obama gun plea after church killings!!!

by Guest Fri Jun 19, 2015 9:52 am

http://news.sky.com/story/1504847/obama-gun-plea-after-black-church-killings

Barack Obama has told Americans the time is approaching when they will have to face up to their country's record on gun crime.

The US President was speaking after nine worshippers at a black church in South Carolina were shot dead by a young white man.

The suspect, Dylann Roof, an admirer of white supremacist regimes, was arrested in a neighbouring state after fleeing the scene.

"I've had to make statements like this too many times," Mr Obama said, referring to a series of mass murders in the United States in recent years.

"Once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun.

American do not let this man disarm you it will be disastrous..

by Ben Reilly Sat Jun 20, 2015 1:39 am

That's not a speech on disarming the U.S. public, which the constitution and supreme court have already ruled cannot be done and which would never pass either house of the U.S. Congress.

We need to have better checks on who is deemed responsible enough to own a gun. I'm thinking a violently racist drug addict should have a bit harder of a time getting one than me, for example.

Did you know that I bought a handgun from my brother with no application or paperwork legally required, and that I can legally carry it around, loaded and chambered, in public?

by Eilzel Sat Jun 20, 2015 2:24 am

That is ridiculous, Ben.

I don't really see how restricting gun ownership as we do here in the UK would be a bad thing. It is a fact we have proportionally fewer gun crimes than in the UK. The average US citizen is in more danger by allowing easy access to guns than they are from not having them.

In my opinion this is where the constitution gets treated as a religion to inane levels of stubborness.

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 20, 2015 2:45 am

The criminals can still get guns and The law abiding vast majority of people are less able to defend themselves...

by Ben Reilly Sat Jun 20, 2015 2:47 am

Tommy Monk wrote:The criminals can still get guns and The law abiding vast majority of people are less able to defend themselves...

Your murder-by-gun rate is still like 100 times lower than that of the U.S., so I'm thinking it does work.

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:00 am

Yeah...!?

People get killed by other things instead...

Criminals still get guns and innocent people still get killed...

If a society can't prevent criminals from owning guns and other weapons then it shouldn't be prosecuting innocent and decent law abiding people from owning them for their own protection either!!!

Having the good people armed and able to protect themselves is surely a good thing?

by Ben Reilly Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:06 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Yeah...!?

People get killed by other things instead...

Criminals still get guns and innocent people still get killed...

If a society can't prevent criminals from owning guns and other weapons then it shouldn't be prosecuting innocent and decent law abiding people from owning them for their own protection either!!!

Having the good people armed and able to protect themselves is surely a good thing?

Comparing overall murder rates, the U.S.'s is nearly five times that of the UK. Clearly UK gun control has a positive effect, as guns are the most efficient means for the average person to commit murder.

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:24 am

Canada has similar gun rules as USA but little problems...

Criminals can get guns and any number of other deadly force weapons/equipment...

Restricting decent law abiding people from their own self protection only empowers the criminals more.

by Ben Reilly Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:58 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Canada has similar gun rules as USA but little problems...

Criminals can get guns and any number of other deadly force weapons/equipment...

Restricting decent law abiding people from their own self protection only empowers the criminals more.

Bullshit. Canada requires criminal background checks and registry. Much of the U.S. has no such restrictions.

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 20, 2015 5:49 am

Still loads of guns and only a comparatively much lower level...

It is the criminals who are doing the crime and criminals who can still get guns

by veya_victaous Sat Jun 20, 2015 9:34 am

@TM
this explains it

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/24/8283199/gun-control-comedy-jefferies

by Guest Sat Jun 20, 2015 9:39 am

The people have a right to own guns and they should exercise that right, the odd number of nutters should not affect the rights of good and responsible gun owners...

by veya_victaous Sat Jun 20, 2015 10:04 am

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:The people have a right to own guns and they should exercise that right, the odd number of nutters should not affect the rights of good and responsible gun owners...

I'll agree but ONLY is we all agree that if you believe that there is magic sky giant that made the planet than you are deemed mental unsuitable.
That will stop the terrorists. Rolling Eyes

by Guest Sat Jun 20, 2015 10:09 am

veya_victaous wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:The people have a right to own guns and they should exercise that right, the odd number of nutters should not affect the rights of good and responsible gun owners...

I'll agree but ONLY is we all agree that if you believe that there is magic sky giant that made the planet than you are deemed mental unsuitable.
That will stop the terrorists.

lol, I'm pretty sure just as many non believers kill for a whole lot of reasons, probably more and a great deal of those who would kill in the name of a god would not be Christians...

by veya_victaous Sat Jun 20, 2015 10:18 am

I do not know
Suspect

Do you pray?
Do you think god listens to you?
Do you listen to god?
Do you think god could speak to you?

Suspect

Seems pretty risky to me Razz

by Guest Sat Jun 20, 2015 10:30 am

Should have asked these questions to HF I just read:

1. Can you make a moral judgment against rape or slavery using only scripture?

2. Would you sacrifice your child if god asked you to?

3. Is it acceptable to cherry pick the bible and only follow the parts you agree with?

4. How did animal X get from point Y to point Z after the great flood?

5. How did carnivorous dinosaurs supposedly eat plants before the biblical fall of man, when their teeth and digestive systems were not equipped to process a vegetarian diet?

6. Can god tell a lie?

7. Is observable physical evidence more important and valid than what the bible claims to be true?

8. Is there any amount of evidence that would change your views?

9. What physical proof is there that your particular god even exists?

10. Do you believe hell is a justifiable punishment for a simple lack of belief?

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/casper-rigsby/ten-questions-biblical-literalists-cannot-honestly-answer

by Guest Sat Jun 20, 2015 11:24 am

veya_victaous wrote:I do not know

Do you pray?
Do you think god listens to you?
Do you listen to god?
Do you think god could speak to you?

Seems pretty risky to me

Do people tell you what to do!!!

Do people force you to believe things!!!!

do people talk to you!!!!

sounds worrying to me...

by Guest Sat Jun 20, 2015 11:34 am

Belatucadros wrote:Should have asked these questions to HF I just read:

1. Can you make a moral judgment against rape or slavery using only scripture? yes

2. Would you sacrifice your child if god asked you to? No

3. Is it acceptable to cherry pick the bible and only follow the parts you agree with? no

4. How did animal X get from point Y to point Z after the great flood? by God

5. How did carnivorous dinosaurs supposedly eat plants before the biblical fall of man, when their teeth and digestive systems were not equipped to process a vegetarian diet? it didn't

6. Can god tell a lie? no

7. Is observable physical evidence more important and valid than what the bible claims to be true? not necessarily..

8. Is there any amount of evidence that would change your views? yes...

9. What physical proof is there that your particular god even exists? healings, creation, the bible..

10. Do you believe hell is a justifiable punishment for a simple lack of belief? yes it's your choice..

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/casper-rigsby/ten-questions-biblical-literalists-cannot-honestly-answer

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:12 pm

The odd nutter can still get a gun here in UK with strict gun laws and could also get any number of other weapons or build themselves a bomb.

by Eilzel Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:14 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The odd nutter can still get a gun here in UK with strict gun laws and could also get any number of other weapons or build themselves a bomb.

In terms of both number of murders and number of gun crimes the facts speak for themselves when comparing the UK to the USA, both in real and relative terms.

It is just obvious that if it is easier to casually own a gun then the risk of a gun being used to cause harm is massively increased.

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:25 pm

But as I've said, Canada has loads of guns and not problems.

by Eilzel Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:45 pm

And as Ben told you there are more restrictions. There are also significantly fewer people in Canada than in either the US or UK.

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:50 pm

Plenty of guns, no problems.

by Eilzel Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:54 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Plenty of guns, no problems.

Head in sand and pretend that no facts could possibly suggest you are wrong- such is the tommy monk way...

by Eilzel Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:00 pm

Incidentally, a very quick check shows how devastatingly wrong you are.

First of all, population size (and so the facts in real terms). The population of Canada, at 35 million, is roughly 10x smaller than the USA's 318 million. That is 10x less the number of possibilities of people carrying out gun crimes.

In relative terms, there are around 30 guns for every 100 Canadian in Canada. Compared with 88 guns for every 100 American in the USA.

Those are massive differences, and easily explain the comparative lack of gun crime problems in Canada compared to America.

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:12 pm

Still plenty of guns out there...

And besides, it is not the gun that shoots itself you know!

And criminals will still get guns or other weapons to use if they want to.

by Eilzel Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:20 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Still plenty of guns out there...

And besides, it is not the gun that shoots itself you know!

And criminals will still get guns or other weapons to use if they want to.

Plenty, but not nearly as many. You questioned why there is no major problem with gun crimes in Canada as in the US. The answer is there- ten times less people and people who are three times less likely to own guns. That is a major difference (I'm sure some wily math whiz here can work that out into how statistically less likely it is for a gun murder to occur in Canada compared with the USA...).

And I don't dispute criminals can get other weapons, but it is made much more difficult with less guns around. Some nut who goes off the rails one day is not likely to be committing serial killings one random day if there isn't a gun in reaching distance. That's the key difference.

Again, the numbers and facts speak for themselves. FAR less people with FAR fewer guns.

by Original Quill Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:31 pm

I think y'all are missing the point. It's the gun culture, not the particular piece of metal and plastic.

The gun culture is a mentality that associates an instrument of destruction with individual self-welfare. The gun ideology is what is pervasive in the US, just as racism is pervasive in America. In fact, as we see constantly--but hardly ever recognize--the gun is closely related to racism. This incident is but one case in point. It's the thought that is troublesome.

The gun spread throughout the US after the Civil War, when homeless vagabonds and vagrants of the south--losers in the war--drifted west. Bitter and disaffected, they began to resort of use of the gun as a way of life. The James gang? Wyatt Earp? Indeed, John Henry "Doc" Holliday was from South Carolina. An ideology swept across the nation.

The stated purpose of the gun in the Constitution is so outdated as to be laughable: to stop tyranny and promote freedom today, you would need a couple of super carriers, with a full compliment of aircraft and firearms, a few bombers, tanks, nuclear weapons...well, you get the point. The Second Amendment was a period piece, long come and gone.

No...the issue is the culture and the disaffection felt by the racist RW of America. It's a disease, not a piece of hardware.

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:40 pm

Take away guns and the criminals will still get them.

And what's to stop a lone nutter driving a car or van into a load of people?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3132535/Man-runs-car-crowd-killing-2-injuring-Austria.html#ixzz3dc9YvJe2

Or do we ban all cars as well now?

by Guest Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:52 pm

I think Tommy your are conflating a number if issues

in theory ANY number of cilvilian owned guns are "safe" in society as long as those owners are carefully regulated.
Whilst doing so in America is fraught with prblems lets look at the basics.
leaving aside shotguns, which are less regualted here (why??)

to own a firearm

you MUST

have good reason
the land to use it on (either your own or permission from a landowner)
MUST be of exceptionally "good character" with virtually a zero police record

further you WIIL be restricted to the minimum calibre needed to do the job
AND you will be restricted to land considered suitable by the police for the first couple of years to make sure you LEARN how to use it safely in a given circumstance...

I dont think that they would be able tp apply a "good reason" clause in america due to the constitution

however they can and should apply the "upstanding citizen test"

and the heavier calibers and fully autio stuff should be restrictred to "need"

In the Uk for instance "home defense" is NOT allowed as "good reason"

and for hiome defence you DO NOT need an assault rifle ...indeed as nicko and others here who have done military service will tell you ...the BEST home defence weapon is actually a shotgun.

there is NOTHING wrong (or in my mind unconstitutional from the american view point of saying "OK so having a gun is your constitutional right ...as it is here....

BUT what YOU (as an idividual) are going to have to show is that you are a "fit and proper person to claim that right (as is the case here)

by Guest Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:56 pm

I would also agree with what I think you are saying Tommy , that there is more to this tham merely the possession of guns, there is a nasty streak in the psychology of a fair percentage of the american population, that seems to think mass murder is a "good thing" Yes bombs, vehicles and knives could also be used and I strongly suspect that
even if gun ownership WAS restricted, the plentiful nut jobs that america seems to breed would indeed find another way...

however some restriction on gun ownership might well go some way to reducing their interestingly murderous statistics obama gun plea after church killings!!! 2113235493

obama gun plea after church killings!!! 2113235493

obama gun plea after church killings!!! 3755771736

obama gun plea after church killings!!! 3296370939

by Original Quill Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:30 pm

darknessss wrote:I would also agree with what I think you are saying Tommy , that there is more to this tham merely the possession of guns, there is a nasty streak in the psychology of a fair percentage of the american population, that seems to think mass murder is a "good thing" Yes bombs, vehicles and knives could also be used and I strongly suspect that
even if gun ownership WAS restricted, the plentiful nut jobs that america seems to breed would indeed find another way...

however some restriction on gun ownership might well go some way to reducing their interestingly murderous statistics

Is there an echo in this room. That's what I just said.

I also said that it is closely related to racism. Guns and racism are common themes with losers in the American Civil War. And before you say it...no, that has never gone away. Slavery, begat separate-but-equal, which begat the KKK, which began segregation, which begat white supremacism, which begat Mr. Roof and his form of terrorism.

Mr. Roof used both racism and his gun to express himself. They are the same people...RWers and gun defenders.

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:34 pm

Look at the black on white murder rate...

Hugely disproportionately high

by Original Quill Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:52 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Look at the black on white murder rate...

Hugely disproportionately high

Tommy, when you do a statistical comparison you have to present two figures, at least. "High" as what??

You are falling victim to TV advertising: "99 and 44% pure..." as what?

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 20, 2015 10:17 pm

I posted a link with some figures on... twice as many whites than blacks are killed by police while trying to apprehend them etc...

by Guest Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:54 am

Tommy Monk wrote:I posted a link with some figures on... twice as many whites than blacks are killed by police while trying to apprehend them etc...

Wrong again your maths is poor:

As researchers are quick to point out, FBI data on police shootings by race is notoriously incomplete, which may explain why Peter Moskos, assistant professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York, decided to use figures from the website Killed by Police.
Based on that data, Mr. Moskos reported that roughly 49 percent of those killed by officers from May 2013 to April 2015 were white, while 30 percent were black. He also found that 19 percent were Hispanic and 2 percent were Asian and other races.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/#ixzz3dgHH3h9l

That only covers two years as well.
This though does not explain how and who were unarmed.

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 21, 2015 5:12 pm

Figures are in the link I posted dodge.

by Original Quill Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:11 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Figures are in the link I posted dodge.

The link you posted had to do with an automobile killing people, with the driver attacking an elderly couple and a policeman with a knife. It has nothing to do with figures.

This is why you aren't taken seriously, tommy. You are lazy in your research, and lazy in your thinking.

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:24 pm

There are figures on people killed by police while apprehending them and shows twice as many whites are killed than blacks.

I haven't got the time to search for hundreds of articles and write a thesis on it all.

You're not taken seriously because you waffle Bollocks.

by Original Quill Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:29 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:There are figures on people killed by police while apprehending them and shows twice as many whites are killed than blacks.

But, in American society only about 13% are black. Less so in UK society. So, even by your own calculations ("twice") the proportion is outrageous and racist.

Tommy Monk wrote:I haven't got the time to search for hundreds of articles and write a thesis on it all.

You're not taken seriously because you waffle Bollocks.

Childish, tommy. If you haven't got the time to research, then you certainly haven't the time to draw conclusions, do you? That's a tacit admission that you don't know what you are talking about.

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:46 pm

Only 13% are black but as they are responsible for half the violent crime that would result in a heavy police response then they should be roughly half the deaths too... but whites are twice the number of deaths.

by Original Quill Sun Jun 21, 2015 7:17 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Only 13% are black but as they are responsible for half the violent crime that would result in a heavy police response then they should be roughly half the deaths too... but whites are twice the number of deaths.

No, the statistics you quoted were killings by police, a predominately white group in both the US and the UK.

Black crime is far less than you--the one too busy to research it--surmise. Because you are too lazy to research your conclusions, you substitute your prejudice instead. Hence, your utter confusion with rank amateur statistics.

Black crime is actually even less than public statistics, but the bias of southern juries lead to more blacks being convicted then their binomial proportion in society. Once again, we confront the effect of prejudice in the South...and in particular, southern juries. Not only do they let white murderers like George Zimmerman walk, but they assure that blacks are convicted on the briefest, if not nonexistent evidence. Recent overturnings of convictions on the basis of DNA analysis have occurred in droves in southern states.

by Raggamuffin Sun Jun 21, 2015 7:20 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Only 13% are black but as they are responsible for half the violent crime that would result in a heavy police response then they should be roughly half the deaths too... but whites are twice the number of deaths.

No, the statistics you quoted were killings by police, a predominately white group in both the US and the UK.

Black crime is far less than you--the one too busy to research it--surmise. Because you are too lazy to research your conclusions, you substitute your prejudice instead. Hence, your utter confusion with rank amateur statistics.

Black crime is actually even less than public statistics, but the bias of southern juries lead to more blacks being convicted then their binomial proportion in society. Once again, we confront the effect of prejudice in the South...and in particular, southern juries. Not only do they let white murderers like George Zimmerman walk, but they assure that blacks are convicted on the briefest, if not nonexistent evidence. Recent overturnings of convictions on the basis of DNA analysis have occurred in droves in southern states.

George Zimmerman is not a murderer, he acted in self defence. He's also not white.

Do try to come up with a valid example.

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 21, 2015 7:30 pm

More deflection and excuses from quill...

Black crime levels are hugely disproportionate to their actual numbers.

As I've said, blacks are responsible for roughly half of all violent crimes so will be in contact with a heavy police response where they are more likely to be injured or even die... but whites are twice the number of deaths by police.

It is clear on that link I posted.

And I never said I didn't research... just that I don't have the time to look at a hundred articles and then write a thesis on them all.

I have shown FBI statistics before on here too.

THere is plenty of evidence out there to back up what I say.

Even one of our police commissioners was hounded out of his job 20 years ago for telling the truth about the huge levels of violent crime and street crime in London being by blacks.

What I say is not new news...

by Original Quill Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:25 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:More deflection and excuses from quill...

Black crime levels are hugely disproportionate to their actual numbers.

As I've said, blacks are responsible for roughly half of all violent crimes so will be in contact with a heavy police response where they are more likely to be injured or even die... but whites are twice the number of deaths by police.

It is clear on that link I posted.

And I never said I didn't research... just that I don't have the time to look at a hundred articles and then write a thesis on them all.

I have shown FBI statistics before on here too.

THere is plenty of evidence out there to back up what I say.

Even one of our police commissioners was hounded out of his job 20 years ago for telling the truth about the huge levels of violent crime and street crime in London being by blacks.

What I say is not new news...

Tommy, your ramblings are inconsequential. You lost all credibility when you admitted you don't even research.

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:31 pm

I never said I don't research... just that I haven't time to read a hundred articles and then write a thesis on them all... there is plenty of evidence to back up what I say... I have only shown some of it... people can do their own research and see for themselves if they don't believe me!

by Original Quill Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:37 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I never said I don't research... just that I haven't time to read a hundred articles and then write a thesis on them all... there is plenty of evidence to back up what I say... I have only shown some of it... people can do their own research and see for themselves if they don't believe me!

But tommy...you don't even know that a statistical comparison is a binomial expression. It requires two numbers.

You can often be heard saying, say...eg, Blacks are 20% more likely to commit a crime (example only), and you never state what the percentage is in comparison to?? If you don't research your facts, that is one thing. But you don't even understand the methodology used in your own words.

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:42 pm

It is just a fact going by recorded crimes and population numbers.

No comparison needed.

by Original Quill Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:47 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:It is just a fact going by recorded crimes and population numbers.

No comparison needed.

Sooooo... You still don't understand, do you? You are trying to use a binomial expression. If there is no comparson needed, then why did you raise it?

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:10 pm

A simple statement of facts of recorded crimes.

Facts that also show double the amount of whites are killed by police than blacks.

by Sponsored content