Comments by "TeeKay" (@teekay_1) on "'Do You Support Outlawing Fried Foods?': Kennedy Grills Dem Witness At Gun Violence Hearing" video.

What you could say is she's dodging the question of whether to prosecute actual crimes with guns, but wants to restrict the rights of people who don't commit crimes. Kennedy asked those questions for a reason.
1000
@riverotter68 She's not a lawyer, but if she had a modicum of common sense, the answer would have been Well, if someone commits a crime with a gun, of course you would prosecute them unless there are extenuating circumstances. Because if she's claiming there's an epidemic of violence using guns, those guns ain't shooting people by themselves. There's a person pulling the trigger. If someone is so cavalier about killing people with a gun, do you really need to be an attorney to decide they need to be prosecuted? Seriously ? If she's that timid, I wouldn't trust her opinion on anything. Are we afraid to be apply basic common sense to a problem because think our colleague will judge us because we're not following the narrative we're supposed to?
45
xavierb9061 Actually not so simpleminded. If you have data from one city in New Mexico, how can you extrapolate that to other cities? Seems she's the one being simpleminded. Maybe she should work with a statistician so he can point out the logical fallacy of using potentially outlier data to generalize your conclusions.
6
@Rationalityislost101 My point stands, she has no idea how to use data, so you can't take her seriously. Just being motivated without facts and data get us to the point where we are today where we have solutions (generally about banning guns of one sort or another), but without data to understand if these laws will actually do something. But we pronounce the problem fixed, except it's not. Maybe the doctor could do a study why a pistol in the city is 10 times as likely to be used in crime as outside the city. But one gets the impression that people really don't want a data-based answer to that question.
6
@Rationalityislost101 I understand where you're coming from, but perjury can only be charged if you're willingly telling a lie. She was being asked to offer an opinion. So you can give your testimony the way this witness did with an "I'm not an expert in Chicago", but all of the sudden she's an expert in New Mexico and the Senator's home state, she came across as being highly partisan and disingenuous. It would have been better to say "Speaking as a mother, my sense is that I would want to see people who commit violent crimes with guns prosecuted, but as an expert, I'd like to talk to the prosecutor to see his data". Which is offering an opinion and nuancing it a bit.
4
@samsprague2846 Mr. Czechoslovakia, you're very silly. Go back to Prague.
3
@shadow-jc3vp Why should she get baited into answering his questions that aren't about facts We didn't hear any facts from her. No data, no statistics. She talked mainly about anecdotes that she noticed while being an ER doctor.
3
@zangmaster Only the first time. Once you do it a second time, you're a repeat offender.
2
@kennethpriestman4255 Apparently the people who "Believe in the science" don't actually understand science at all. Weird, huh?
2
@Rationalityislost101 You cannot get into legal trouble testifying before congress, unless you knowingly lie.
2
@Rationalityislost101 It's a 2-prong problem. The questioner sometimes has a little as 3 minutes to ask his/her questions, and often the person filibusters to avoid answering the question, so they necessarily get cut off. OTOH, yes, sometimes the questioner is looking for a soundbite, and they don't get it so they move on cutting the witness off.
2
The way you can make the gun control people crazy is to ask a simple question: In Washington D.C., Virginia and DC are separated by a river known as "The Potomac". In Virginia, people generally manage not to shoot each other, even though they have a lot of guns. However once that gun crosses the river, it's shooting a lot of people. Why is a gun much more dangerous in DC than in Virginia? You can almost hear a tiny explosion happening in their brains.
2
@hal7ter An ER doctor, so not a scientist, not a statistician, it's the woman who puts stitches in your hand after you have an accident with a steak knife. Great job from the Democrats. Maybe next time, they'll bring a person who works at the sewage plant to explain the dangers of bacteria to our food supply.
1
@kennethpriestman4255 Sometimes I disappear. You sound like genie.
1
@engletinaknickerbocker5380 So you need to be an attorney to determine if someone who commits murder with a gun should be prosecuted? Interesting. Do you also need a biologist to tell if someone is a woman? Do you need a police officer to tell you if driving on the wrong side of the road is wrong? Do you need to be a philatelist to determine the postage you put on an envelope is correct? How do people get through their day without being able to tell right from wrong? Apparently there are people out there where life is a constant mystery on everything from crossing the street to mailing a letter to the whether we should punish people who commit murder.
1
@engletinaknickerbocker5380 I don't need a professional entertainer to do anything. I'm simply making fun of people who need a lawyer to determine if killing someone is a prosecutable offense. The fact that you seem to agree her puts you in that special 1%. Maybe Kennedy is a pool shark at night in his off time Perhaps he's an alien from outer space, or the person who invented penicillin. When you have wobbly or non-existent judgement, almost anything seem possible.
1
@engletinaknickerbocker5380 " So who is on the hot seat deciding whether killing someone is a prosecutable matter?" Is this a quiz? or you don't even know? Generally an elected district attorney does that. Interesting fact, you don't need to be an attorney to be a district attorney. But that's not the question being asked is it? It's about common sense. If a guy came up and shot your child, would you say "hmm, I need to check with an attorney to see if this person should be prosecuted, or whether this is considered okay". If that's how your thought processes work, then the world must be a giant puzzle to you.
1
@Knards law-abiding citizens do as much if not more killing as "criminals" If you take the criminal element out of gun violence statistics, US gun crime is essentially nothing. The bulk of gun crimes are committed by black and Hispanic men age 25-40. That's why liberals dance around this issue.
1
@bemhibbits4157 Interesting, but irrelevant
1
@keviabi Well, you''ll get a lot of chances to ask him questions seeing as he's going to be president for the next 4 years.
1
@bemhibbits4157 That's nice. Time for your lithium tablets.
1