Senator Marco Rubio Wants to Talk About Violence and Not Guns

[Dante]

Senator Marco Rubio Wants to Talk About Violence and Not Guns

Question: What kind of violence mister Rubio?

 

[FA_Q2]

?

That has always been the problem and you know it. Violent people are going to be an issue if guns were non-existent. Violent people will find a way to be violent no matter what you do.

You COULD try and treat the means, aka guns, but that has never worked. I can’t find one good example. You could also try and treat the actual problem. Unique concept, I know. Treating actual causes instead of the means, what a concept….

 

[Dante]

?

That has always been the problem and you know it. Violent people are going to be an issue if guns were non-existent. Violent people will find a way to be violent no matter what you do.

You COULD try and treat the means, aka guns, but that has never worked. I can’t find one good example. You could also try and treat the actual problem. Unique concept, I know. Treating actual causes instead of the means, what a concept….

The debate is really about gun violence and Senator Rubio acts like an official right out of the novel 1984: Doublespeak

On immigration and gun regulation Rubio is acting the demagogue

 

[asaratis]

?

That has always been the problem and you know it. Violent people are going to be an issue if guns were non-existent. Violent people will find a way to be violent no matter what you do.

You COULD try and treat the means, aka guns, but that has never worked. I can’t find one good example. You could also try and treat the actual problem. Unique concept, I know. Treating actual causes instead of the means, what a concept….

The debate is really about gun violence and Senator Rubio acts like an official right out of the novel 1984: Doublespeak

On immigration and gun regulation Rubio is acting the demagogue

The real debate is about gun control. I am not a violent person and there is no reason for you to control my guns. Rubio apparently sees more value in recognizing and controlling violence prone people than in controlling guns. So do I.

 

[Dante]

?

That has always been the problem and you know it. Violent people are going to be an issue if guns were non-existent. Violent people will find a way to be violent no matter what you do.

You COULD try and treat the means, aka guns, but that has never worked. I can’t find one good example. You could also try and treat the actual problem. Unique concept, I know. Treating actual causes instead of the means, what a concept….

The debate is really about gun violence and Senator Rubio acts like an official right out of the novel 1984: Doublespeak

On immigration and gun regulation Rubio is acting the demagogue

The real debate is about gun control. I am not a violent person and there is no reason for you to control my guns. Rubio apparently sees more value in recognizing and controlling violence prone people than in controlling guns. So do I.

Everyone wants to control violence prone people. But ignoring how they gets guns by going around weak regulations is pathetically silly

It's about gun violence. People who support the 2nd support sensible gun regulations. Rubio will too if he looks at the polls and thinks it will help his election chances.

 

[FA_Q2]

The debate is really about gun violence and Senator Rubio acts like an official right out of the novel 1984: Doublespeak

On immigration and gun regulation Rubio is acting the demagogue

The real debate is about gun control. I am not a violent person and there is no reason for you to control my guns. Rubio apparently sees more value in recognizing and controlling violence prone people than in controlling guns. So do I.

Everyone wants to control violence prone people. But ignoring how they gets guns by going around weak regulations is pathetically silly

It's about gun violence. People who support the 2nd support sensible gun regulations. Rubio will too if he looks at the polls and thinks it will help his election chances.

Again, you want to control the means – A TACTIC THAT HAS NO SUPPORTING FACTS – and ignore the root.

I notice that you have entirely ignored the fact that gun control has not worked. Once again, another gun control thread WITHOUT ANY FACTS.

 

[alan1]

Senator Marco Rubio Wants to Talk About Violence and Not Guns

Question: What kind of violence mister Rubio?

Oddly enough, one doesn't need a gun nor always use a gun when performing a violent act.
Just ask Reginald Denning if you don't believe me.

 

[Dante]

Senator Marco Rubio Wants to Talk About Violence and Not Guns

Question: What kind of violence mister Rubio?

Oddly enough, one doesn't need a gun nor always use a gun when performing a violent act.
Just ask Reginald Denning if you don't believe me.

The debate is about gun violence.

 

[Dante]

The real debate is about gun control. I am not a violent person and there is no reason for you to control my guns. Rubio apparently sees more value in recognizing and controlling violence prone people than in controlling guns. So do I.

Everyone wants to control violence prone people. But ignoring how they gets guns by going around weak regulations is pathetically silly

It's about gun violence. People who support the 2nd support sensible gun regulations. Rubio will too if he looks at the polls and thinks it will help his election chances.

Again, you want to control the means – A TACTIC THAT HAS NO SUPPORTING FACTS – and ignore the root.

I notice that you have entirely ignored the fact that gun control has not worked. Once again, another gun control thread WITHOUT ANY FACTS.

Poor and badly constructed gun control has problems,

Gun control is not supposed to cure ALL gun violence. We do not treat discussion of any other laws and regulations like we do discussions on gun control. NRA?

The straw men, the red herrings, the false premises, the outright lies, none of it will stop the new momentum

People like me support the 2nd. We support concealed weapons permitting. We support much, but with a dose or honesty and reality that is lacking from fanatics

 

[Rozman]

Senator Marco Rubio Wants to Talk About Violence and Not Guns

Question: What kind of violence mister Rubio?

Maybe violent violence... that would be my guess.

Violent people will find a way.
Guns don't shoot themselves.

 

[MostJadedGamer]

?

That has always been the problem and you know it. Violent people are going to be an issue if guns were non-existent. Violent people will find a way to be violent no matter what you do.

You COULD try and treat the means, aka guns, but that has never worked. I can’t find one good example. You could also try and treat the actual problem. Unique concept, I know. Treating actual causes instead of the means, what a concept….

The easier, and more convenient you make it to kill somebody the more killings you will have, and the US is one the easiest places in the world to kill people.

Guns make it very easy, and convenient to kill a person, and the US is flooded with more guns then any country in the world. Thats why the US has such a rediculous amount of murders.

Its not even about harden criminals. Anybody can lose there temper over something, and just pull out a gun, and shoot somebody thanks to concealed carry.

Guns are the problem. Our murder rate would be FAR lower without guns.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Senator Marco Rubio Wants to Talk About Violence and Not Guns

Question: What kind of violence mister Rubio?

Oddly enough, one doesn't need a gun nor always use a gun when performing a violent act.
Just ask Reginald Denning if you don't believe me.

The debate is about gun violence.

Sorry Dante. You don't get to control the debate. And it looks as though the issue of gun control is nearly dead. Too mad the morons like you didn't focus on the actual issue that causes the problems we're witnessing.

 

[Dante]

Senator Marco Rubio Wants to Talk About Violence and Not Guns

Question: What kind of violence mister Rubio?

Maybe violent violence... that would be my guess.

Violent people will find a way.
Guns don't shoot themselves.

No one says they do


next

 

[depotoo]

this is interesting-

A new study put out by the European Commission reveals some shocking figures: Great Britain has a 77% increase in crime since the Labour Party came to power in 1997 when Parliament passed a bill banning the private ownership of guns. Even though one may not legally own a gun in Great Britain, crime still exists, with criminals using the knife as the weapon of choice.

 

[Agit8r]

Speaking of which; where does Rubio stand on the release of neurotoxins into the environment?

 

[OriginalShroom]

?

That has always been the problem and you know it. Violent people are going to be an issue if guns were non-existent. Violent people will find a way to be violent no matter what you do.

You COULD try and treat the means, aka guns, but that has never worked. I can’t find one good example. You could also try and treat the actual problem. Unique concept, I know. Treating actual causes instead of the means, what a concept….

The easier, and more convenient you make it to kill somebody the more killings you will have, and the US is one the easiest places in the world to kill people.

Guns make it very easy, and convenient to kill a person, and the US is flooded with more guns then any country in the world. Thats why the US has such a rediculous amount of murders.

Its not even about harden criminals. Anybody can lose there temper over something, and just pull out a gun, and shoot somebody thanks to concealed carry.

Guns are the problem. Our murder rate would be FAR lower without guns.

Yeppers.. Those guns just jumped up and shot themselves.

 

[MondoBongo]

I see Mr. Rubio survived Water-Gate.

But, I'm a little confused. Is there a link to back your contention that Mr. Rubio wants to discuss violence, but not guns? Or are people here allowed to make up anything they wish and post it as factual in terms of starting threads?

 

[asaratis]

I see Mr. Rubio survived Water-Gate.

But, I'm a little confused. Is there a link to back your contention that Mr. Rubio wants to discuss violence, but not guns? Or are people here allowed to make up anything they wish and post it as factual in terms of starting threads?

The latter. Those people start a lot of threads here too. The misleading wording of the title, the deliberate restating of what was actually said and quotes taken out of context are all tools of deception and disingenuous debate.

 

[asaratis]

this is interesting-

A new study put out by the European Commission reveals some shocking figures: Great Britain has a 77% increase in crime since the Labour Party came to power in 1997 when Parliament passed a bill banning the private ownership of guns. Even though one may not legally own a gun in Great Britain, crime still exists, with criminals using the knife as the weapon of choice.

When the criminals know that their prey carries no firearm, the knives become more effective. I think that most people do not carry large or long knives to use in defense against muggings and sexual attacks. The criminals like knives because they do not make noise, can easily concealed and used to get them what they want.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I see Mr. Rubio survived Water-Gate.

But, I'm a little confused. Is there a link to back your contention that Mr. Rubio wants to discuss violence, but not guns? Or are people here allowed to make up anything they wish and post it as factual in terms of starting threads?

It is a fair assessment of what he said 9n several Sunday morning talk shows today.