14 kids dead and one teacher at Texas school shooting.

by jojorabbit 112 Replies latest social current

  • Simon
    You have no idea. If you can stomach this it will terrify you.

    Not surprising. The medical profession industry hides numerous serial killers and psychopaths. They allowed Jimmy Saville to operate in the UK.

  • Diogenesister
    Your thinking is very flawed and two dimensional. First off countries with more gun control are not safe. But with a 68 million populace, UK has a scary number of Stabbing. Would you believe 44,000 knife attacks in 2019. While knifes attacks only account for 6% of UK crimes attacks. While bats (hitting with a blunt object) or glass bottle account for another 6% so that another 44,000 attacks

    The difference is knife crime accounts for a very narrow demographic. It is overwhelmingly perpetrated by, and on, very young black males from inner London council estates. It simply doesn't effect other demographics and other areas whatsoever.

    London is no more 'shit hole' than anywhere else and in fact has been very much gentrified over the last few decades.

    I used to think America sounded wonderful and dreamed of traveling around particularly the great lakes and your national parks but now I wouldn't live there if you paid me. I'm not being unpleasant, it genuinely terrifies me. Remember you also have had bombing and death by motor attacks. It's true we had Dunblane a horrific attack on a school by a mentally ill boy, too, when I was a kid but what's happening in the states is beyond the pale. The thought my.kids could be unsafe at school would terrify me.

    What Simon says is true you guys need to spend some of those millions sent to Ukraine on school security and I'm afraid the time has come for armed guards.

  • jojorabbit

    Well we have a lot of crime here that is perpetrated by blacks on blacks. Chicago, Detroit, LA, and most other liberal cities its out of control. Why is it blacks are 10 to 13 percent of the population but commit 40 percent of the crime? Is it that they glorify crime and gangsta life?

  • Rivergang
    and evidence of why civilians need to be armed to protect themselves from their government.

    That the rebels at Eureka Stockade were so easily defeated was the result of indiscipline (the good old Aussie tradition of wandering "off to the pub" !) Successful armed conflict requires more than just access to weapons - any one with any military experience would be quick to point out that without discipline, "all you have is an armed mob".

    This was an edge the American militia forces had at Concorde and Lexington, and noted by the British commanders in their after-battle reports (namely that the British troops displayed a noticeable lack of that same discipline). Those countries which to this day maintain effective militia forces (such as Switzerland) subject their militia members to a rigorous and continual routine of training. (Swiss friends have often described their country's routine for training of its militia - and an annual holiday camp it certainly isn't !)

  • jojorabbit

    John Lott interview about gun crime.

    A1F Daily: Last year, President Barack Obama claimed, “We are the only advanced country on Earth that sees this kind of mass violence erupt with this kind of frequency.” And that has become kind of a rallying cry among anti-gun advocates. What does your research show?

    John Lott: It is completely false. And Obama repeated this claim many times. For example, last year he flatly claimed: “It doesn’t happen in other advanced countries. It’s not even close.”

    To gun control advocates, if the U.S. would only adopt the types of gun control laws that exist in other countries, this problem would supposedly go away. Hillary Clinton made this explicit when she said mass public shootings “are rooted in the much too readily available weapons of mass killings, usually assault weapons.”

    However, in just 2015, France—a country with one-fifth the population of the United States—had more casualties from mass public shootings than the U.S. had during the entire eight years of the Obama presidency (532 versus 527). And, of course, mass public shootings in France have occurred regularly over the years. All the weapons used in the 2015 France attacks were already illegal. The eight who attacked various sites in Paris in November 2015 were armed with automatic AK-47s and explosive suicide belts. The February 2015 Copenhagen attack was carried out with an automatic M95 assault rifle. In the January 2015 attack on Charlie Hebdo and a kosher supermarket in Paris, the terrorists were armed with automatic Kalashnikov rifles, a loaded M42 rocket launcher, semi-automatic handguns, smoke grenades, Molotov cocktails, a hand grenade and sticks of dynamite.

    Mass public shootings are defined as four or more people killed in a public place, and not in the course of committing another crime, and not involving struggles over sovereignty. Using the traditional FBI definition, the EU and the U.S. each experienced 25 mass shootings during the first seven years of Obama’s presidency (January 2009 to December 2015).

    The rate at which people were killed was virtually the same: 0.083 per million people in the EU versus 0.089 per million people in the U.S. But the injury rate in the EU was more than twice as high: 0.19 versus 0.087. The cases are listed in my book, The War on Guns, so people can check each case themselves.

    If you compare the U.S. to individual countries in Europe over the same period, the U.S. had the 11th highest fatality rate. Because of Anders Breivik’s 2011 attack at a summer camp, Norway had the top spot—1.9 per million people per year. This rate was 21 times higher than that of the U.S. But other advanced countries such as France, Switzerland, Finland, Belgium and the Czech Republic also came in above the U.S.

    Looking only at the frequency of attacks—as Obama seems wont to do—while still adjusting for population, the U.S. came in 12th, with 0.078 per million people.

    Compared to the rest of the world, moreover, the U.S. and Europe are quite safe from mass public shootings. In Russia and elsewhere, struggles over sovereignty have led to a large number of devastating attacks. For instance, the 2004 Beslan school siege—carried out in the name of Chechen independence—claimed 385 lives.

    Since 1970, all but one of the 20 worst mass public shootings and 45 of the worst 50 cases occurred outside the United States. Again, I list the cases in my book so people can check all the cases up through March 2016.

    A1F: Do you think those who oppose gun ownership know these facts, or are they simply misled?

    Lott: Several things are happening here. Part of the problem is the media simply don’t give the same coverage to most mass public shootings in Europe that they give to attacks in the U.S. Part of it is also that people don’t adjust for population differences across countries. You can’t compare the U.S. with more than 320 million people with other countries that may only have 4 million or 8 million people. As just noted, even France has only a fifth of the U.S. population.

    Unfortunately, there is a third problem. There has been clear fraud and complete incompetence in this area. The study that has gotten the most media coverage is by Adam Lankford. He reportedly covers the years 1966 to 2012 and claims: “Despite [the U.S.] having less than 5 percent of the global population, it had 31 percent of global public mass shooters.”

    His claims got uncritical coverage in the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Associated Press, “PBS Newshour,” NPR, “ABC Evening News,” Fox News, and many hundreds of other outlets. In fact, many prominent outlets have covered the claim repeatedly. It has even received coverage in countries like Australia, Argentina, Armenia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, India, Iran, Mexico, Peru, Sweden, Turkey, UK, Vietnam and Cuba.

    But when Lankford’s study got massive uncritical media attention he only shared the paper with reporters, and he required that they didn’t share it with researchers. Despite the wide publicity given to his findings, he repeatedly turned down my requests to see his paper. On Dec. 1, 2015, the Washington Post’s Michelle Lee wrote me: “I do have a copy but [Lankford] asked that I not distribute it or post it online before it's formally published. You can contact him and request, maybe now that his study is being discussed he might be more open to share?” But I contacted Lankford both before and after Lee’s email—he declined to provide either the paper or his data.

    I finally obtained a copy of Lankford’s paper when it was published at the end of January 2016 —more than five months after it originally started getting news attention. Incredibly, even after his paper was published Lankford still refused to let me look at his list of mass public shootings from other countries. All I wanted was a list similar to what I have provided in my book.

    At first, I simply hoped that Lankford had discovered some previously unknown way of collecting these cases. But his paper provides very little specific information, not even telling us the number of shootings in more than four foreign countries. No breakdown is provided by continent. It is hard to believe that Lankford even has such information, but there is no way of checking his data and seeing what cases he has missed.

    People shouldn’t trust a researcher who refuses to share even the most basic information behind his research. The fact that he is unwilling to let anyone check his work shows a bad conscience.

    A1F: How much affect does it have on the debate when someone like Obama makes such a statement and the media don’t even check to see if it is true?

    Lott: For the president of the United States to keep repeating this claim over and over again in public—and for the media to give massive coverage reporting Adam Lankford’s work without interviewing any critics of it—these things surely have an impact on the debate. I frequently hear reporters and legislators repeat these claims. I have a list of mass public shootings in other countries with strict gun control available so that those advocating gun control can check the cases themselves and see how many are occurring around the rest of the world.

    A1F: What do you think is the most important thing people should understand about this topic?

    Lott: The most important thing is how these mass public shooters pick targets where they know that victims can’t defend themselves. Over 98 percent of the mass public shootings in the U.S. since at least 1950 have occurred in “gun-free zones,” places where general citizens aren’t allowed to defend themselves. All the mass public shootings in Europe and Canada have occurred in these gun-free zones.

    It is hard to ignore the explicit statements made by these killers when they have explained why they have picked the targets that they have. These killers pick places where people won’t have guns to protect themselves and others.

    Last year, a young ISIS sympathizer planned a shooting at one of the largest churches in Detroit. An FBI wire recorded him explaining why he had targeted the church: “It’s easy, and a lot of people go there. Plus people are not allowed to carry guns in church. Plus it would make the news.” Fortunately, that ISIS sympathizer ended up being only a would-be shooter. But, during the last couple of years, shooters have made similar statements after attacking a church in Charleston, S.C., a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., and a sorority house in Santa Barbara, Calif.

    Police are extremely important in stopping crime, but they have an extremely difficult time stopping terrorist attacks. A uniformed officer might as well be wearing a neon sign saying, “Shoot me first.” But with concealed permit holders possibly being present, terrorists have a much more difficult job when they reveal themselves. Consequently, police officers can breath easier.

    A1F: Given these facts, what do you think is the most important thing people should do?

    Lott: People need to make sure that they are informed. Getting rid of gun-free zones is extremely important. I would argue that it is the most important legislation to get passed as quickly as possible. Whether it is gun-free zones on college campuses or government buildings, gun control advocates claim disasters will occur if people are allowed to carry concealed handguns. But gun control advocates greatest fear is that these gun-free zones actually will be eliminated and people will find out that the gun control advocates’ claims never happen.

    For other important information dealing with gun control and the Second Amendment, check out John Lott’s newest book, The War On Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies. You can order The War On Guns directly from Amazon.com or Barnesandnoble.com.

  • Simon

    News just in. Obama is a piece of shit.

    Like serious, WTF? Your first thought is to breeze right past the tragedy of these kids deaths to fawn over some criminal thug? He continues with Trayvon Martin. What a clown.


  • jojorabbit

    Obama is just an opportunist and will use any tragedy to further his agenda and stay relevant. He is most certainly a POS. Sad he was ever president.

  • jojorabbit

    Another thing the left covers up. It was not all that long ago like yesterday they were crying to de-fund the police. This was a train wreck of an idea right out of the gate. The left has never learned play stupid games win stupid prizes.

  • joey jojo
    joey jojo


    "When I was in school in the late 60s and 70s, people had guns in the back of the truck window parked at the school. Schools had guns. In college people who were ROTC would carry a rifle around on Campus. But there was little of this insane stuff going on. Why is that? Because the left has degraded our culture. Pushing transgender as normal, that you don't need a father to help raise the child, that two moms are a good thing, that black culture is not full of violence, misogynistic and glorifies hood rats and gang bangers. That violent video games and seeing at the click of a button any kind of rape, murder or violence as much as you want on the internet. Lets be clear, culture has taken a radical downward spiral over the last 40 years."

    Growing up in rural Australia in the 70's and 80's, we had 3 guns in our house, and we werent even a shooting/ hunting family. Nearly every family I knew had a gun or 2 in the house. You can live in a fantasy world about how life was good in the old days but there were a lot of gun related injuries. It wasnt because there were transgender gangs roaming the streets, or video games rotting kids brains but because guns are dangerous - period. They are designed to be dangerous. To pretend otherwise is delusional.

    Citing John Lott about gun control is like asking Tony Morris 3 to present an honest critique of the jw's.

  • jhine

    I have to put my hand up and say that l didn't realise the high amount of gun ownership in some other countries. So , yes it's interesting that America has a much higher murder rate.

    I suppose that the only reason that we are aware of the US gun laws is

    A - because of the amount of firearms in American tv programmes

    B - the amount of mass shooting there

    So l do take the point that banning guns is very impractical and probably wouldn't work anyway. However semi automatic and automatic weapons do make mass shootings much easier .

    Simon l do live in an area where violent crime is rare . However l think that most people still have very little chance of being stabbed even in large cities .

    Death by stabbing is still rare enough to hit the national headlines.

    I do agree that given the situation in the US schools should be protected. My point was that it is a sad state of affairs when that is necessary. As far as l know no other first world country has to take such measures .


Share this