RpRThis brings it all home rather graphically –
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence
Oh yes that brings home how incompetent our president is: “We have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world,” Barack Obama said on Wednesday.
He said that in France right their mass killing.
Even some liberals in the U.S. said that was one of the most stupid comments he ever made.
Here is an article on that statement from a comparatively independent site:
The female killer had pledged her obedience to ISIS, the same group Obama bragged was contained, of course he also said that ISIS was junior varsity level compared to other more serious problems.
Today’s newspaper, here, had a cartoon where Obama’s B-52 strike on ISIS was dropping CFL light bulbs.
I Just found out that today, after the investigators had – thoroughly finished – the public press was allowed to rummage through the home of killer.
Among items found by one reporter who was among those rummaging through the house, was numerous bank statements.
As the killers had been armed with items that cost over ten thousand dollars, he said it was moronic that those statement were not among the items the investigators had removed.
One of the Obama’s lead talking heads also said that she is now, most concerned about, is the backlash the Muslim community may face.
RpRMeanwhile – needs no words from me
[ATTACH=CONFIG]242338[/ATTACH]
OH gee a graph, wow!
Hmmm how accurate are the “facts” they are supposedly using etc. etc., etc.
Congressional research back in 2009 says there were 310 million guns legally owned in the U.S. and our population was 306 million in 2009.
The graph show nothing.
RpRMeanwhile – needs no words from me
[ATTACH=CONFIG]242338[/ATTACH]
OH gee a graph, wow!
Hmmm how accurate are the “facts” they are supposedly using etc. etc., etc.
Congressional research back in 2009 says there were 310 million guns legally owned in the U.S. and our population was 306 million in 2009.
The graph show nothing.
RpRYes, looks like America is going to need even more guns.
Moggy
Of the two shooters killed in the suv, one was a man and one was a woman.
It seems some chick watched all shows with macho chicks and took it seriously.
RpRYes, looks like America is going to need even more guns.
Moggy
Of the two shooters killed in the suv, one was a man and one was a woman.
It seems some chick watched all shows with macho chicks and took it seriously.
RpRAre you sure about that ? How do they service and maintain their specialized vehicles ? How do they obtain spares ? I agree, dismantling the leadership IS important but, how do you deal with a leadership that is fragmented and dispersed to take account of dislocation caused by bombing ?
I believe, as the principal mover and shaker, that the US have been bombing for about the last 14 months. To what end ? ISIS are still a coherent force.
U.S. bombing has been half-hearted at best.
Incomplete missions still go on the news as a sortie.
If ANY possible collateral damage to civilians may happen, the planes return with ordnance.
These pathetic rules of engagement is why ISIS has not suffered much from U.S. air attacks.
ISIS is fully aware of this as Obama broadcast anything he will or will not do.
RpRAre you sure about that ? How do they service and maintain their specialized vehicles ? How do they obtain spares ? I agree, dismantling the leadership IS important but, how do you deal with a leadership that is fragmented and dispersed to take account of dislocation caused by bombing ?
I believe, as the principal mover and shaker, that the US have been bombing for about the last 14 months. To what end ? ISIS are still a coherent force.
U.S. bombing has been half-hearted at best.
Incomplete missions still go on the news as a sortie.
If ANY possible collateral damage to civilians may happen, the planes return with ordnance.
These pathetic rules of engagement is why ISIS has not suffered much from U.S. air attacks.
ISIS is fully aware of this as Obama broadcast anything he will or will not do.
RpRGlad to see that you aknowledge that pro-gun statistics can be and are heavily skewed
No I said that this site is a bit over the top and to view their mode of interpretation with a grain of salt.
RpRGlad to see that you aknowledge that pro-gun statistics can be and are heavily skewed
No I said that this site is a bit over the top and to view their mode of interpretation with a grain of salt.
RpRBeen looking at some of the ‘facts’ on that ‘americangunfacts.com’ site and it is clear that some of the statistics have been badly skewed to make it appear that the United Kingdom, a country where handguns are prohibited and where gun-ownership is extremely low, is a country with a higher ‘violent crime’ rate than the United States.
For starters the figure quoted by each gun symbol, 31,672, is presumably the number of people killed by guns in the United States in a given year? (Which year?) If there were eighty times this number of incidences of people using guns to ‘protect a life’ then logically there must have been at least that number of incidences where a life was endangered, and presumably this endangerment was a crime, so let’s call this a ‘violent crime’ shall we…
…so, 31,672 multiplied by eighty makes 2,533,769 incidences of ‘violent crime’!
‘Violent crimes’ so bad that somebody had to pull a gun to protect themselves. That makes 792 ‘violent crimes’ per 100,000 head of population; yet, apparently, the same site quotes only 466 ‘violent crimes’ per 100,000 head of population?
And the murder rates for the United Kingdom when compared to the United States don’t look too good either; in the UK in 2013/2014 there were 537 murders, compared to the USA in 2913 there were 14,196 murders. So with a population of only five times that of the UK, the USA has over twenty-six times as many murders!
So are we still willing to accept that the ‘violent crime’ rate per 100,000 head of population is 2,034 for the United Kingdom and yet only 466 for the United States?
Clearly these cannot be like-for-like ‘violent crime’ statistics!
I put that one up as it is as skewed in attitude as the sites from the anti-firearm people.
I would take some of their stats with a grain of salt.:cool:
RpRBeen looking at some of the ‘facts’ on that ‘americangunfacts.com’ site and it is clear that some of the statistics have been badly skewed to make it appear that the United Kingdom, a country where handguns are prohibited and where gun-ownership is extremely low, is a country with a higher ‘violent crime’ rate than the United States.
For starters the figure quoted by each gun symbol, 31,672, is presumably the number of people killed by guns in the United States in a given year? (Which year?) If there were eighty times this number of incidences of people using guns to ‘protect a life’ then logically there must have been at least that number of incidences where a life was endangered, and presumably this endangerment was a crime, so let’s call this a ‘violent crime’ shall we…
…so, 31,672 multiplied by eighty makes 2,533,769 incidences of ‘violent crime’!
‘Violent crimes’ so bad that somebody had to pull a gun to protect themselves. That makes 792 ‘violent crimes’ per 100,000 head of population; yet, apparently, the same site quotes only 466 ‘violent crimes’ per 100,000 head of population?
And the murder rates for the United Kingdom when compared to the United States don’t look too good either; in the UK in 2013/2014 there were 537 murders, compared to the USA in 2913 there were 14,196 murders. So with a population of only five times that of the UK, the USA has over twenty-six times as many murders!
So are we still willing to accept that the ‘violent crime’ rate per 100,000 head of population is 2,034 for the United Kingdom and yet only 466 for the United States?
Clearly these cannot be like-for-like ‘violent crime’ statistics!
I put that one up as it is as skewed in attitude as the sites from the anti-firearm people.
I would take some of their stats with a grain of salt.:cool:
RpRSo what became of all those apparent rulings of yours that claimed massacres were carried out by the mentally ill? — What are you referring to?
Or..are you saying that gun owners are all mentally stable and therefore have a perfect right to carry out these ‘justifiable’ massacres? – – No only you are creating such asinine rhetoric.Statistics supplied by or paid for by organisations who have a vested interest in the results they display are of value only if printed out then given to paper recycling companys. — Then all statistics are worthless, period.
With the wealth generated by gun ownership for the NRA they can hardly claim to be unbiased, wouldn’t you agree? All that money they pay out to make sure that voting goes their way in order to preserve their lifestyle, well, they wouldn’t just lose their firearms if they didn’t fight, would they…;o)
Hmmm, who said the NRA was claiming to not be biased other than you?
The NRA and GOA ( Gun Owners of America), merely put out numbers, from government and other authorities who compile them, to show that the liberal anti-firearm rhetoric is a fallacy.
RpRSo what became of all those apparent rulings of yours that claimed massacres were carried out by the mentally ill? — What are you referring to?
Or..are you saying that gun owners are all mentally stable and therefore have a perfect right to carry out these ‘justifiable’ massacres? – – No only you are creating such asinine rhetoric.Statistics supplied by or paid for by organisations who have a vested interest in the results they display are of value only if printed out then given to paper recycling companys. — Then all statistics are worthless, period.
With the wealth generated by gun ownership for the NRA they can hardly claim to be unbiased, wouldn’t you agree? All that money they pay out to make sure that voting goes their way in order to preserve their lifestyle, well, they wouldn’t just lose their firearms if they didn’t fight, would they…;o)
Hmmm, who said the NRA was claiming to not be biased other than you?
The NRA and GOA ( Gun Owners of America), merely put out numbers, from government and other authorities who compile them, to show that the liberal anti-firearm rhetoric is a fallacy.
RpRRpr
You have taken a selective part of a much longer article.
The most relevant part of the whole article you put a link to :
So not only is it directly from the NRA, it is also 20 years out of date and is simple Right Wing Propaganda.
As you say, the facts speak for themselves.
No it is from Duke. Edu using a NRA copyright.
Fact are facts but here is link from this year.
^^On this one get by the over done glitz and clink on the sources if you wish.^^
Here is one pretty much without an agenda, take what it says as you wish.
RpRRpr
You have taken a selective part of a much longer article.
The most relevant part of the whole article you put a link to :
So not only is it directly from the NRA, it is also 20 years out of date and is simple Right Wing Propaganda.
As you say, the facts speak for themselves.
No it is from Duke. Edu using a NRA copyright.
Fact are facts but here is link from this year.
^^On this one get by the over done glitz and clink on the sources if you wish.^^
Here is one pretty much without an agenda, take what it says as you wish.
Sign In
