Obama's Responses To Multiple Mass Shootings/Killings In The U S

[Kosh]

No wonder he's getting tired of this horse shit!

The number of times Obama has had to respond to mass shootings during his presidency is staggering

Obama's hope and change.

George W. Bush was Gloom and Doom!!

Says the far left drone that voted for "hope and change" and got worse than Bush!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Liberals are the reason security may be lacking at schools. They feel the absence of guns provides a force-field around the students. All it does is provide a soft target for nutcases.

They were the first to try to ban pilots from carrying a weapon. 911 never would have happened if pilots had the means to defend themselves.

There have been plenty of examples of armed people being in the vicinity of mass shootings. Nothing helped. In the latest Colorado incident one of the people killed was an armed cop. So please, don't give me this shit about if everybody was armed things would be different. And anyway, who wants to live in a society where you have armed guards walking the halls of schools. Welcome to Beruit....

I have an entire folder dedicated to stories of armed citizens that did stop attacks and death. Would you like be to post a dozen or two?

Your precious MSM doesn't like to cover stories like that, but there are plenty out there if you look beyond.

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, because trying to stop a bad guy with a gun when nobody is armed is a sure fire recipe for disaster.

 

[Dr Grump]

Maybe.....just maybe, a shooter might be discouraged from selecting a place where there are armed citizens.

But you think people are less safe with citizens armed with guns and a Twinkie, and would opt to just have citizens armed with the Twinkie alone. Brilliant.

You do realise that the US is one off the most armed countries in the western world and yet you still have mass shootings. Even before certain places were made gun-free you had mass shootings. How did that work out for you? The fact you have had mass shootings and more gun deaths per capita than any other country in the western world, and you are already armed to the teeth, suggests that more guns is not the answer.

 

[Dovahkiin]

No wonder he's getting tired of this horse shit!

The number of times Obama has had to respond to mass shootings during his presidency is staggering

Terrible.....just terrible.

Obama is so busy creating more of them. He tried to do it when he first took office back in 2009. Now all of his hard work has resulted in more mass-shootings and the sale of more guns than I can remember. Releasing hundreds of thousands of criminals into our streets, bringing hundreds of thousands of Muslims in to our country with the potential for murder and rape that this country has never seen before. Europe is reeling from scores of rapes that were committed by new arrivals on New Years Eve. 18 by Syrian refugees, and 1 by a refugee from Afghanistan.

Obama isn't tired of this horse shit. He lives for it.

I would love to see some actual evidence demonstrating your claim that "Obama is creating more mass shootings." That is one of the most absurd statements I've seen yet on this forum, but it doesn't surprise me, partisan hackery brings out the worst in people. It should be noted that I am against more gun control, for a variety of reasons, but I support the president. Laughably, it appears gun sales went up due to people actually believing Obama and the democrats are going to come and take their guns from them. It's been, what, 7 years?

Releasing hundreds of thousands of criminals into our streets, bringing hundreds of thousands of Muslims in to our country with the potential for murder and rape that this country has never seen before.

Do you know what kind of criminals he released? Where do you get your "hundreds of thousands" statement? Potential for murder and rape this country has never seen before? Baseless rhetoric.

It was covered in the news...he is pardoning all kinds of federal drug criminals and others.

The claim discussed "hundreds of thousands." Which appears to be HUGELY false.

 

[Dr Grump]

I have an entire folder dedicated to stories of armed citizens that did stop attacks and death. Would you like be to post a dozen or two?

Your precious MSM doesn't like to cover stories like that, but there are plenty out there if you look beyond.

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, because trying to stop a bad guy with a gun when nobody is armed is a sure fire recipe for disaster.

Sure. Post away. I'll post the story from Colorado recently where the mass shooter shot and killed an armed police officer...

Another way is to get rid of guns altogether or put enough restrictions on them and get people licensed so it decreases the likelihood.

 

[Flopper]

I wrote on another thread a few minutes about gang bangers and how they aren't even the point in all this...

ooooh! really, explain..., OK?

Post from other thread....

BS re your second paragraph. Total phooey.

At the end of the day most gun control advocates don't give a shit if gang bangers go around shooting each other. Good luck to them. The issue is the mass shootings. The randomness of them. People would like to go to the movies or school without having to worry about some loon with a chip of their shoulder shooting them because they've had a bad day.

Yeah…..they don't have to worry about going to the movie theater or school…….the odds are in their favor…

Also….those places are gun free zones created by you guys…..where good, normal, law abiding, non violent gun owners are not allowed to carry a gun………and the gun free zone does nothing to stop killers…...

I can just image a gun shot going off in a crowded theater and dozens of people pull out their weapon. Armed with their Glock in one hand and Twinkies in the other, do you really think these people are going have the skill and presence of mind to take down the shooter without blowing away half the audience? If they didn't shoot themselves, the police probably would.

Encouraging the public to carry guns in public places is insane. This is not 1870 in Dodge City.

Yes....since civilians have stopped mass shooters before and in the events where they didn't have clear shots they didn't fire....

Do us a favor....try researching this topic so your posts will be informed......

Although there have been isolated incidents of armed civilians stopping killers, of the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years not one has been stopped by armed civilian. Armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the bloodshed, given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances. No only are they less likely to take down the killer but having civilians on the scene with drawn guns makes the police's job that much harder.

 

[Campbell]

(((((((YAWN))))))))

Insignificant statistics that point to acceptable risk to live in America.

-Geaux

They're only insignificant when it's somebody else's family getting mowed down. What skin off your ass would it be if some half wit had to be checked and wait a few days before he/she/it could buy a firearm? I've owned guns since the 50's and there are three within eight feet of where I'm seated right now. I will say this. The average American:

1) Never Joins The Military
2) Never Points A Loaded Gun At Another Citizen
3) Never Endures A Home Invasion
4) Doesn't Have A Clue How To Use A Semi Automatic Weapon

So why in hell does it bother them that some idiot has to have their background checked so they can't go to town and assassinate half a dozen citizens?

 

[Geaux4it]

(((((((YAWN))))))))

Insignificant statistics that point to acceptable risk to live in America.

-Geaux

They're only insignificant when it's somebody else's family getting mowed down. What skin off your ass would it be if some half wit had to be checked and wait a few days before he/she/it could buy a firearm? I've owned guns since the 50's and there are three within eight feet of where I'm seated right now. I will say this. The average American:

1) Never Joins The Military
2) Never Points A Loaded Gun At Another Citizen
3) Never Endures A Home Invasion
4) Doesn't Have A Clue How To Use A Semi Automatic Weapon

So why in hell does it bother them that some idiot has to have their background checked so they can't go to town and assassinate half a dozen citizens?

Because it builds a registry. Government need not be concerned which citizens have chose to exercise their civil right. Like there is no need for the government in the bedroom, there is no need for the government to know what is in my gun safe

-Geaux

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

ooooh! really, explain..., OK?

Post from other thread....

BS re your second paragraph. Total phooey.

At the end of the day most gun control advocates don't give a shit if gang bangers go around shooting each other. Good luck to them. The issue is the mass shootings. The randomness of them. People would like to go to the movies or school without having to worry about some loon with a chip of their shoulder shooting them because they've had a bad day.

Yeah…..they don't have to worry about going to the movie theater or school…….the odds are in their favor…

Also….those places are gun free zones created by you guys…..where good, normal, law abiding, non violent gun owners are not allowed to carry a gun………and the gun free zone does nothing to stop killers…...

I can just image a gun shot going off in a crowded theater and dozens of people pull out their weapon. Armed with their Glock in one hand and Twinkies in the other, do you really think these people are going have the skill and presence of mind to take down the shooter without blowing away half the audience? If they didn't shoot themselves, the police probably would.

Encouraging the public to carry guns in public places is insane. This is not 1870 in Dodge City.

Yes....since civilians have stopped mass shooters before and in the events where they didn't have clear shots they didn't fire....

Do us a favor....try researching this topic so your posts will be informed......

Although there have been isolated incidents of armed civilians stopping killers, of the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years not one has been stopped by armed civilian. Armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the bloodshed, given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances. No only are they less likely to take down the killer but having civilians on the scene with drawn guns makes the police's job that much harder.

"Of the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years, not one has been stopped by armed civilians."

Well could it be that because most mass shootings take place in gun free zones by any chance?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I have an entire folder dedicated to stories of armed citizens that did stop attacks and death. Would you like be to post a dozen or two?

Your precious MSM doesn't like to cover stories like that, but there are plenty out there if you look beyond.

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, because trying to stop a bad guy with a gun when nobody is armed is a sure fire recipe for disaster.

Sure. Post away. I'll post the story from Colorado recently where the mass shooter shot and killed an armed police officer...

Another way is to get rid of guns altogether or put enough restrictions on them and get people licensed so it decreases the likelihood.

Which would be a great idea if criminals got their guns from licensed dealers and went through a background check. But they don't. That's why they are criminals.

Now how do you suppose we get rid of "all guns" in this country? The same way we got rid of all recreational narcotics? You know, the same recreational narcotics that are responsible for the USA having the highest percentage of their people locked up in jail in the entire industrialized world?

Now which Colorado shooting are you referring to?

 

[Stephanie]

No wonder he's getting tired of this horse shit!

The number of times Obama has had to respond to mass shootings during his presidency is staggering

Obama's hope and change.

George W. Bush was Gloom and Doom!!

Says the far left drone that voted for "hope and change" and got worse than Bush!

YEP, yet they still think they have room to talk about Bush.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Maybe.....just maybe, a shooter might be discouraged from selecting a place where there are armed citizens.

But you think people are less safe with citizens armed with guns and a Twinkie, and would opt to just have citizens armed with the Twinkie alone. Brilliant.

You do realise that the US is one off the most armed countries in the western world and yet you still have mass shootings. Even before certain places were made gun-free you had mass shootings. How did that work out for you? The fact you have had mass shootings and more gun deaths per capita than any other country in the western world, and you are already armed to the teeth, suggests that more guns is not the answer.

Armed to the teeth?

The adoption of CCW's is relatively new in this country. Sure, some states had them years ago, but it's only recently that many states started their programs. Ours started less than ten years ago. Plus the fact that since that birth, gun violence and violence in general have been on the decrease since the mid 90's.

So how do you stop a mass murderer? Disarm the people he plans on killing? Why does that not sound pragmatic to me???

You see it's impossible to disarm the criminal element in our society. Make it harder or impossible for non-criminals to obtain guns, then we would have a society where only the police and criminals have guns. Now if you think that's a good idea, what I want you to do is get a huge sign made for your front porch. The sign should read WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSE, and let me know how that works out for you in a couple of months; because that's exactly what you would be doing by disarming citizens.

 

[candycorn]

Fact remains that every mass murderer has been stopped with a gun.

Lie.

Gerald Laughtner (Gabby GIffords mass murderer) was stopped when he dropped his replacement magazine and was tackled by people and held for the police.

 

[Dr Grump]

You see it's impossible to disarm the criminal element in our society. Make it harder or impossible for non-criminals to obtain guns, then we would have a society where only the police and criminals have guns. Now if you think that's a good idea, what I want you to do is get a huge sign made for your front porch. The sign should read WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSE, and let me know how that works out for you in a couple of months; because that's exactly what you would be doing by disarming citizens.

However, as time goes on, it would become harder and harder for the crims to get guns. Rome wasn't built in day.

As for having no firearms in the house, I live in a country where nobody has firearms in their house. Farmers probably do, but that's about it. I must know about 100 people, and about 10-15 of them are really good friends. None have firearms. None have been the victim of uber violent attacks. One or two have been in the odd fight at a pub or party. Hey, but guess what? There were no firearms available.. There was the odd busted nose or tooth and ego, but everybody got to live another day. In the US? Bang, bang, you're dead. What a great way to live your life! NOT!

 

[Dr Grump]

Which would be a great idea if criminals got their guns from licensed dealers and went through a background check. But they don't. That's why they are criminals.

Now how do you suppose we get rid of "all guns" in this country? The same way we got rid of all recreational narcotics? You know, the same recreational narcotics that are responsible for the USA having the highest percentage of their people locked up in jail in the entire industrialized world?

Now which Colorado shooting are you referring to?

Easy, stop manufacturing them. They'll soon dry up. After 10 or so years (it'll take that long due to the proliferation of guns in the US) it'll become harder and harder for crims to get firearms.

Planned Parenthood shooting victims include Iraq vet who tried to save others

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Which would be a great idea if criminals got their guns from licensed dealers and went through a background check. But they don't. That's why they are criminals.

Now how do you suppose we get rid of "all guns" in this country? The same way we got rid of all recreational narcotics? You know, the same recreational narcotics that are responsible for the USA having the highest percentage of their people locked up in jail in the entire industrialized world?

Now which Colorado shooting are you referring to?

Easy, stop manufacturing them. They'll soon dry up. After 10 or so years (it'll take that long due to the proliferation of guns in the US) it'll become harder and harder for crims to get firearms.

Planned Parenthood shooting victims include Iraq vet who tried to save others

And much harder for victims that need to protect themselves from the criminals that have guns. Outside of meth, do you really think that we manufacture most of our own drugs in this country?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You see it's impossible to disarm the criminal element in our society. Make it harder or impossible for non-criminals to obtain guns, then we would have a society where only the police and criminals have guns. Now if you think that's a good idea, what I want you to do is get a huge sign made for your front porch. The sign should read WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSE, and let me know how that works out for you in a couple of months; because that's exactly what you would be doing by disarming citizens.

However, as time goes on, it would become harder and harder for the crims to get guns. Rome wasn't built in day.

As for having no firearms in the house, I live in a country where nobody has firearms in their house. Farmers probably do, but that's about it. I must know about 100 people, and about 10-15 of them are really good friends. None have firearms. None have been the victim of uber violent attacks. One or two have been in the odd fight at a pub or party. Hey, but guess what? There were no firearms available.. There was the odd busted nose or tooth and ego, but everybody got to live another day. In the US? Bang, bang, you're dead. What a great way to live your life! NOT!

During the time when our legislatures were considering a CCW program in our state, we were having a discussion about the new law in our local blog.

I got into a debate with somebody just like you. He asked why I supported CCW laws? I explained that not only for my own protection, but my mother lives alone and never drove a car in her life. She likes to take walks to the store, to the neighbors, to the church and generally just for exercise.

So he responded by asking if my elderly mother would get a CCW if they became available in our state? To that I replied "No, she wouldn't, but the criminal doesn't know that."

You and your neighbors may not have one firearm among you, but you still have the same protection as I do by criminals not knowing that. Once the public is disarmed, then the criminals know everybody is disarmed and can't protect themselves. And if that's the case, maybe your country home won't be as safe as it once was.

 

[Dr Grump]

You see it's impossible to disarm the criminal element in our society. Make it harder or impossible for non-criminals to obtain guns, then we would have a society where only the police and criminals have guns. Now if you think that's a good idea, what I want you to do is get a huge sign made for your front porch. The sign should read WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSE, and let me know how that works out for you in a couple of months; because that's exactly what you would be doing by disarming citizens.

However, as time goes on, it would become harder and harder for the crims to get guns. Rome wasn't built in day.

As for having no firearms in the house, I live in a country where nobody has firearms in their house. Farmers probably do, but that's about it. I must know about 100 people, and about 10-15 of them are really good friends. None have firearms. None have been the victim of uber violent attacks. One or two have been in the odd fight at a pub or party. Hey, but guess what? There were no firearms available.. There was the odd busted nose or tooth and ego, but everybody got to live another day. In the US? Bang, bang, you're dead. What a great way to live your life! NOT!

During the time when our legislatures were considering a CCW program in our state, we were having a discussion about the new law in our local blog.

I got into a debate with somebody just like you. He asked why I supported CCW laws? I explained that not only for my own protection, but my mother lives alone and never drove a car in her life. She likes to take walks to the store, to the neighbors, to the church and generally just for exercise.

So he responded by asking if my elderly mother would get a CCW if they became available in our state? To that I replied "No, she wouldn't, but the criminal doesn't know that."

You and your neighbors may not have one firearm among you, but you still have the same protection as I do by criminals not knowing that. Once the public is disarmed, then the criminals know everybody is disarmed and can't protect themselves. And if that's the case, maybe your country home won't be as safe as it once was.

Yeah, but nobody has firearms down here. Criminals know this. Yet, per capita the US is a lot more violent. Go figure...

 

[Campbell]

Which would be a great idea if criminals got their guns from licensed dealers and went through a background check. But they don't. That's why they are criminals.

Now how do you suppose we get rid of "all guns" in this country? The same way we got rid of all recreational narcotics? You know, the same recreational narcotics that are responsible for the USA having the highest percentage of their people locked up in jail in the entire industrialized world?

Now which Colorado shooting are you referring to?

Easy, stop manufacturing them. They'll soon dry up. After 10 or so years (it'll take that long due to the proliferation of guns in the US) it'll become harder and harder for crims to get firearms.

Planned Parenthood shooting victims include Iraq vet who tried to save others

And much harder for victims that need to protect themselves from the criminals that have guns. Outside of meth, do you really think that we manufacture most of our own drugs in this country?

LMAO!!!! 99.9% of all the normal adult citizens in this country never once encounter any violence, robbery, threats etc. You folks watch too much TV. The odds of anyone experiencing some kind of encounter with criminal violence is about the same as winning the lottery they're presently about to draw.

Now.....if someone lives in the poorest sections of the inner cities I can understand a lot of protection. The rest of it is NRA propaganda and rank bull shit! The whole thing is done to promote massive weapon sales.

 

[2aguy]

Liberals are the reason security may be lacking at schools. They feel the absence of guns provides a force-field around the students. All it does is provide a soft target for nutcases.

They were the first to try to ban pilots from carrying a weapon. 911 never would have happened if pilots had the means to defend themselves.

There have been plenty of examples of armed people being in the vicinity of mass shootings. Nothing helped. In the latest Colorado incident one of the people killed was an armed cop. So please, don't give me this shit about if everybody was armed things would be different. And anyway, who wants to live in a society where you have armed guards walking the halls of schools. Welcome to Beruit....

Yes.

I don't mind armed guards walking the halls.

That's great....if you live in South Africa, or Somalia, Guatemala, or Indonesia, or Ethiopia...or.....

They have armed guards for all of our politicians............and then they get stingy for guards for our kids....