The vast majority of said crimes are in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. The cause? Gang violence and the drug war.

Any questions?
Click to expand...
Plenty of questions, because that is NOT the whole picture. But when the CDC started asking them the NRA wigged out because the data that started coming in (that having a firearm in the home made the occupants less safe) did not fit their pitch.

EDIT: Playing upon the same misunderstanding of the CDC as demonstrated in the original post here, that studying the topic implied that firearms were a “disease” to be cured.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Do you guys know what a causal relation ship error is?

National Research Council, 2004: The initial model specification, when extended to new data, does not show evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws reduces crime. The estimated effects are highly sensitive to seemingly minor changes in the model specification and control variables. No link between right-to-carry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is only once numerous covariates are included that the negative results in the early data emerge. While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change. Finally, some of the point estimates are imprecise. Thus, the committee concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.

FactCheck.org : Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts
Click to expand...

Do you know what apples and oranges are? We are talking about basic gun rights, which may or may not include CCW. His comment is overall relevant while yours is not.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
There are times when law-abiding citizens decide to become criminals out of a desire for revenge, greed or power.
Click to expand...

There are over 250 million passenger vehicles on the road and there are times when law-abiding citizens decide to drink and drive, sometimes taking their lives and the lives of others. Is it the drunk drivers that are the problem or the amount of cars on the road?
 
Black Manta said:
And hoping for another school massacre, I get it.
Click to expand...
actually, hoping against it
and hope the politicians would effect much more stringent gun laws to prevent such a recurrence
but your side wants it business as usual (at the over crowded gun store)
and until gun law restrictions become more appropriate, and fully enforced, the likelihood of another sandy hook is increased ... only because your side opposes doing anything to quell such activities



They said the same thing about quite a few people, how has that worked for you so far?
Click to expand...
before, did they have Gabby Gifford's as the spokesmodel?
and you should see her testimony before the congree ... ooops, i sure you already have
which should answer your question
she is being quite effective

Then as I said a "persona" is much more important than rights, lol.
Click to expand...
and you would again be wrong
nothing should be elevated above our rights, or freedoms
too bad you do not realize that
too many people died preserving those rights for our citizens to be so uninformed
 
Boo Radley said:
Do you guys know what a causal relation ship error is?

National Research Council, 2004: The initial model specification, when extended to new data, does not show evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws reduces crime. The estimated effects are highly sensitive to seemingly minor changes in the model specification and control variables. No link between right-to-carry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is only once numerous covariates are included that the negative results in the early data emerge. While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change. Finally, some of the point estimates are imprecise. Thus, the committee concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.

FactCheck.org : Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts
Click to expand...

So you are arguing that we need more gun control laws yet, at the same time are asserting that they do little, if anything, to limit gun crime? Hmm...
 
Dwight said:
Plenty of questions, because that is NOT the whole picture. But when the CDC started asking them the NRA wigged out because the data that started coming in did not fit their pitch.
Click to expand...

Typical liberal bull****. Because they are asking the WRONG QUESTIONS...

Are communities where more people carry guns safer or less safe? Does the availability of high-capacity magazines increase deaths? Do more rigorous background checks make a difference?

Are all irrelevant when you have blacks and Hispanics dying in droves in major urban centers, and we know why. The fact is the shooting at Sandy hook was white kids, that is the only reason it got any attention. over 400 kids, yes kids died in Chicago last year, where the fxck was Obama than? Where was the CDC asking questions?

Just more liberal hogwash is all you so far have.
 
justabubba said:
actually, hoping against it
and hope the politicians would effect much more stringent gun laws to prevent such a recurrence
but your side wants it business as usual (at the over crowded gun store)
and until gun law restrictions become more appropriate, and fully enforced, the likelihood of another sandy hook is increased ... only because your side opposes doing anything to quell such activities




before, did they have Gabby Gifford's as the spokesmodel?
and you should see her testimony before the congree ... ooops, i sure you already have
which should answer your question
she is being quite effective


and you would again be wrong
nothing should be elevated above our rights, or freedoms
too bad you do not realize that
too many people died preserving those rights for our citizens to be so uninformed
Click to expand...

You have no reall argument I already have noted it. You can move on any time now.
 
Black Manta said:
Typical liberal bull****. Because they are asking the WRONG QUESTIONS...

Are communities where more people carry guns safer or less safe? Does the availability of high-capacity magazines increase deaths? Do more rigorous background checks make a difference?
Click to expand...
*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. :(

Are all irrelevant when you have blacks and Hispanics dying in droves in major urban centers, and we know why.
Click to expand...
Why, then?
 
Dwight said:
Things such as what is the relationship between the “violent offender” and the target. Do they know each other? Are they friends? Are they family? Are they the same person? Where did the firearm come from? What kind of firearm is it? What was the intended purpose of the act? What other contributing factors were involved? To what extent was the firearm a factor at all?

You are basing that prescription on what?
Click to expand...
There are approx 20,000 deaths a year by violent means. The vast majority of them are inner city gang related and have nothing to do with weapons classifications, ballistics, etc. Want to deal with the problems? Start there.
 
VanceMack said:
There are approx 20,000 deaths a year by violent means. The vast majority of them are inner city gang related and have nothing to do with weapons classifications, ballistics, etc. Want to deal with the problems? Start there.
Click to expand...
By doing what?

And there are not any elsewhere?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
There are times when law-abiding citizens decide to become criminals out of a desire for revenge, greed or power.
Click to expand...
There is absolutely no mystery where the vast majority of violent crimes are perpetrated and by whom. You have the stones to truly address the problems?
 
Dwight said:
By doing what?

And there are not any elsewhere?
Click to expand...
Going after gangs. Going after violent offenders. Pass mandatory minimum sentencing. Use fed RICO statutes on gangs. Build lots and lots of prisons and lock violent offenders up for a REAAAAAALLLYYY long time. Sure...you work on some of the social ills too...AFTER you attack the actual problems. Of course...you could follow the typical path of least resistance and pass laws that do nothing or target law abiding citizens. The answers are in front of your face. Takes some real commitment to actually deal with the problem.
 
VanceMack said:
Going after gangs. Going after violent offenders. Pass mandatory minimum sentencing. Use fed RICO statutes on gangs. Build lots and lots of prisons and lock violent offenders up for a REAAAAAALLLYYY long time. Sure...you work on some of the social ills too...AFTER you attack the actual problems. Of course...you could follow the typical path of least resistance and pass laws that do nothing or target law abiding citizens. The answers are in front of your face. Takes some real commitment to actually deal with the problem.
Click to expand...

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.
 
VanceMack said:
Going after gangs. Going after violent offenders. Pass mandatory minimum sentencing. Use fed RICO statutes on gangs. Build lots and lots of prisons and lock violent offenders up for a REAAAAAALLLYYY long time. Sure...you work on some of the social ills too...AFTER you attack the actual problems.
Click to expand...
1) It does not occur to you that there can be “social ills” as roots motivation for the gangs?
2) The Stick, the GET ****ING TOUGH has kinda run its course and now we have near 1% of the country in prison, far higher percent than any other country on the planet. It is not even close, arguably creating a social ill of its very own. Still we are racking up body count. Because such approach is reactive (not to mention imperfect, otherwise nobody would be able to murder twice).
3) Even after all those murders go away there are still a whole pile of firearm deaths. Which is relevant, right?
 
Black Manta said:
Do you know what apples and oranges are? We are talking about basic gun rights, which may or may not include CCW. His comment is overall relevant while yours is not.
Click to expand...

Then make that argument and not that it reduces crime.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
So you are arguing that we need more gun control laws yet, at the same time are asserting that they do little, if anything, to limit gun crime? Hmm...
Click to expand...

Im not arguing for more laws. I'm arguing against fallacious arguments.
 
Dwight said:
1) It does not occur to you that there can be “social ills” as roots motivation for the gangs?
2) The Stick, the GET ****ING TOUGH has kinda run its course and now we have near 1% of the country in prison, far higher percent than any other country on the planet. It is not even close, arguably creating a social ill of its very own. Still we are racking up body count. Because such approach is reactive (not to mention imperfect, otherwise nobody would be able to murder twice).
3) Even after all those murders go away there are still a whole pile of firearm deaths. Which is relevant, right?
Click to expand...
I could not give half a **** about the social ills that contribute to the gang violence and I LOATHE the people that make excuses for them. Address the social ills...well and good. There is no excuse for violent criminal action. There is NO excuse for drive by shootings or the murder that occurred in Chicago today of people gathered at a bus stop. Deal with the PROBLEM of violent crime. I know...its very uncomfortable...you would have to actually go after...criminals.
 
Catawba said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. Chicago today released a report that showed that 75% of the perpetrators of violent crimes in their fair city are repeat offenders. Thats a ****ing AWESOME place to start. When people satrt to realize there is no longer a revolving door then they might think twice about committing ANY violent act with a weapon. If they dont get the memo...they wont be released to re-offend til they are old and grey. Its a HELLUVA lot better place to start than making excuses for them, building new schools that are going to get trashed while the bodies continue to pile up, and targeting the inanimate objects or law abiding citizens. But then...people like you would have to run the risk of actually be seen attacking the perpetrators....
 
VanceMack said:
I could not give half a **** about the social ills that contribute to the gang violence …
Click to expand...
That is readily apparent.
Address the social ills…well and good. There is no excuse for violent criminal action.
Click to expand...
I never said excuse, that is your imaginings. But how about you explain insisting on addressing violent crime before social ills?
There is NO excuse for drive by shootings or the murder that occurred in Chicago today of people gathered at a bus stop. Deal with the PROBLEM of violent crime. I know...its very uncomfortable...you would have to actually go after...criminals.
Click to expand...
We have 2.3 million people in jail, another 5 million on parole. We haven’t exactly been throwing a ****ing Kindergarden picnic. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom