Is Obama Telling The Truth And Nothing But The Truth Or Is He Massaging The Facts

[esmith]

Ok I admit I do not like Obama as President and will questions his agenda every chance I get. So here goes. Feel free to find incorrect facts,. Now I will use links which I suspect many will challenge as right wing sources. So be it. The facts are the facts.

Obama said the following at the Paris News Conference about gun violence
"I say this every time we’ve got one of these mass shootings. This just doesn’t happen in other countries,”

So, is Obama right or wrong. Well yes and no. Let's look at the facts from: Source
Note: the above article is by John R. Lott Jr. He is an economist and was formerly chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission. Lott is also a leading expert on guns and op-eds on that issue are done in conjunction with the Crime Prevention Research Center. He is the author of eight books including "More Guns, Less Crime." His latest book is "Dumbing Down the Courts: How Politics Keeps the Smartest Judges Off the Bench" Bascom Hill
Below gleaned from the article

in 2015 France suffered more causalities (129 killed and 352 injured) than in Obama's entire Presidency

Norway, where Anders Behring Breivik used a gun to kill 67 people and wound 110 others. Still others were killed by bombs that Breivik detonated

Norway had the highest annual death rate, with 2 mass public shooting fatalities per million people. Macedonia had a rate of 0.38, Serbia 0.28, Slovakia 0.20, Finland 0.14, Belgium 0.14, and the Czech Republic 0.13. The US comes in No. 8 with 0.095 mass public shooting fatalities per million people. Austria and Switzerland are close behind.

— Tours, France, October 29, 2001: four people were killed and 10 wounded when a French railway worker started killing people at a busy intersection in the city.

— Nanterre, France, March 27, 2002: a man kills eight city councilors after a city council meeting.

— Toulouse, France, March 19, 2012, Mohammed Merah killed four people (the killer also killed people in Montauban, France).

Don't like the source of the article? Try
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/12/fr...during-obamas-entire-presidency-508-to-424-2/
or
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/co...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

Now immediately after the San Bernardino attack Obama is back on his soap box with his second biggest crusade behind climate change. Gun Control. Now we all know, or should know that nothing would have stopped the terrorist(my call) from obtaining weapons and that includes confiscation of all legal firearms. Obama is now calling for those on the "No Fly List" to be banned from purchasing firearms. It seems that Obama is grasping at straws. Even the ACLU says that the No Fly List is flawed If Obama would pay as much to terrorist activities around the world as he does with climate change and gun control maybe something could be done about terrorist activities.

 

[Laika]

"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms (excluding BB and pellet guns) were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000), 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent" for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

The U.S. Department of State reports that only 17 U.S. citizens were killed worldwide as a result of terrorism in 2011. That figure includes deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq and all other theaters of war."

Spoiler: Some Comparisons

You are 35,079 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack

– You are 33,842 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

And a new study published in the Journal of Patient Safety says the numbers may be up to 440,000 each year. But let’s use the lower – 100,000 – figure. That still means that you are 5,882 times more likely to die from medical error than terrorism.

The CDC says that some 80,000 deaths each year are attributable to excessive alcohol use. So you’re 4,706 times more likely to drink yourself to death than die from terrorism.

Wikipedia notes that there were 32,367 automobile accidents in 2011, which means that you are 1,904 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack.

So you’re 2,059 times more likely to kill yourself than die at the hand of a terrorist.

The CDC notes that there were 7,638 deaths from HIV and 45 from syphilis, so you’re 452 times more likely to die from risky sexual behavior than terrorism.

[The risk of being killed by terrorism] compares annual risk of dying in a car accident of 1 in 19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000. In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818

33,169 US Gun Deaths (in 2013) versus 17 US Deaths due to Terrorism (in 2011). 9/11 killed 2,996 people, so even that would be under one tenth of the figure for gun deaths.

Obama is Right He is not massaging the facts. America has a gun problem.

 

[Zardoz]

How do you know if a politician is lying? Easy! His lips are moving!

 

[Augustus]

Feel free to find incorrect facts... in 2015 France suffered more causalities (129 killed and 352 injured) than in Obama's entire Presidency

This appears to be from the Donald Trump school of fantastical untruths. Around about 1800 casualties in 2015 so far.

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Main_Page


If you are pro-gun, fair enough, that's your right. At least be honest about things though rather than pretending that numbers of gun related deaths in America are completely normal in comparison to other developed countries.

Any depressed teen, conspiracy theory nut, grudge holder, spurned husband, 2 bit hood, etc. can get many guns and unlimited ammo at a moments notice and shoot up a school, workplace, rival gang or whatever they like. This is simply not the case in most other developed countries.

If you think owning guns is an important right to be defended, just accept that frequent mass shootings, toddlers shooting their sister in the face and trigger happy cops are a price you are willing to pay for this right. No need to peddle myths about guns reducing crime and the solution to preventing shootings being more guns.

Just say it's your right to own guns, as per the constitution, and everything else is an unfortunate consequence of this right. Other people misusing guns shouldn't revoke the rights of responsible gun owners, so these deaths are a price society will have to pay.

Ironically, this is the view that people should accept regarding terrorism, accepting that a small number of deaths is a price you have to pay to be a modern, open society. The same people who get hysterical about anybody even remotely suggesting gun laws get tightened up (the people who are most willing to accept deaths as a societal cost of gun ownership), tend to be the most fanatical about overreacting to a few terrorist deaths (least willing to accept deaths as a societal cost of an open society). Seems a bizarre contradiction to me.

If the American people had responded to 9/11 closer to the way they respond to gun deaths, you'd be $4 trillion better off and the world would be slightly less of a mess.

 

[HonestJoe]

All politicians spin, exaggerate, apply rhetoric and outright lie. If a politician told the truth people wouldn’t support them. No we can’t stop the terrorists. Yes, your taxes are going to keep going up. No, we can’t magic up more jobs. We usually don’t want to hear the truth, we’d rather hear a more comforting lie or we’ll believe a politician telling us he can and will achieve something regardless of how unrealistic the promises are.

As long as we focus attention on single politicians, single parties or single labelled groupings in this context we’re just playing along with the same dishonest game. The problem is politics rather than politicians and currently you’re part of the problem.

 

[tytlyf]

What you should never do is listen to people that are supported by the gun lobby. They put profit over people. (NRA)

GHWB was correct to cancel his lifetime membership decades ago, the NRA is nothing more than a shill for gun/ammo manufacturers these days.

It's a panic mongering propaganda operation that is designed to get people to support who the NRA tells them to support.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Do not forget that the constitution gives people the right to own guns. I do not see much chance of the constituion beong changed so how can anyone expect any kind of gun control.

 

[esmith]

This appears to be from the Donald Trump school of fantastical untruths. Around about 1800 casualties in 2015 so far.

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Main_Page

If you are pro-gun, fair enough, that's your right. At least be honest about things though rather than pretending that numbers of gun related deaths in America are completely normal in comparison to other developed countries.

You seem to have fallen into the rhetoric pitfall that Obama and the left has set for you. Obama said " "I say this every time we’ve got one of these mass shootings. This just doesn’t happen in other countries,” (my emphasis)
Let's set the fact straight. There has NOT been 1800 casualties in 2015 from mass shootings in the USA. There have been 242 casualties Due To Mass Shootings during time period that Obama has been in office and this includes the latest terrorist attack in San Bernandino I agree that there have been more firearm casualties that 242; but not due to mass shootings.

Any depressed teen, conspiracy theory nut, grudge holder, spurned husband, 2 bit hood, etc. can get many guns and unlimited ammo at a moments notice and shoot up a school, workplace, rival gang or whatever they like. This is simply not the case in most other developed countries.

Yes, we have the freedom to legally purchase firearms and ammunition as long as we follow the laws that are in place now. The only problem is that those laws are not being enforced to the fullest extent of the law. We also have a legitimate quandary about the mental health issue. On one hand we do not want those with mental health issues to own firearms, yet we have those that block any sensible means of determining who has mental health issues because of the rights of those persons.

If you think owning guns is an important right to be defended, just accept that frequent mass shootings, toddlers shooting their sister in the face and trigger happy cops are a price you are willing to pay for this right. No need to peddle myths about guns reducing crime and the solution to preventing shootings being more guns.

Point. If someone is determined to inflict mass casualties on people, whether they are mental ill or a terrorist, what new laws would you enact (other than confiscation) that would solve the problem. Point: accidental deaths to children by firearms is the DIRECT responsibility of the owner of the firearm. If I ever thought that children would enter my home, my firearms would be secure; every firearm owner should practice safe handling and where necessary safe storage. It is not the responsibility or purpose of the government to regulate stupidity. Yes, there are law enforcement officers that should not be on the job; however the good ones far surpass the bad ones. Point. There is no proof that the presence of a firearm does not reduce the possibility of a crime being perpetrated aganist you, yet there is documentation that criminals are more apt to target areas where there is an absence of a firearm.

Just say it's your right to own guns, as per the constitution, and everything else is an unfortunate consequence of this right. Other people misusing guns shouldn't revoke the rights of responsible gun owners, so these deaths are a price society will have to pay.

Alright I say that those that misuse firearms do not have the right to have the government restrict my rights to own a firearm. I think that anyone owing a firearm should avail themselves of the many courses that teach firearm safety; However, I do not think that the government has the right to require it. Yes, I am for a required course, or proof of competence, before anyone is issued a CCW permit and that this permit be honored in every state and territory of the US. The permit has to be reissued every "x" number of years.

Ironically, this is the view that people should accept regarding terrorism, accepting that a small number of deaths is a price you have to pay to be a modern, open society. The same people who get hysterical about anybody even remotely suggesting gun laws get tightened up (the people who are most willing to accept deaths as a societal cost of gun ownership), tend to be the most fanatical about overreacting to a few terrorist deaths (least willing to accept deaths as a societal cost of an open society). Seems a bizarre contradiction to me.[/tquote]
That is your opinion and your right to that opinion; However, I do not want your opinion to reflect on my rights. What makes you assume that those of us that support firearm ownership are not troubled by the deaths caused by firearms? I for one take affront to that. Most of us realize that sensible firearm ownership laws should be enacted, not the mass hysteria being presented by this President, other politicians, and those that support those ideas.

If the American people had responded to 9/11 closer to the way they respond to gun deaths, you'd be $4 trillion better off and the world would be slightly less of a mess.

Again that is your opinion which can not be proven.

In closing let me add one small thought. If one or more persons at the San Bernandino terrorist attack or at any other mass shootings had a weapon could lives had been saved? I would rather go down fighting than waiting to be slaughtered like a animal. That is why I have my CCW permit and train constantly.

 

[Augustus]

You seem to have fallen into the rhetoric pitfall that Obama and the left has set for you. Obama said " "I say this every time we’ve got one of these mass shootings. This just doesn’t happen in other countries,” (my emphasis)
Let's set the fact straight. There has NOT been 1800 casualties in 2015 from mass shootings in the USA. There have been 242 casualties Due To Mass Shootings during time period that Obama has been in office and this includes the latest terrorist attack in San Bernandino I agree that there have been more firearm casualties that 242; but not due to mass shootings.

What is a mass shooting? If you use the criterion of 4 or more people shot, those figures are correct. Links provided in the document to media reports.

I assume you are using some restrictive qualification like 10 people killed or something.

That is your opinion and your right to that opinion; However, I do not want your opinion to reflect on my rights. What makes you assume that those of us that support firearm ownership are not troubled by the deaths caused by firearms? I for one take affront to that. Most of us realize that sensible firearm ownership laws should be enacted, not the mass hysteria being presented by this President, other politicians, and those that support those ideas.

I don't mean you don't care, just that you don't see it as a reason to limit gun ownership.

I'm not American, I have no horse in this race and am not pro/anti gun as it isn;t my country. As I said, you decide if it's a price worth paying. There will always be irresponsible gun owners though, and there will always be people with 'issues' who kill innocent people in a way impossible if they didn't have any guns.

In most Western countries most people couldn't get a gun even if they wanted to, they lack the connections. Even if they did, ammo is pretty hard to come by. A depressed middle class teen, can't go out and shoot up a school.

No matter how hard you try, these problems will continue, you just have to accept that even if you try minimise harms as much as possible.

There is also an argument that there are so many guns in society that you can't put the genie back in the bottle. This argument has some merit.

I just find it mendacious when people try to claim that more guns don't make mass shootings more common, but in fact make people safer and that anyone who support gun control is a hysterical tyrant.

If, instead of looking at manipulated stats, you went to other Western countries, you would realise quite how abnormal having more than 1 mass shooting every day actually is.

In closing let me add one small thought. If one or more persons at the San Bernandino terrorist attack or at any other mass shootings had a weapon could lives had been saved? I would rather go down fighting than waiting to be slaughtered like a animal. That is why I have my CCW permit and train constantly.

In other countries, might well not have happened. Certainly Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc wouldn't have happened.

The fewer people who have access to guns, the fewer mass shootings there will be.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms (excluding BB and pellet guns) were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000), 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent" for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

The U.S. Department of State reports that only 17 U.S. citizens were killed worldwide as a result of terrorism in 2011. That figure includes deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq and all other theaters of war."

Spoiler: Some Comparisons

You are 35,079 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack

– You are 33,842 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

And a new study published in the Journal of Patient Safety says the numbers may be up to 440,000 each year. But let’s use the lower – 100,000 – figure. That still means that you are 5,882 times more likely to die from medical error than terrorism.

The CDC says that some 80,000 deaths each year are attributable to excessive alcohol use. So you’re 4,706 times more likely to drink yourself to death than die from terrorism.

Wikipedia notes that there were 32,367 automobile accidents in 2011, which means that you are 1,904 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack.

So you’re 2,059 times more likely to kill yourself than die at the hand of a terrorist.

The CDC notes that there were 7,638 deaths from HIV and 45 from syphilis, so you’re 452 times more likely to die from risky sexual behavior than terrorism.

[The risk of being killed by terrorism] compares annual risk of dying in a car accident of 1 in 19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000. In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818

33,169 US Gun Deaths (in 2013) versus 17 US Deaths due to Terrorism (in 2011). 9/11 killed 2,996 people, so even that would be under one tenth of the figure for gun deaths.

Obama is Right He is not massaging the facts. America has a gun problem.

I don't know what else I'm supposed to say. You're being quite accurate here. The US does have a gun problem and it's a problem enshrined in the US constitution, old and outdated as it is. Once the public perception changes, then laws can change but it can never be the other way around.