Obama: Mass shootings are 'something we should politicize'

a reply to: xuenchen

And another connection. Alek Skarlatos, one of the 3 Americans that stopped a terrorist attack in Europe. His home town was Roseburg Oregon, the same town that the shooting just happened. His school also happened to be Umpqua Community College where the shooting took place. Is this a retaliation attack for those 3 stopping the attack in Europe? At the very least these are strange coincidences.

Now that is interesting.

Retaliation?

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: xuenchen

Well, well, well that is a peach of information, what can I say, hell I wonder when Obama is coming into to the news to make another speech.

Common Obama, I want to hear your next speech.

The terrorist connections are the very reason Obama is talking like he is.

It's obvious isn't it.



This meathead was an anti-Christian plain and simple.

originally posted by: ketsuko


Are all these mass shootings authentic ... or all too convenient?

Way too convenient. Has anyone else realised that during this administration these shooting incidents have increased? I don't think this is a coincidence. Too early to say whether this was another CIA set up but it yet again followed the pattern. There's decent evidence to support Sandy Hook being nothing but a farce. And the 'shooting on air' was completely sloppy. If they did perpetrate this one they sure did a better job.

Part I find disturbing is the fact he targeted Christians. Seems like the other part of their agenda.

They're using these incidents to take away rights. It's obvious. The only thing left between Americans and a potentially oppressive government is their right to bear arms, for now. The fact they perpetrate these incidents so they can bleat on about gun control using these incidents as 'evidence' that nobody can be trusted w a weapon is disturbing.

I'd be interested to see the data on mass shootings under Obama vs all the others. I get a feeling they have strangely increased in frequency.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: xuenchen

Well, well, well that is a peach of information, what can I say, hell I wonder when Obama is coming into to the news to make another speech.

Common Obama, I want to hear your next speech.

The terrorist connections are the very reason Obama is talking like he is.

It's obvious isn't it.

This meathead was an anti-Christian plain and simple.

Makes sense on why he poured gasoline on a fire.

originally posted by: Redlisted
I'd be interested to see the data on mass shootings under Obama vs all the others. I get a feeling they have strangely increased in frequency.

Thi s FBI report from September of 2014 gives the historical data on number of mass shootings during the period of 2000 to 2013. They have indeed increased. You can see that in thi s chart. You can also see the number of victims in this chart. (And a note added in editing: apparently ATS' board software doesn't like the word 'this' in a link title; its spelled correctly, but coming out with a space. Sigh...)

Just as a side note, I found this data after some very quick research into the claims of many hundreds of mass shootings yearly in this country (I know that's not the poster's fault; its coming from a website using an arbitrary definition of the term and being repeated everywhere). As it turns out, I was right to be skeptical. Its still too many, obviously, but the actual average for the entire time span was 11.4, and for the four year period from 2010 to 2013, there were a total of 74, or 18.5 per year.

a reply to: vor78

As another side note.

They don't figure in population increases.

Like 50+million MORE Americans living here.

They also don't figure in cities where gun regulation is the strictest.

More ....

We now know that Chris Harper-Mercer, the man who shot 19 people at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, killing 9, asked each of his victims-to-be in turn “Are you Christian?” The nine who answered affirmatively received a fatal bullet to the head. The ten who did not were wounded in the leg.

Suppose that the shibboleth Harper-Mercer had used was instead the question “Are you Muslim?” How would the response from the media have differed? Better yet, how would Barack Obama have reacted?

Imagine if the Oregon shooter had asked his victims-to-be, ‘Are you Muslim?’

And I bet the local authorities had orders from the Administration "behind the scenes Ministers" to suggest not mentioning the guy's name.

As if he really cares right now.

originally posted by: neo96

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I Am so glad you brought up Reagan.

“You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time… It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience.”

“Our nation was built and civilized by men and women who used guns in self-defense and in pursuit of peace. One wonders indeed, if the rising crime rate, isn’t due as much as anything to the criminal’s instinctive knowledge that the average victim no longer has means of self-protection.”

“There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism — government.”

www.theacru.org...

a reply to: neo96

And we could dance back and forth on the subject. It seems he said quite a few things to contradict himself, you just proved that. He seemed to say lots of things, but his voting record and the legislation he supported seems to say otherwise:

a reply to: MystikMushroom

So what good has all the laws and words of Reagan done?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

And we could dance back and forth on the subject. It seems he said quite a few things to contradict himself, you just proved that.

Oh YEAH Reagan flip flopped all over the place on gun 'rights'.

Can't argue that.

Still doesn't make gun control 'right'.

Even the SCOTUS agreed.

In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds. The Court determined that this provision violated both the concept of federalism and that of the unitary executive

Even though that was declared UNCONSITUTIONAL. It still gets 'upheld'.

en.wikipedia.org...

This whole thing is some sick joke.

And well we are talking about someone from the People's Republic of California.

I am going to be as real as possible here. There are 25,000 gun laws on the books and not one helps there is not one that will prevent people from taking these actions in the works. Simple, you know how easy it is to make a call and get some pot? Same thing for an illegal gun if you can't go the legal route on a gun purchase.

Now if we all want to be truthful and admit that laws (even gun, do not prevent anything , they simply state a punishment after the fact..that's any law) then what we would be talking about is confiscation of some 300 million non military guns in the US. How will that happen? Mass death due to what anti gunners hate....gun violence.

So really, I get tired of the emotional arguments on guns, they are going nowhere, you want to help? Stop thinking laws that won't help, and confiscation that won't happen. Start thinking about anti a hole behavior instead. I can't help what some idiot does with a gun except be prepared to return fire. Be realistic when it comes to solutions is all I'm saying

originally posted by: neformore

I can cite you billions of examples every day where people with access to flammable materials don't set fires that kill people.

Not that it would be relevant to this issue.

Do people get saved by having firearms? In some cases - Yes.

Some cases?... I can cite you statistics that show millions of Americans have been saved by the use of a firearm, and it wasn't always by shooting. in many cases simply showing the weapon stopped and deterred assailants from continuing their crime/assault.

Estimates of frequency

Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary, depending on the study's population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Higher end estimates by Kleck and Gertz show between 1 to 2.5 million DGUs in the United States each year.[1]:64–65[2][3] Low end estimates cited by Hemenway show approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year.[4][5] Middle estimates have estimated approximately 1 million DGU incidents in the United States.[1]:65[6] The basis for the studies, the National Self-Defense Survey and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), vary in their methods, time-frames covered, and questions asked.[7] DGU questions were asked of all the NSDS sample.[3] Due to screening questions in the NCVS survey, only a minority of the NCVS sample were asked a DGU question.[8] Besides the NSDS and NCVS surveys, ten national and three state surveys summarized by Kleck and Gertz gave 764 thousand to 3.6 million DGU per year.[3] Hemenway contends the Kleck and Gertz study is unreliable and no conclusions can be drawn from it.[4] He argues that there are too many "false positives" in the surveys, and finds the NCVS figures more reliable, yielding estimates of around 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Applying different adjustments, other social scientists suggest that between 250,000 and 370,000 incidences per year.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

Notice that I showed what all the references to studies done in "defensive gun use" (DGU) say. Even that of David Hemenway who happens to be a proponent of gun control.

Hemenway has claimed that researchers reached a consensus that gun control is necessary. (doesn't that sound familiar?...) But he failed to mention that another survey conducted by professor Gary Mauser of Canada's Simon Fraser University found the exact opposite.

...
Mauser surveyed 53 economists who published in the area over the last 15 years. Among the questions: an overwhelming number — 83 percent — noted guns are more likely to be used in self-defense than in crime. Further, 74 percent said concealed handgun laws reduce murder rates and 69 percent said guns in the home don’t cause more suicides. Also, 83 percent said gun-free zones attract criminals.
...

crimeresearch.org...

I have read claims from anti-gun websites claiming that crime is not as bad now as it was back in the 80s or 90s... Are you freaking serious?... Crimes have gotten worse, and more frequent, not the contrary which is what the anti-gun camp wants to claim.

originally posted by: neformore
Does that address this issue?

No.

The reason why that isn't discussed is that its not relevant to the fact that it is, apparently, easy for mentally ill or disturbed individuals with a history of violence to get guns
...

You don't even want to understand that the underlying problem is not gun ownership or the Second Amendment. You don't want to understand that even if all guns were banned tomorrow, there would still be about the same amount of murders and deranged killers out there...

Banning guns is not going to stop the real culprit of these atrocities.

If anyone is childish clinging to their false ideals it is those like you who simply want to heavily restrict, and even ban firearms.

If firearms were the problem there wouldn't be over 4,000 murders with other weapons, and no weapons each year.

Most of those deranged lunatics who murdered innocents like what happened in Oregon "planned the whole thing"... If they were not able to get their hands on firearms they would have used other means. Would you have preferred if that lunatic had locked all doors at the college and then burned alive the people inside?...

Your solution, and that of other anti-gunners will simply take guns away from responsible people. You would leave millions of people defenseless because of your anti-gun agenda.

The underlying issue here is mental health, not guns... However, we also have to be careful with what sort of plans are implemented to define who is mentally unstable. You know why? Because we have right now an administration which has released government documents stating that being conservative, Republican, or simply being pro-Constitutional is a sign of "extremism"...

...
Thompson added, “Janet Napolitano is lying to the American people when she says the Report is not based on ideology or political beliefs. In fact, her report would have the admiration of any current or past dictator in the way it targets political opponents.”

The Report specifically mentions the following political beliefs that law enforcement should use to determine whether someone is a “rightwing extremist”:

· Opposes restrictions on firearms

· Opposes lax immigration

· Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the expansion of social programs

· Opposes continuation of free trade agreements

· Opposes same-sex marriage

· Has paranoia of foreign regimes

· Fear of Communist regimes

· Opposes one world government

· Bemoans the decline of U.S. stature in the world.

· Upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India

· . . . and the list goes on

The Law Center is asking the court to declare that the DHS policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments, to permanently enjoin the Policy and its application to the plaintiffs’ speech and other activities, and to award the plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for having to bring the lawsuit.
...

www.thomasmore.org...

This same administration would be the one to define who will be considered as a risk and unable to own a firearm, and the first thing they will do is label everyone who disagrees with you on the second amendment as "unstable and unable to cope in a modern, progressive society".

You can't see it because you are too blind to anything else and all you want to do is cling to your views that "guns are bad and must be banned".

a reply to: MystikMushroom

So he was anti gun, right? and the irony his administration will be know for the Iran-Contra Affair, what that tells you.

Hypocrites that is what they are.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
I have read claims from anti-gun websites claiming that crime is not as bad now as it was back in the 80s or 90s... Are you freaking serious?... Crimes have gotten worse, and more frequent, not the contrary which is what the anti-gun camp wants to claim.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point. The crime data shows a significant across-the-board decline in violent crime, including homicides, over the last 25 years. Here's a document from the FBI with those numbers.

a reply to: vor78

Is not the crimes what has gotten worst, they have been around all this time, is the media propaganda and sensationalism that has gotten worst, or people forget the racial tensions due to the prime media circus with the shootings by police.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: MystikMushroom

So he was anti gun, right? and the irony his administration will be know for the Iran-Contra Affair, what that tells you.

Hypocrites that is what they are.

I have no idea about his time in California, but in fairness to Reagan, that bill passed on a 79-15 Senate vote. A veto wouldn't have prevented its passage. Further, and more importantly, it was loaded with a number of provisions that the NRA had been pushing for, including the ban on creation of a federal firearms registry (the law itself is named the Firearms Owner's Protection Act, or FOPA). The machine gun ban, called the Hughes Amendment, was added late by the Democrats as an attempted 'poison pill' and there's a degree of controversy as to whether it happened legally in the House. I have no idea of the political machinations that led to it ultimately being passed, but the law seems to have been billed as a compromise at the time.

a reply to: marg6043

I think you're absolutely right about that, and the modern 24/7 news cycle plus the internet age provides a constant avenue for that to happen. It likely doesn't help, either, because most of these idiots want notoriety for their acts, and the media gives them plenty of it.