• 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

WASHINGTON -- "Nearly every participant in Wednesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence had something to say about universal background checks. But Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the committee chairman, made a point to highlight the huge impact tighter checks would have in stemming domestic violence -- the focus of another of his priority issues, the Violence Against Women Act."

"Addressing panelists including NRA president Wayne LaPierre, Leahy said statistics show that women in the U.S. are killed "at alarming rates" by domestic abusers with guns, but in states that require background checks for handgun sales, 38 percent fewer women are shot by their partners. He asked one panelist, Baltimore Police Chief Jim Johnson, whether universal background checks would have a significant effect on keeping guns away from domestic abusers. Currently, background checks are not required by private gun sellers or at gun shows.

"Absolutely," Johnson said. "Statistics show that when females are killed, it's more likely, over 50 percent of the time, to be by a spouse or household member. A gun in a home where there is a history of domestic violence, statistics show that there is a 500 percent increase of chance that that person will be victimized by gun violence."

"Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) is expected to unveil bipartisan legislation targeting universal background checks any day now. Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) have been mentioned as possible co-sponsors."

Patrick Leahy Ties VAWA To Gun Violence Debate
 
Catawba said:
Once again you make derogatory comments and present nothing to back up your case. There is a...trend...
Click to expand...
Ohmigosh! Seriously? You posted one snip from the Brady site (complete with instructions on how to use it) and I countered with...what...a dozen different sources NOT a completely biased group...and you want to talk about having 'nothing to back a case'. Good lawd, son...that's just...sad.
 
VanceMack said:
Ohmigosh! Seriously? You posted one snip from the Brady site (complete with instructions on how to use it) and I countered with...what...a dozen different sources NOT a completely biased group...and you want to talk about having 'nothing to back a case'. Good lawd, son...that's just...sad.
Click to expand...

All based on a false premise that was purely your unsubstantiated opinion. And yes, that is just sad.
 
Catawba said:
All based on a false premise that was purely your unsubstantiated opinion. And yes, that is just sad.
Click to expand...
The 'false premise' was your lie that the Brady Bill prevented 19 people from getting weapons...mostly felons. Proven a lie.
 
VanceMack said:
The 'false premise' was your lie that the Brady Bill prevented 19 people from getting weapons...mostly felons. Proven a lie.
Click to expand...

1.9 million which was documented in the DOH statistics I provided from their website. You on the other hand haven't proven ****!
 
Catawba said:
1.9 million which was documented in the DOH statistics I provided from their website. You on the other hand haven't proven ****!
Click to expand...

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

"The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure." - Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
 
Black Manta said:
Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

"The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure." - Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
Click to expand...

From your study:

""Maybe the law did save a handful of lives, a couple hundred per year," and that other public health and safety laws are enacted to save similar numbers of lives.

On the plus side, there is strong evidence that the law undermined gun-running operations that were buying large numbers of guns in southern states and transporting them north for resale, he said."

"Cook said the real problem is the law's "gaping barn door" for unregulated sales, mainly at gun shows,"
 
Catawba said:
From your study:

""Maybe the law did save a handful of lives, a couple hundred per year," and that other public health and safety laws are enacted to save similar numbers of lives.

On the plus side, there is strong evidence that the law undermined gun-running operations that were buying large numbers of guns in southern states and transporting them north for resale, he said."

"Cook said the real problem is the law's "gaping barn door" for unregulated sales, mainly at gun shows,"
Click to expand...

Fact: It was a failure.

#1 They are basing that on other laws and their effect and admit this by saying MAYBE. They are admitting it is speculation at best based on preexisting laws.

#2 The "strong evidence" again is not supported by the number as no significant change occurred. Data shows a slow gradual decline in gun homicides from 1993 to the present, a trend that started before the Brady Bill passed You also left this out "Cook, who acknowledged that his personal sympathies are for gun control, Nice try.

#3 You again left out the disclaimer but no one knows how many guns are bought with false IDs or exchanged privately, to say nothing of those being stolen.

Taking statements out of context does not help your case.
 
Black Manta said:
Fact: It was a failure.

#1 They are basing that on other laws and their effect and admit this by saying MAYBE. They are admitting it is speculation at best based on preexisting laws.

#2 The "strong evidence" again is not supported by the number as no significant change occurred. Data shows a slow gradual decline in gun homicides from 1993 to the present, a trend that started before the Brady Bill passed You also left this out "Cook, who acknowledged that his personal sympathies are for gun control, Nice try.

#3 You again left out the disclaimer but no one knows how many guns are bought with false IDs or exchanged privately, to say nothing of those being stolen.

Taking statements out of context does not help your case.
Click to expand...



I don't call saving a couple hundred lives a year a failure, and I don't call preventing gun sales to almost 2 million people that couldn't pass the background check to be a failure.
 
Catawba said:
I don't call saving a couple hundred lives a year a failure,
Click to expand...

It was a guess, speculation. They have no idea if that is the case or not. That is why AGAIN HE SAID MAYBE.

Catawba said:
and I don't call preventing gun sales to almost 2 million people that couldn't pass the background check to be a failure.
Click to expand...

I have not seen the data that says this is the case.
 
Black Manta said:
It was a guess, speculation. They have no idea if that is the case or not. That is why AGAIN HE SAID MAYBE.



I have not seen the data that says this is the case.
Click to expand...



In 1997, the Supreme Court struck down the background check component on 10th Amendment grounds, ruling that the provision usurped states' rights. A new version was passed in 1998, this time covering all guns, instituting an "instant" background check of states' and FBI databases identifying criminals and requiring a three-day waiting period. Fingerprint checks have never been required. At the time it first passed, the law obliged 32 states to change laws to come into conformity. Laws in 18 states were already in compliance and these made an ideal control group for a study, Cook said. Following the 1998 revision only two states—Ohio and Arkansas—did not reestablish background checks, but Cook said they nonetheless remained in the group considered "treatment" states by the study.....snip~

Considering most of all the background checks that they have been talking about. Have been existing law for some time now. Course minus the Privates selling, shows, and inheritance issue.
 
Catawba said:
Not much of a study in that case.
Click to expand...

Because it does not agree with your conclusions? How partisan of you.

Catawba said:
Here you go:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...s-giffords-call-action-11.html#post1061411140
Click to expand...

Where are the statistics BEFORE the Brady Bill was passed? Background checks from licensed dealers was law before the Brady bill was passed. Without any numbers to compare it to, it literally means nothing. I mean people were denied before the Brady bill was passed as well.
 
Black Manta said:
Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

"The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure." - Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
Click to expand...

quoting facts that the gun control laws are failures for stopping crime means nothing to people like Catawba. They are not motivated by decreasing crime. Their main goal is harassing legal gun owners for political reasons
 
Black Manta said:
Because it does not agree with your conclusions? How partisan of you.



Where are the statistics BEFORE the Brady Bill was passed? Background checks from licensed dealers was law before the Brady bill was passed. Without any numbers to compare it to, it literally means nothing. I mean people were denied before the Brady bill was passed as well.
Click to expand...

that's not true. BEfore the brady bill was passed (from 68 forward)dealers were required to have people fill out the form but there was no real background check except in a few states
 
TurtleDude said:
that's not true. BEfore the brady bill was passed (from 68 forward)dealers were required to have people fill out the form but there was no real background check except in a few states
Click to expand...

Ummmm I know, that's what I said "Background checks from licensed dealers was law before the Brady bill was passed.

Turtle you are slipping man, hehehe.
 
Catawba said:
What's the difference between a tenther and an anarchist
Click to expand...

Do you know the definition of anarchy?

BTW, anarchy is impossible to achieve, much like Marx's communism which is anarchy by de facto.
 
jamesrage said:
The anti-2nd amendment loons probably figure that if the CDC is involved that will give them more leverage in ****ting on the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

Once you get your flu shot, remember to turn in your guns before you exit the clinic.
 
Black Manta said:
Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

"The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure." - Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
Click to expand...

Why would it considering the fact that gun violence isn't the result of legal gun owners.

95% of these murders are committed by gangbangers, however all the media does is expose the 5% that are committed by legal gun owners... Of course when the media does report on gangsta gun violence they make it seem as if the gangbanger who shot the other gangbanger obtained his/her gun legally - which is never the case.

I'm from the Chicagoland area, I read the paper every day and I can tell anyone that when you see the headline "7 dead 45 shot over the weekend" on the Chicago Tribune - those shootings are generally gang/ghetto related and 99.9% of the time they happen in the ghetto.

The town I grew up in has had 3 homicides in the last 30 years yet only one was the result of a gun and was committed by a teenager, yet everyone has guns in my community. Hell, ever since I can remember I haven't heard of a legal gun owner committing a crime with his/her gun. Sure in surrounding communities there have been murders but they were gangbangers (individuals who cant legally own firearms) doing the shooting.

So how the hell would a background check matter when it's not those who pass the background check and who legally own guns and who don't murder people be to blame?
 
Mr.Nick said:
Why would it considering the fact that gun violence isn't the result of legal gun owners.

95% of these murders are committed by gangbangers, however all the media does is expose the 5% that are committed by legal gun owners... Of course when the media does report on gangsta gun violence they make it seem as if the gangbanger who shot the other gangbanger obtained his/her gun legally - which is never the case.

I'm from the Chicagoland area, I read the paper every day and I can tell anyone that when you see the headline "7 dead 45 shot over the weekend" on the Chicago Tribune - those shootings are generally gang/ghetto related and 99.9% of the time they happen in the ghetto.

The town I grew up in has had 3 homicides in the last 30 years yet only one was the result of a gun and was committed by a teenager, yet everyone has guns in my community. Hell, ever since I can remember I haven't heard of a legal gun owner committing a crime with his/her gun. Sure in surrounding communities there have been murders but they were gangbangers (individuals who cant legally own firearms) doing the shooting.

So how the hell would a background check matter when it's not those who pass the background check and who legally own guns and who don't murder people be to blame?
Click to expand...

Yea! Bring it, lol.
 
Last edited:
Black Manta said:
#1 I was born and raised in Chicago. Been in Florida 7 years.
#2 Did you read what I was responding to?
#3 You are preaching to the choir.

Please don't assume based on one reply that was part of multiple statements. :roll:

You read one reply and jump to a conclusion that has literally nothing to do with my post.
Click to expand...

I was agreeing with you, I was just adding my own opinion.

Sorry if you took it the wrong way.

All I wanted to add was the fact that 95% of gun crimes are not committed by legal gun owners, however the media implies they are and idiots buy it.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I was agreeing with you, I was just adding my own opinion.

Sorry if you took it the wrong way.
Click to expand...

OHHHHH! Dimmit tone etc. is so lost on the internet, lol.

I apologies.
 
Black Manta said:
OHHHHH! Dimmit tone etc. is so lost on the internet, lol.

I apologies.
Click to expand...

No worries man...

Probably my fault anyways because I have a tendency to over-elaborate, which at times can confuse an individual on my intent.
 
VanceMack said:
Since the facts prove that Heung Cho killed more ADULTS with a handgun at a college campus than children were killed by Adam Lanza in 10 minutes with a Bushmaster, I would say that a thinking man would actually have his answer. Unless of course you were intent on making this be about the assault rifle. If THAT were the case you would ignore the facts about Cho...and Holmes...and Kinkel...and Columbine..and cling to the eeeevil assault rifle rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Cho killed more people because he was shooting into a room a hundreds and Lanza was shooting into a room of dozens. Come on, you know that. This is why I asked you the question: Two people, two otherwise identical scenarios, on has a bush master, the other a pistol. And you evade the answer with garbage. This assault rifle debate sucks up all the national conversation and until people stop doing the song and dance we'll keep having the circular arguments. You can pretend you don't get it as long as you want but I know that you're not stupid enough to be unable to comprehend that a gun that shoots faster can kill more people.
 
Thrilla said:
since when are rights based on need?
Click to expand...

Since forever in the way I used the term. Do you know the part about not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? That's because it causes harm and nobody needs to do it. The second amendment uses the word "necessary" in its premise - that's a synonym for need(ed) in case you were not aware.

AlabamaPaul said:
Who are you to determine what I need to protect my family and property? Each person has there unique needs and preferences when it comes to firearms or any other defense mechanism. To make a blanket statement of "you don't need them" is the height of arrogance showing a complete lack for situational preferences. You may not like some of the choices available and that's fine, but you have no right deny others from making their own choices...
Click to expand...

You don't need is a saying widely used by individuals talking about what is and isn't necessary. Have you ever heard somebody at the gas station say "you don't need to sign the receipt?" Did you respond with "who are you to determine what I do with my receipt?"

I really prefer an RPG to protect my family. And land mines. It's up to me and I determined that land mines in the public park are what will best protect me, because all the guys who look scary hang out at the park. Needless to say, part of the role of the government is to regulate what is and isn't necessary in the scope of personal defense.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom