Kris Jordan "Oxymoronical" Video on guns and protection

In 2009, then State Rep Kris Jordan speaks to Ohioans For Concealed Carry at their "Party in the Park 6" held at Liberty Park. Part of that talk seems ironic now given the fact that Kris bought his wife a 9mm weapon for protection in their home when the protection she may have needed was FROM him.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• krisjordan
• ohio
• politics

[TheStapleGunKid]

No Oxymoron here. Seems like he was correct. She did need a gun for protection. He never said it wasn't against him.

The only thing he said wrong was "she got me a 40 milimeter for Christmas". I'm sure he really ment .40 caliber, not .40 mililmeter. A 40 milimeter would be something you would use in an anti-aircraft cannon, not a pistol.

[elophan10538]

Representative Jordan, when did you stop beating your wife?

[shananagans5]

@5067jt It's pretty stupid to regulate public policy based on emotional reactions, especially when we have mountains of literature on something. Crime/crime patterns are not a mystery. Why did we spend the money on thousands of studies if we are going to ignore the results? That is as bad as setting public policy based on the flying spaghetti monster. Major decisions should be based on science & rational, not emotions reactions or religion.

[5067jt]

@5067jt What gets me is that the same people who lobby for guns and express their intense desire to have a warm gun in their hands are the same people that cheer when politicians tout their religious convictions ... You do realize that Jesus never did, nor would he ever carry a gun ... concealed or not.

[5067jt]

@shananagans5 Yes, and if you repeat the same phase over and over people will believe what you say so here's my attempt ... you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong ... did I win yet?

[shananagans5]

@5067jt Actually, the push is for concealed carry. Open carry has not been shown to reduce random violence as effectively as concealed carry. That probably goes back to suitable target theory.

[shananagans5]

@5067jt You do realize the UK had fewer murders before they banned guns? You do realize it's not valid to compare 1 country to another? You do realize every state that has allowed CC has seen a reduction in crime? You do realize that,in the entire body of criminology literature,there isn't a single study showing gun laws reduce crime? You do realize areas with strict gun control have not reduced murder but have increased index crime against elderly,women,disabled & non participatory victims?

[5067jt]

@shananagans5 Actually, they oppose laws on behalf of their real constituents, the gun companies and their owners. You are a really a pawn in their game. Face it ... they would love for you to get shot with your gun locked in your glove box. It would boost their case for open carry.

[5067jt]

@shananagans5 Dude ... do you really want to be around when a 70 year old lady takes aim at something? And the UK actually has a lot, a lot less murders than we do. Please do your research before you open your mouth.

[shananagans5]

@BradyCampaign Part 2: You do realize that if you succeed in banning guns you will give young healthy criminals a monopoly on the use of force? What is a 70 yr old woman going to do against an angry 20 yr old? What happens if you remove the risk of breaking into an occupied dwelling for that 20 yr old criminal? You can look to the UK for that answer. It is simple Kohen&Felson suitable target theory on crime. Do you want to make the old or disabled automatically suitable targets for young thugs?

[shananagans5]

@BradyCampaign Do you really believe the NRA doesn't preach responsibility,safety,& accountability? When the NRA opposes a law it is for 2 main reasons 1)They know it will not reduce violent crime 2)They know it is a step toward a total ban

Nobody would oppose registration if they knew it would reduce crime and that was the only regulation but it wouldn't reduce crime and people like you would view that as a way to confiscate.legal guns in the future from people like me, a disabled woman. Cont