Obama being a dumbass again

[Hoofbite]

The facts shoot holes in Obama's claim that US is only host to mass killings | Fox News

In the November attacks, 129 people were killed and 352 were injured. In just 2015, France suffered more casualties – killings and injuries – from mass public shootings than the U.S. has suffered during Obama’s entire presidency (508 to 424). This number includes the San Bernandino massacre on Wednesday.

It happens in other counties, just not with the regularity that it happens in the US. When they do happen in other counties they've been pretty massive. It's like a reversal of terrorists attacks across counties. There are a number of countries who have suffered a greater number of terrorists attacks than the US, but who have also lost a fewer number of lives than the US has since the year 2000.

Doesn't mean the US has a greater number of terrorists attacks. Got a couple of them and 1 of them was pretty fucking huge.

Shit's far too common and I don't know why anyone would try to deny it. How many have we had this year alone? Nutjob at the black church, crazy news guy, dude up in Oregon, weirdo in colorado, and now this guy in California. That's like 5 in the past 6 months.

When people talk about it happening the US, it's mostly regarding the frequency. The article tried to address that but I don't know if the author knows what the word means.

In terms of the frequency of attacks, the United States ranks ninth, with 0.09 attacks per million people.

That's not frequency. You need an aspect of time somewhere in there.

I think the whole argument is a waste of time because neither side has any ability to actually address the issue. So long as it's a point of contention, it's a vote caster.

 

[Dodger12]

Shit's far too common and I don't know why anyone would try to deny it. How many have we had this year alone? Nutjob at the black church, crazy news guy, dude up in Oregon, weirdo in colorado, and now this guy in California. That's like 5 in the past 6 months.

Note that you accurately describe the assailants as nutjobs and crazy which I completely agree with, BTW. But I just don't think the answer is to punish me or law abiding citizens for the conduct of others. I'm not crazy about guns but I have a couple and I feel that they give a chance of protecting myself and my family. I'm not going to leave my families well being in the hands of a man who believes that terrorism is work place violence. This government is incapable of protecting the public and all they are trying to do politicize the issue which they do with just about every crisis.

In addition, Europe has some strict gun laws and yet we still have Paris and other similar attacks. I lived in Europe for 4 years and it wasn't uncommon for crimes to be committed with AK-47's that were not "legally" obtained in the country where those crimes occurred. The public and the police were at a huge disadvantage and were at the mercy of criminals.

I also find it funny that the President gets on TV right after the San Bernadino tragedy and politicizes the crime while completely disregarding what happened in Paris just a couple of weeks ago that completely contradicts his argument. Not everyone is as stupid as his voting base.

That's not frequency. You need an aspect of time somewhere in there.

We have 300 million people in the US. That has to be taken into account when considering how often these things occur. The size of a city is factored when considering the crime rate (ie: homicides), There may be less murders in Camden, New Jersey or Baltimore than other cities but when you factor in the population of those cities that gives you a more accurate interpretation of just how dangerous those cities are. But then I think you already know that.

 

[dbair1967]

The facts shoot holes in Obama's claim that US is only host to mass killings | Fox News

In the November attacks, 129 people were killed and 352 were injured. In just 2015, France suffered more casualties – killings and injuries – from mass public shootings than the U.S. has suffered during Obama’s entire presidency (508 to 424). This number includes the San Bernandino massacre on Wednesday.

I posted the entire article in a separate thread. It seems like he author did quite a bit of research on this.

 

[dbair1967]

View attachment 3190

Yep

 

[Scot]

Someone asked what the death rate is per capita. Someone pulled this screenshot off the evening news

 

[peplaw06]

You seem to come out in support of quite a few "liberal" or "progressive" subjects.

Yes, cause I think for myself and don't let the Republican party, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh tell me how I should feel about a particular subject.

People like you fall right into the partisan trap. They want you to think along party lines. It's much easier to have two political parties control the direction of the country when everyone who doesn't agree with all the Republican talking points is a dirty libtard, and vice versa.

Dude you argue everything, I suspect that comes from your chosen profession.

And I posted an article from someone in another thread that disputes some of the "more control= less mass shootings" stuff, the author had what seemed to be some pretty well researched info. That said, even if it WERE true (and I really am not sure it is, am definitely skeptical) what are those same countries punishments for those crimes? My guess is many (if not all) have much harsher, much quicker decisions on punishment for said crimes, which I think would deter people from committing such acts far more than "gun control". We are far too soft and the punishment takes far too long to really deter most from carrying out these crimes. Most know they can say they were crazy for 15-30 seconds of their life and get off with little or no real punishment. Even those convicted and sentenced get light punishments or early paroles far too often.

I don't think the timing of having punishment meted out comes into this much at all anymore. Most of these shooters off themselves at the end, or commit suicide by cop. It's like they accept they're going to get put to death when they begin planning.

I wonder what the research would show on crimes committed with "legally" purchased firearms vs crimes committed with guns bought on the black market. Especially when it comes to high powered automatic weapons.

I don't think any type of imposed background checks is going to be very effective. How do you enforce laws against private sales? If sellers advertise on facebook and meet the buyer in a parking lot, there's no tracking that.... I don't know if you consider that a "black market." I generally consider black market as something that's ilegal to sell or illegal to own. Most firearms aren't illegal to sell or own.

Maybe you could do some type of biometric/fingerprinting identification of the gun owner before the firearm can be operated? Require a private purchaser to have to get the gun adjusted so they could use it.

 

[peplaw06]

That's not frequency. You need an aspect of time somewhere in there.

A story came out after this San Bernardino thing that we've had more "mass shootings" so far this year than days. They defined "mass shooting" as an incident where 4 or more people were killed or injured by gunfire, including the gunman.

That's what all these "stats" come down to... context. Anyone can throw up a chart with stats that support their position. You have to go beyond the headline for the stat to become useful.

 

[peplaw06]

Someone asked what the death rate is per capita. Someone pulled this screenshot off the evening news
View attachment 3193

Norway's numbers are skewed by one mass shooting/domestic terrorist attack where 100 people were killed or injured. Also, some of these countries aren't considered "advanced" by mose analysts.

Again, here's the chart and link that I posted from the first page of this thread...

They don't happen in other advanced countries at near the rate that we see them here in the US.

View attachment 3087

This chart was created using numbers from 2000-2014. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/

You see the per capita rates in the US are #4 for deaths and injuries. But the number of incidents in the US is 578% higher than the other 10 countries examined COMBINED. Norway, Switzerland and Finland's per capita numbers that are higher than ours, but that's over only 4 incidents with huge casualty/injury numbers.

 

[dbair1967]

Yes, cause I think for myself and don't let the Republican party, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh tell me how I should feel about a particular subject.

Glad you mentioned that. I don't either. In fact I rarely (if ever) listen to Glenn Beck or Limbaugh, and few people are as mad at the Republican Party as I am. I'm not even a registered R.

People like you fall right into the partisan trap. They want you to think along party lines. It's much easier to have two political parties control the direction of the country when everyone who doesn't agree with all the Republican talking points is a dirty libtard, and vice versa.

Except I don't, I form my own opinions.

As for the libtard comments, the fact is the Democratic party has moved to the extreme left. Hell you having a fucking confessed socialist legitimately running for President. There are very few "moderate" democrats anymore.

I don't think the timing of having punishment meted out comes into this much at all anymore. Most of these shooters off themselves at the end, or commit suicide by cop. It's like they accept they're going to get put to death when they begin planning.

That's total horseshit and you know it.

Maybe you could do some type of biometric/fingerprinting identification of the gun owner before the firearm can be operated? Require a private purchaser to have to get the gun adjusted so they could use it.

OK, but it still wont solve the problem of hardcore criminals or extremely evil people (like this radical Muslims) from acquiring weapons.

This is why just about every gun control proposal that comes out, I oppose. If you cant eliminate bad people from getting them, then what good is done? As someone else mentioned, all you've done is make it harder for law abiding people to get weapons.

 

[dbair1967]

Norway's numbers are skewed by one mass shooting/domestic terrorist attack where 100 people were killed or injured. Also, some of these countries aren't considered "advanced" by mose analysts.

Again, here's the chart and link that I posted from the first page of this thread...

Yeah, and we found a story that sorta disputes that

 

[peplaw06]

Glad you mentioned that. I don't either. In fact I rarely (if ever) listen to Glenn Beck or Limbaugh, and few people are as mad at the Republican Party as I am. I'm not even a registered R.

OK, FoxNews, Sean Hannity, and Drudge. Whatever right wing outlet you listen to, there's no doubting you fall lock step in with the right wing agenda.

Except I don't, I form my own opinions.

Bullshit.

That's total horseshit and you know it.

You're saying people carry out mass shootings here more often because the punishment is more lax and takes longer to dole out, right? So how do you explain the fact that most of the perpetrators kill themselves during the incident? If the punishment were longer away, and that was part of their thought process to do it or not do it, why wouldn't they just get on the ground and let law enforcement arrest them, then spend the next few years getting three squares, cable, and gym access?

OK, but it still wont solve the problem of hardcore criminals or extremely evil people (like this radical Muslims) from acquiring weapons.

How do you know what will and won't solve the problem until you try it? And how do you define "solve?" If you're just going to shoot down every idea because there might still be one shooting incident somewhere in the future, then you've just got a built in excuse for laziness.

This is why just about every gun control proposal that comes out, I oppose. If you cant eliminate bad people from getting them, then what good is done? As someone else mentioned, all you've done is make it harder for law abiding people to get weapons.

Laws aren't judged as successes based solely on elimination of the crime. Generally, certain acts become crimes so that society will see a decrease in said crime. Murder is illegal, but it still happens. If your logic held, then murder should be legalized... I mean we haven't eliminated it, what's the point? All we've done is make law abiding citizens harder to murder people who might do harm to them.

 

[peplaw06]

Yeah, and we found a story that sorta disputes that

I don't think your article disputes the chart at all.

 

[Hoofbite]

Yes, cause I think for myself and don't let the Republican party, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh tell me how I should feel about a particular subject.

People like you fall right into the partisan trap. They want you to think along party lines. It's much easier to have two political parties control the direction of the country when everyone who doesn't agree with all the Republican talking points is a dirty libtard, and vice versa.

I don't think the timing of having punishment meted out comes into this much at all anymore. Most of these shooters off themselves at the end, or commit suicide by cop. It's like they accept they're going to get put to death when they begin planning.

I don't think any type of imposed background checks is going to be very effective. How do you enforce laws against private sales? If sellers advertise on facebook and meet the buyer in a parking lot, there's no tracking that.... I don't know if you consider that a "black market." I generally consider black market as something that's ilegal to sell or illegal to own. Most firearms aren't illegal to sell or own.

Maybe you could do some type of biometric/fingerprinting identification of the gun owner before the firearm can be operated? Require a private purchaser to have to get the gun adjusted so they could use it.

And this is why arming people and having them guard schools or other places won't work. These people don't care if they die. The majority make sure that that they do. I have said it before that if your best laid plans are to prepare for how to react to a certain situation (i.e. having armed security would reduce the death toll..derpity, derp) rather than how to prevent said situation in the first place, then your best laid plans are fucked to begin with. Not to mention, guess which asshole becomes target #1 on the list? So the shooter walks up behind Barney Fife and executes his ass, then what

 

[Hoofbite]

Lets start with keeping them put of the country first.

Great idea! I bet a wall would do the trick!

 

[Hoofbite]

If the goal is to disarm the law abiding citizen the gun laws or and all out ban will work

If it's to deter or stop crimes and or shooting

It will never work

I agree.

But I'd settle for the goal of reducing gun availability to people who are mentally unstable.

Is this a compromise that cannot be reached?

 

[Dodger12]

And this is why arming people and having them guard schools or other places won't work. These people don't care if they die. The majority make sure that that they do. I have said it before that if your best laid plans are to prepare for how to react to a certain situation (i.e. having armed security would reduce the death toll..derpity, derp) rather than how to prevent said situation in the first place, then your best laid plans are fucked to begin with. Not to mention, guess which asshole becomes target #1 on the list? So the shooter walks up behind Barney Fife and executes his ass, then what

I can understand your argument but it's flawed. These folks may or may not care about dying but they certainly care enough to attack "soft" targets, ie: those targets that are not well defended. The attacks that have been successful are those attacks where law enforcement or armed citizens were not present. The initial target of the Paris attacks was the subway but the presence of armed law enforcement led them to the theater.

In addition, deterrence alone will not work. The threat of prison does not deter someone intent on committing a crime. I don't consider deterrence a factor in these situations. I simply want the ability to defend myself and my family when the need arises. That's my right and the right of any American.

And what I also find kind of funny is that we want to do away with Gitmo, water boarding, phone data collection, etc that may give us the actual intel to prevent these types of acts yet the current government is quick to want to take away a constitutional right from it's citizens. This whole argument is grounded in it's hypocrisy.

 

[Dodger12]

And this is why arming people and having them guard schools or other places won't work.

Can you give me one example where a shooter attacked a school with an armed school guard and was successful? Or just a situation here an attack occurred with an armed school guard on scene even it wasn't successful?

I can point to the attempted assault on that conference in Texas where an officer dropped both assailants and no one was injured. You have any?

 

[Dodger12]

Great idea! I bet a wall would do the trick!

You see, you talk about deterrence but offer no solution other than banning guns. You offer nothing but political talking points for the left.

 

[Scot]

I agree.

But I'd settle for the goal of reducing gun availability to people who are mentally unstable.

Is this a compromise that cannot be reached?

Theoretically yes
Realistically no

 

[dbair1967]

OK, FoxNews, Sean Hannity, and Drudge. Whatever right wing outlet you listen to, there's no doubting you fall lock step in with the right wing agenda.

I do watch FoxNews. I do firmly believe they cover "news" more fairly than most other media outlets. I also like FOX and the Fox Business Channel because they have a nice roster of intelligent, hot women. I like Sean Hannity for entertainment value. Drudge does an outstanding job of gathering real news from a variety of sources, so does Breitbart. Maybe you should do your self a favor and start reading some of what they put up.

Bullshit.

Yeah ok, its the same as me as saying you are full of shit and get all your "talking points" and "opinions" straight from Debra Wasserman Shultz or some other extreme leftist idiot.

You're saying people carry out mass shootings here more often because the punishment is more lax and takes longer to dole out, right? So how do you explain the fact that most of the perpetrators kill themselves during the incident? If the punishment were longer away, and that was part of their thought process to do it or not do it, why wouldn't they just get on the ground and let law enforcement arrest them, then spend the next few years getting three squares, cable, and gym access?

You'd have to offer some proof of this instead of doing what Obama does and just crowing it over and over and expecting people to believe it just because you say it. Further, most gun crimes are not mass shootings, what happens to those people? They don't all turn the gun on themselves do they?

How do you know what will and won't solve the problem until you try it? And how do you define "solve?" If you're just going to shoot down every idea because there might still be one shooting incident somewhere in the future, then you've just got a built in excuse for laziness.

How do I know? Watch the fucking TV man. Terrorists do this stuff all over the place. Paris, France has some of the strictest gun control laws on earth, how'd that work out for them this year?

Laws aren't judged as successes based solely on elimination of the crime. Generally, certain acts become crimes so that society will see a decrease in said crime. Murder is illegal, but it still happens. If your logic held, then murder should be legalized... I mean we haven't eliminated it, what's the point? All we've done is make law abiding citizens harder to murder people who might do harm to them.

Now you are being retarded.

If someone comes up with gun control solutions that make sense and will actually impact some of what's going wrong, I'm happy to listen to it. So far I haven't seen any proposal that will eliminate ANY of what's going on.

The one thing I would agree with is that anyone showing any type of mental health issue should not be allowed to buy guns. I'm not sure how they would implement that, but simply asking someone in a questionnaire "are you crazy" is not sufficient. There used to be a system in the life insurance industry where carrier's could check someone past medical history/large claims from medical/past insurance med exam etc etc to verify for accuracy, not sure if that is still used today or not but maybe that or something like that is possible.

The above though will NOT stop or prevent terrorists from getting guns. The organizations they are loyal to will always find ways to get them the training/weapons/money etc etc to carry out their agenda. Obama, Lynch and some other dems floated the idea that their law would ensure nobody on a no fly or watch list could buy a gun, but the people that did the killing in San Bernadino were not on a no fly or watch list.