Cops Killed Per Year By President

[Theowl32]

Just as Democrats have sympathy for criminals and degenerates, when they get gunned down.

That is why Democrats are so much in favor of gun control—they know damn well that it will mean good guys have fewer guns, and bad guys have more, so that good guys will be gunned down more often, and bad guys gunned down less often.

True, but it goes a little further than that.

Democrats (like Republicans) seek to expand their voting base. One of their main support bases are victims: victims of big pharma, victims of big oil, victims of employers, victims of the rich, everybody is a victim of something.

To expand their base of victims, they simply need more of them.

If Hillary gets into office and appoints a bunch of Commie leftists to the Supreme Court, they can rule that we really don't have a constitutional right to own or carry firearms.

Cities and states can then make guns virtually illegal, and as you already pointed out, only the criminals would have guns.

Nobody can defend themselves against a person with a gun, and that makes us all victims. So how would we then be able to defend ourselves against Big Crime? Bigger government, just like what's needed to fight all those other Big intruders in our life.

Democrats really don't care if we have guns, Democrats care that we don't need them to protect ourselves.

To me, victimology is their only strategy. Study it. That is what ALL of their rhetoric is.

It is all dividing and conquering.

That is all they know.

The ubiquitous "they".

Why don't you try starting your statements with proper nouns rather than pronouns?

Why don't you take your half baked hippy left wing bullshit and jam it high and deep into your ass.

 

[yiostheoy]

so you were saying, Donald?

Partisan hacks being partisan hacks, who'd a thunk. Try using the same numbers and same time frame used in the speech, then prove it wrong. WAPO can't do that because he was using their numbers. I don't like dump one bit, I like regressive liars even less.

As usual -- the fighting between USMB gangs begins without ANY attention on what a Twitter "fact" actually means. OR if it real. OR if there aren't MORE important facts like..

2016

Line of Duty Deaths: 68
9/11 related illness: 1
Aircraft accident: 1
Animal related: 1
Assault: 2
Automobile accident: 9
Drowned: 1
Gunfire: 31
Gunfire (Accidental): 1
Heart attack: 4
Motorcycle accident: 3
Struck by vehicle: 2
Vehicle pursuit: 3
Vehicular assault: 9

By Month
January: 5
February: 10
March: 16
April: 2
May: 7
June: 10
July: 18

SOOOO.. What do you conclude? Wanna count deaths from Animals? Heart Attacks? How come if Obama's "score" is 62 -- That there have been 68 already this year and it's only ******* July?

And that was just the FIRST link I pulled up to try and understand this Twit nonsense. Wanna bet the numbers are fudged in some half lying way? Jillian HATES liars. Would she get appalled if won the bet?

From what I understand, WAPO use numbers from Jul 2015 to Jul 2016 compared to the same period a year earlier. So to relevant you'd have to use the same period.

Then -- those partial year tallies are not as statistically valid as "averages" over longer periods of time. That's just the reality of statistics.

Just as comparing your risk of dying from lightning to being killed by a terrorist is a stupid and meaningless comparison -- a lot of nuance is missed by tossing THESE numbers around.

What matters is the motivation and inspiration for the killings. Like the guy running out into the street after Baltimore and shooting a police officer sitting in his car at a traffic light. THAT is the inspired killing that shouldn't be happening.

Exactly !

Some years seem to be worse while other years seem to be better as far as crime stats go.

Where I live, murders have doubled.

Property crime has skyrocketed.

Rapes here have decreased.

I guess the ladies are just getting older and uglier then ? Something is causing it to go down.

Rape is the only crime that locally has been going down here.

 

[yiostheoy]

Just as Democrats have sympathy for criminals and degenerates, when they get gunned down.

That is why Democrats are so much in favor of gun control—they know damn well that it will mean good guys have fewer guns, and bad guys have more, so that good guys will be gunned down more often, and bad guys gunned down less often.

True, but it goes a little further than that.

Democrats (like Republicans) seek to expand their voting base. One of their main support bases are victims: victims of big pharma, victims of big oil, victims of employers, victims of the rich, everybody is a victim of something.

To expand their base of victims, they simply need more of them.

If Hillary gets into office and appoints a bunch of Commie leftists to the Supreme Court, they can rule that we really don't have a constitutional right to own or carry firearms.

Cities and states can then make guns virtually illegal, and as you already pointed out, only the criminals would have guns.

Nobody can defend themselves against a person with a gun, and that makes us all victims. So how would we then be able to defend ourselves against Big Crime? Bigger government, just like what's needed to fight all those other Big intruders in our life.

Democrats really don't care if we have guns, Democrats care that we don't need them to protect ourselves.

To me, victimology is their only strategy. Study it. That is what ALL of their rhetoric is.

It is all dividing and conquering.

That is all they know.

The ubiquitous "they".

Why don't you try starting your statements with proper nouns rather than pronouns?

Why don't you take your half baked hippy left wing bullshit, and jam it high and deep into your ass.

I thought owls were supposed to be smart ?!

Not smart mouthed !?

 

[yiostheoy]

Just as Democrats have sympathy for criminals and degenerates, when they get gunned down.

That is why Democrats are so much in favor of gun control—they know damn well that it will mean good guys have fewer guns, and bad guys have more, so that good guys will be gunned down more often, and bad guys gunned down less often.

True, but it goes a little further than that.

Democrats (like Republicans) seek to expand their voting base. One of their main support bases are victims: victims of big pharma, victims of big oil, victims of employers, victims of the rich, everybody is a victim of something.

To expand their base of victims, they simply need more of them.

If Hillary gets into office and appoints a bunch of Commie leftists to the Supreme Court, they can rule that we really don't have a constitutional right to own or carry firearms.

Cities and states can then make guns virtually illegal, and as you already pointed out, only the criminals would have guns.

Nobody can defend themselves against a person with a gun, and that makes us all victims. So how would we then be able to defend ourselves against Big Crime? Bigger government, just like what's needed to fight all those other Big intruders in our life.

Democrats really don't care if we have guns, Democrats care that we don't need them to protect ourselves.

To me, victimology is their only strategy. Study it. That is what ALL of their rhetoric is.

It is all dividing and conquering.

That is all they know.

The ubiquitous "they".

Why don't you try starting your statements with proper nouns rather than pronouns?

Why don't you take your half baked hippy left wing bullshit, and jam it high and deep into your ass.

So your grammar and syntax really suck and that is somehow related to the hippies?

And you infer that I am a hippy too?

Are you looking for a dope buy then?

Is that why you are ass-u-me-ing so much?

 

[yiostheoy]

so you were saying, Donald?

Why do you liberals insist on justifying the thirteen murdered cops since Ferguson? Does this in anyway make you feel better?

The owl thanks you.

The rest of us are still waiting for a link to a citation.

 

[kaz]

so you were saying, Donald?

Here's another stat. The number of groups who advocating killing cops who were praised by the President and invited to the White House:

Reagan 0
HW 0
Clinton 0
W 0
Obama 1

 

[yiostheoy]

so you were saying, Donald?

Here's another stat. The number of groups who advocating killing cops who were praised by the President and invited to the White House:

Reagan 0
HW 0
Clinton 0
W 0
Obama 1

Is this English?

 

[WillowTree]

so you were saying, Donald?

Here's another stat. The number of groups who advocating killing cops who were praised by the President and invited to the White House:

Reagan 0
HW 0
Clinton 0
W 0
Obama 1

That should read Obama two. Obama has had BLM and Al Sharpton to the WH.

 

[PredFan]

so you were saying, Donald?

Meaningless. 0bama has the blood of cops on his hands, the cops know that, everyone who is paying attention knows that.

 

[kaz]

so you were saying, Donald?

Here's another stat. The number of groups who advocating killing cops who were praised by the President and invited to the White House:

Reagan 0
HW 0
Clinton 0
W 0
Obama 1

Is this English?

Yes, you understanding my post fine.

You must be pretty desperate to provide content to look for typos in posts. I'll try harder to spend more time editing posts for you. Not really, just throwing you a bone

 

[PredFan]

It means Reagan started the downward trend and Obama's going to reverse it with his support of thugs.

68 so far this year.

2016

Using your source here are the deaths from 1981-1989

81:203
82:196
83:194
84:186
85:179
86:181
87:195
88:195
89:197

Why are you conflating the OP which is referencing murders and you referencing overall Police deaths and pretending they are the same thing while having not a ******* clue what you are talking about?

Simply because the OP used a snap of a printout with no link.

Don't be such a hack. Shootings of cops is up 82%. On the same link, just look for it.

And you didn't bother to look into it? So, you decided the best course of action was to conflate those numbers with something else all together?

For comparison here are Obama's numbers of total police officer deaths (most likely completely out of the President's hands):

2009-2016

2009:140
2010:177
2011:180
2012:139
2013:123
2014:145
2015:130
2016 YTD:68

Lower than Reagan.

Again, meaningless. Obama supports and encourages those who do the killings. He has the blood of cops on his hands. No other POTUS has done that.

 

[kaz]

so you were saying, Donald?

Here's another stat. The number of groups who advocating killing cops who were praised by the President and invited to the White House:

Reagan 0
HW 0
Clinton 0
W 0
Obama 1

That should read Obama two. Obama has had BLM and Al Sharpton to the WH.

I didn't realize he'd actually advocated killing cops, but I Googled it and you're right, he has.

Obama is up 2-0 over all the other contenders for praising and who inviting to the white house groups who advocate killing cops

 

[jillian]

Donald is just using the riots and the highway blocking these past few years for political points.

of course.

Really?

I've not been under the impression that the Black Lies Matter bunch were on Mr. Trump's side.

So really, all this violence, all this destruction, all this other trouble that these feral subhuman are perpetrating; they're doing it to support Mr. Trump?

No, Racist. Trump is exploiting these recent tragedies for his own purpose and perpetuating the false reality that crime is up.

Since crime has steadily gone down why do we need more firearms laws? Pray tell?

Because mass shootings have gone up

 

[jillian]

It means Reagan started the downward trend and Obama's going to reverse it with his support of thugs.

68 so far this year.

2016

Using your source here are the deaths from 1981-1989

81:203
82:196
83:194
84:186
85:179
86:181
87:195
88:195
89:197

Why are you conflating the OP which is referencing murders and you referencing overall Police deaths and pretending they are the same thing while having not a ******* clue what you are talking about?

Simply because the OP used a snap of a printout with no link.

Don't be such a hack. Shootings of cops is up 82%. On the same link, just look for it.

And you didn't bother to look into it? So, you decided the best course of action was to conflate those numbers with something else all together?

For comparison here are Obama's numbers of total police officer deaths (most likely completely out of the President's hands):

2009-2016

2009:140
2010:177
2011:180
2012:139
2013:123
2014:145
2015:130
2016 YTD:68

Lower than Reagan.

Again, meaningless. Obama supports and encourages those who do the killings. He has the blood of cops on his hands. No other POTUS has done that.

That is hallucinatory and that type of garbage just keeps us from actual resolution of issues.

 

[yiostheoy]

so you were saying, Donald?

Here's another stat. The number of groups who advocating killing cops who were praised by the President and invited to the White House:

Reagan 0
HW 0
Clinton 0
W 0
Obama 1

Is this English?

Yes, you understanding my post fine.

You must be pretty desperate to provide content to look for typos in posts. I'll try harder to spend more time editing posts for you. Not really, just throwing you a bone

Bad grammar and syntax show that you have a crappy education and therefore probably cannot think straight either.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The world is burning! Oh and you can't believe facts, only Trump!

 

[jillian]

so you were saying, Donald?

Here's another stat. The number of groups who advocating killing cops who were praised by the President and invited to the White House:

Reagan 0
HW 0
Clinton 0
W 0
Obama 1

That should read Obama two. Obama has had BLM and Al Sharpton to the WH.

No

 

[jillian]

so you were saying, Donald?

Here's another stat. The number of groups who advocating killing cops who were praised by the President and invited to the White House:

Reagan 0
HW 0
Clinton 0
W 0
Obama 1

No one was praised for killing cops. Are you a compulsive liar?

 

[WillowTree]

He's an honored guest in the WH. So.........you were saying?

 

[Wyatt earp]

so you were saying, Donald?

Here's another stat. The number of groups who advocating killing cops who were praised by the President and invited to the White House:

Reagan 0
HW 0
Clinton 0
W 0
Obama 1

Is this English?

Yes, you understanding my post fine.

You must be pretty desperate to provide content to look for typos in posts. I'll try harder to spend more time editing posts for you. Not really, just throwing you a bone

Bad grammar and syntax show that you have a crappy education and therefore probably cannot think straight either.

Being the spelling and grammar police on an anonymous message board with out responding with a thought out retort

Just means


You are an ignorant dumb kunt