Tapper Defends His ‘Perfectly Reasonable’ Question About How Dem Ideas Would Actually Stop Gun Violence

CNN anchor Jake Tapper took to Twitter to defend his question to Democratic presidential candidates about how effective their proposed gun control policies would be.

On Friday night’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” Tapper’s line of questioning was criticized by New York Times columnist Charles Blow, claiming that it was a “horrible question.”

Watch the video below:

 

“Because what we’re doing is picking out one incident out of 30,000 deaths per year and saying, ‘How could you solve this one thing?'” Blow said in response to Tapper’s question. “That is not the objective of gun control. The objective of gun control is to reduce capacity to kill people who should not be killed.”

However, Tapper responded to the criticism by saying that he asked a question on how the candidate’s plans would work.

“I asked which proposed gun laws might actually have had an impact on preventing a gun violence tragedy,” Tapper said.

As IJR Red reported, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) struggled to answer the question.

Watch below:

 

Tapper garnered some backlash for the question from Twitter users as well, to which Tapper responded that Booker was not the only candidate who had been asked that “perfectly reasonable” question.

“There are plenty of proposed laws that could have an impact on reducing gun violence,” Tapper said. “Here’s [Amy Klobuchar] answering the same [question].”

He then went on to point out that Booker had brought up the recent Virginia Beach shooting in a speech, which prompted him to ask about his proposed gun control laws.

“Booker changed his speech in CA to talk about the Virginia Beach shootings and the need for more gun laws,” Tapper said. “Asking what laws would have prevented/mitigated the specific tragedy he wanted to discuss was a natural question and a sincere one too. Have a great Sunday.”

As IJR Red previously reported, Booker and Klobuchar are two of many Democratic candidates who have proposed extreme gun control laws.

What do you think?

17 pledges
Upvote Downvote
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Cap'n HappyFeet
Guest
Cap'n HappyFeet

Booker for Dogcatcher!

Otis
Member

Tapper is the bad-guy for asking a perfectly reasonable question. The true gun control agenda is blatant but don’t the Dumbos think that query might occur during a debate? There will always be guns in this country, both legal and illegal, just like people.

Kelso
Guest
Kelso

While I am a guns rights advocate, I do want tighter legislation for vetting who can get a FOID card and better laws to punish those that violate the laws that sell to gun buyers without a FOID card such as gun shows.

Michael Foster
Member

‪The one law that would reduce needless gun killing and killing is general would be to not allow Democrats and the left to own them! Mass killers are allows from the left and Democrats!‬

Steve
Guest
Steve

Good grief. Those pushing “gun control” as a means of “preventing” or “reducing” crime are SO transparent in their deceit. They are not interested in reducing crime, only in people CONTROL, and the people they want to CONTROL are any that disagree with their anti-freedom agenda. When asked a reasonable question, they become INDIGNANT and OFFENDED that they are expected to provide a thought out, defensible response. HOW DARE YOU ASK SUCH A QUESTION! I’M ADVOCATING SAVING LIVES, REDUCING VIOLENCE, AND MAKING SAFE SPACES FOR EVERYBODY! Such transparent political chicanery and deception.

Erica Fry
Member

It IS a reasonable question. To put restrictions on a right guarenteed by the Constitution, you have to show that there is a clear and present danger to public saftey AND that your law will have a positive impact on that danger.

william jackson
Member

Trying to engage the D-RAT parade of clowns and expect a rational response is foolhardy!

Everett Hamilton
Member

Did Tapper really expect different treatment when he left the plantation groupthink????

Veteran Lawmakers Proudly ‘Carry on’ the Stories of D-Day Soldiers by Recreating the Jump Into Normandy

SCOTUS Refuses to Hear Atheists’ Case to Remove ‘In God We Trust’ From Money — Doesn’t Even Comment on It