Did y'all see Obama actually say this

[houndawg]

Wasn't there a study released about bout loners (sad, lonely men) being the primary suspects in mass shootings?

Makes you kinda worry about what houndpuppy is doing right now.


What this country needs is to subsidize call girls. If you suspect someone is a whack job, you should be able to call *69 and have some chick come over to drain the guys nuts to relieve the pressure. We could name it Oblowmecare.

Not to worry, Cuck, your wife just headed off a mass tragedy. Threw herself in front of my pipe bomb and took the whole blast herself.

She deserves a medal. I might have killed dozens...

[D1B]

Makes you kinda worry about what houndpuppy is doing right now.


What this country needs is to subsidize call girls. If you suspect someone is a whack job, you should be able to call *69 and have some chick come over to drain the guys nuts to relieve the pressure. We could name it Oblowmecare.

Not to worry, Cuck, your wife just headed off a mass tragedy. Threw herself in front of my pipe bomb and took the whole blast herself.

She deserves a medal. I might have killed dozens...

[Chizzang]

Mass shootings are a civil liberty in this country...
If you take those away you're destroying America



I wear them like a badge of honor ..!!!
If you don't like mass shootings move to Holland

In spite of your snide attempt at hyperbole you managed to be mostly correct

Almost half of the time I'm mostly correct...
sixty percent of the time I'm 100% correct



Because Science

[JohnStOnge]

You know, focusing on the tool is a fallacy. You know there are some other things that have happened in this country that aren't real common around the world. Let's see.

One of them was a guy using diesel fuel and fertilizer to blow up a building, killing 168 people and injuring more than 600 others. Then there was that thing with guys armed with box cutters flying airplanes into buildings and killing 2,996 people and injuring more than 6,000 others.

If you're focusing on the tool, you're going down the wrong road.

Like this thing in California yesterday. Seriously. You don't think those people would've found some way to cause havoc if Obama had the gun control laws he wants? Really? First of all, they'd have probably had guns they needed to do what they did anyway. Secondly, if they couldn't get exactly the guns they wanted they've had thought of something else.

The knee jerk reaction we get from Democrats and/or "Progressives" or "Liberals" or whatever they're calling themselves on any given day every time something like this happens is inane. They don't really want to address the underlying problem. They don't even want to admit it exists.

[YoUDeeMan]

Again, that is untrue.

166 Mass shootings & US had 133, what don't you get? We're all hypocrites.

Just because you conveniently define a mass shooting one way, doesn't mean you get to use that definition and not expect it to be identified for what it is...crap.

Obama radically changed the definition of an enemy combatant...and suddenly we aren't killing as many civilians.

Tens of thousands of people have died this year all over the world in mass shootings. We've decided to call them something else...even though they are similar to our mass shootings.

At least Peems tried to come up with the caveat about first world countries...but that is ridiculous. Some areas of Detroit were, and are, worse off than areas in Syria when that place went bonkers (with our help, right from the start) and Ukraine (again, with our help right from the start).

There is absolutely no reason to start taking away guns or making people jump through a tangle of unnecessary hoops to get guns.

As 93 said, cars kill FAR more people than mass shootings...and we're OK with that. Road rage is an epidemic...but hey, no one is suggesting to take away our cars. Easy to get a driver license...easy to renew. Easy to drink and drive...so where are we in that war, again?

Millions of guns out there...300+ mass shootings. Millions of cars out there...30,296 fatal accidents in 2010, killing 33,000 people and injuring 2,239,000 people. Where's all the outrage? Are you going to give up your cars?

[houndawg]

166 Mass shootings & US had 133, what don't you get? We're all hypocrites.

Just because you conveniently define a mass shooting one way, doesn't mean you get to use that definition and not expect it to be identified for what it is...crap.

Obama radically changed the definition of an enemy combatant...and suddenly we aren't killing as many civilians.

Tens of thousands of people have died this year all over the world in mass shootings. We've decided to call them something else...even though they are similar to our mass shootings.

At least Peems tried to come up with the caveat about first world countries...but that is ridiculous. Some areas of Detroit were, and are, worse off than areas in Syria when that place went bonkers (with our help, right from the start) and Ukraine (again, with our help right from the start).

There is absolutely no reason to start taking away guns or making people jump through a tangle of unnecessary hoops to get guns.

As 93 said, cars kill FAR more people than mass shootings...and we're OK with that. Road rage is an epidemic...but hey, no one is suggesting to take away our cars. Easy to get a driver license...easy to renew. Easy to drink and drive...so where are we in that war, again?

Millions of guns out there...300+ mass shootings. Millions of cars out there...30,296 fatal accidents in 2010, killing 33,000 people and injuring 2,239,000 people. Where's all the outrage? Are you going to give up your cars?

You believe that crap?

[houndawg]

You know, focusing on the tool is a fallacy. You know there are some other things that have happened in this country that aren't real common around the world. Let's see.

One of them was a guy using diesel fuel and fertilizer to blow up a building, killing 168 people and injuring more than 600 others. Then there was that thing with guys armed with box cutters flying airplanes into buildings and killing 2,996 people and injuring more than 6,000 others.

If you're focusing on the tool, you're going down the wrong road.

Like this thing in California yesterday. Seriously. You don't think those people would've found some way to cause havoc if Obama had the gun control laws he wants? Really? First of all, they'd have probably had guns they needed to do what they did anyway. Secondly, if they couldn't get exactly the guns they wanted they've had thought of something else.

The knee jerk reaction we get from Democrats and/or "Progressives" or "Liberals" or whatever they're calling themselves on any given day every time something like this happens is inane. They don't really want to address the underlying problem. They don't even want to admit it exists.

The usual red herring.

Everybody speeds, John. Why bother with having a speed limit if they're just going to do it anyway?

[Ivytalk]

Well, Obama's heartfelt 13-minute speech was proof that the past is prologue. He apparently wants Congress to declare war on ISIS, but he also doubled down on gun control and his love for the Muzzies. Nothing new here. Move on.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't know about the definition of "mass shooting," but I do know that it's a real stretch to say that the situation here is worse than anywhere else by virtue of United States citizens having access to guns. Like this table I linked in another thread:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... hip/table/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So...let's see...Honduras has a 6.2 guns per 100,000 people while the United States has 88.8 guns per 100,000 people ownership rate wise. Oh...and Honduras has a gun homicide rate of 68.4 per 100,000 people while the United States has a gun homicide rate of 3.2 per 100,000 people. Clearly NOBODY has a problem with gun homicides of the magnitude that the United States has. And clearly countries with lower gun ownership rates never have anything LIKE the problem the United States has with gun violence. I mean it's OBVIOUS.

Do we have a "tongue in cheek" emoticon available?

[kalm]

I don't know about the definition of "mass shooting," but I do know that it's a real stretch to say that the situation here is worse than anywhere else by virtue of United States citizens having access to guns. Like this table I linked in another thread:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... hip/table/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So...let's see...Honduras has a 6.2 guns per 100,000 people while the United States has 88.8 guns per 100,000 people ownership rate wise. Oh...and Honduras has a gun homicide rate of 68.4 per 100,000 people while the United States has a gun homicide rate of 3.2 per 100,000 people. Clearly NOBODY has a problem with gun homicides of the magnitude that the United States has. And clearly countries with lower gun ownership rates never have anything LIKE the problem the United States has with gun violence. I mean it's OBVIOUS.

Do we have a "tongue in cheek" emoticon available?

There's no other factors involved either...

[JohnStOnge]

There's no other factors involved either...

Sure there are. In fact that's the point.

The big thing is that when you look at the data it is RIDICULOUS to say that the United States has the biggest problem with "gun violence" and it's also ridiculous to suggest that the availability of guns is anywhere close to the biggest factor. It's pretty obvious that it's not.

[Grizalltheway]

I don't know about the definition of "mass shooting," but I do know that it's a real stretch to say that the situation here is worse than anywhere else by virtue of United States citizens having access to guns. Like this table I linked in another thread:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... hip/table/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So...let's see...Honduras has a 6.2 guns per 100,000 people while the United States has 88.8 guns per 100,000 people ownership rate wise. Oh...and Honduras has a gun homicide rate of 68.4 per 100,000 people while the United States has a gun homicide rate of 3.2 per 100,000 people. Clearly NOBODY has a problem with gun homicides of the magnitude that the United States has. And clearly countries with lower gun ownership rates never have anything LIKE the problem the United States has with gun violence. I mean it's OBVIOUS.

Do we have a "tongue in cheek" emoticon available?

Is Honduras a developed nation now? Because I'm pretty sure Obama said this kind of thing doesn't happen with the same frequency in other developed countries.

[CID1990]

I don't know about the definition of "mass shooting," but I do know that it's a real stretch to say that the situation here is worse than anywhere else by virtue of United States citizens having access to guns. Like this table I linked in another thread:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... hip/table/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So...let's see...Honduras has a 6.2 guns per 100,000 people while the United States has 88.8 guns per 100,000 people ownership rate wise. Oh...and Honduras has a gun homicide rate of 68.4 per 100,000 people while the United States has a gun homicide rate of 3.2 per 100,000 people. Clearly NOBODY has a problem with gun homicides of the magnitude that the United States has. And clearly countries with lower gun ownership rates never have anything LIKE the problem the United States has with gun violence. I mean it's OBVIOUS.

Do we have a "tongue in cheek" emoticon available?

Is Honduras a developed nation now? Because I'm pretty sure Obama said this kind of thing doesn't happen with the same frequency in other developed countries.

I think the President was referring to countries that have stores where you can buy your arugula without having to wait in line with the hoi polloi.