FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
7 years, 7 mass shootings, 7 speeches from Obama

7 years, 7 mass shootings, 7 speeches from Obama

(2:18) When President Obama reacted to the mass shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina, it was not nearly the first time he'd made similar remarks.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Concerned Citizen (910 days ago)

Sure you want to take the guns of the people away but you have no problem having the entire armed secret service guard protect you every day. The day the President walks around unprotected is the day I will consider giving up my guns.

ReplyVote up (77)down (101)
Original comment

Sure you want to take the guns of the people away but you have no problem having the entire armed secret service guard protect you every day. The day the President walks around unprotected is the day I will consider giving up my guns.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (909 days ago)

My suspicion is that the Secret Service people are there to protect the President from the people who have guns in the first place. Catch 22?

Original comment

My suspicion is that the Secret Service people are there to protect the President from the people who have guns in the first place. Catch 22?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Concerned Citizen (909 days ago)

And my guns are to protect me from the same people. So why can the elite protect themselves but not the common folk?

Original comment

And my guns are to protect me from the same people. So why can the elite protect themselves but not the common folk?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (909 days ago)

The likelihood of needing using for defence versus likelihood of misusing them for attack, differs between the average American and the President. By a factor of about a million.

It's an absurd equivalence to draw..

Original comment

The likelihood of needing using for defence versus likelihood of misusing them for attack, differs between the average American and the President. By a factor of about a million.

It's an absurd equivalence to draw..

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (908 days ago)

Not absurd at all, that's why the president surrounds himself with armoured vehicles and lots more guns, and I'm sure other lethal gadgets as well, not to mention the same for all members of his immediate family, it's all relative. How many ordinary people are robbed, mugged, killed etc. a year? Don't they have an equal right to self protections? So how many presidents have been attacked recently compared to ordinary citizens?

Original comment

Not absurd at all, that's why the president surrounds himself with armoured vehicles and lots more guns, and I'm sure other lethal gadgets as well, not to mention the same for all members of his immediate family, it's all relative. How many ordinary people are robbed, mugged, killed etc. a year? Don't they have an equal right to self protections? So how many presidents have been attacked recently compared to ordinary citizens?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (908 days ago)

Approximately 0.2% of the population will be killed by a firearm, and approx 10% of presidents have died from one. This would of course be much higher if they weren't protected.

Conversely a firearm belonging to Joe Bloggs is much more likely to kill an innocent person than one carried by a properly vetted presidential bodyguard.

Ergo, defending the president by firearm is justified because it clearly saves more lives than are put at risk. Allowing the public to defend themselves puts more people at harm than it makes safe - including, ironically, the person owning the firearm.

It is a patently ridiculous comparison.

ReplyVote up (65)down (101)
Original comment

Approximately 0.2% of the population will be killed by a firearm, and approx 10% of presidents have died from one. This would of course be much higher if they weren't protected.

Conversely a firearm belonging to Joe Bloggs is much more likely to kill an innocent person than one carried by a properly vetted presidential bodyguard.

Ergo, defending the president by firearm is justified because it clearly saves more lives than are put at risk. Allowing the public to defend themselves puts more people at harm than it makes safe - including, ironically, the person owning the firearm.

It is a patently ridiculous comparison.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Concerned Citizen (908 days ago)

The president is not the only person needing extra security.

Any company that deals with cash are targets for robberies and should be able to protect themselves with armed guards.

CEO's and other rich people, people with positions of authority like Judges need protection. Imagine a judge that sentences someone to a year in jail and the possibilities of them being a target when the person gets out.

Original comment

The president is not the only person needing extra security.

Any company that deals with cash are targets for robberies and should be able to protect themselves with armed guards.

CEO's and other rich people, people with positions of authority like Judges need protection. Imagine a judge that sentences someone to a year in jail and the possibilities of them being a target when the person gets out.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (907 days ago)

Well if it's justified by the numbers, then they too should be afforded protection. But you haven't provided that evidence.

Protection against robberies can be done many other ways - most other western countries don't have half as much a problem though ... because they've banned the firerms that are used for the most dangerous robberies in the first place.

Also, you've changed your argument from being about yourself wanting to have a gun to being about those in positions of risk being afforded protection. That difference was the basis of my rejection of your argument, in the first place.

Original comment

Well if it's justified by the numbers, then they too should be afforded protection. But you haven't provided that evidence.

Protection against robberies can be done many other ways - most other western countries don't have half as much a problem though ... because they've banned the firerms that are used for the most dangerous robberies in the first place.

Also, you've changed your argument from being about yourself wanting to have a gun to being about those in positions of risk being afforded protection. That difference was the basis of my rejection of your argument, in the first place.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Concerned Citizen (907 days ago)

You want evidence that regular citizens are murdered? It is common knowledge so I'm not going to waste my time with that. More low income and low class citizens were murdered than Presidents. You can find those statistics yourself, I'm sure.

ReplyVote up (100)down (86)
Original comment

You want evidence that regular citizens are murdered? It is common knowledge so I'm not going to waste my time with that. More low income and low class citizens were murdered than Presidents. You can find those statistics yourself, I'm sure.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (907 days ago)
Latest comment:

No, I don't want evidence that more ordinary people get shot to death than presidents (there's a reason for that, if you think about it).

What matters is risk versus reward. By arming the president's guards, we get to keep him a lot safer for negligible extra risk. By removing Joe Bloggs' guns, we get to keep the people that he might kill safer, at the expense of the possibility that he might actually one day need a gun to defend himself (as per above, this is a negative benefit - a person owning a gun becomes more likely to be killed, not less).

Original comment
Latest comment:

No, I don't want evidence that more ordinary people get shot to death than presidents (there's a reason for that, if you think about it).

What matters is risk versus reward. By arming the president's guards, we get to keep him a lot safer for negligible extra risk. By removing Joe Bloggs' guns, we get to keep the people that he might kill safer, at the expense of the possibility that he might actually one day need a gun to defend himself (as per above, this is a negative benefit - a person owning a gun becomes more likely to be killed, not less).

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Who lied most, Trump or Obama?
Who lied most, Trump or Obama?
TYT - Obama vs Trump on Twitter
TYT - Obama vs Trump on Twitter
Dave Daubenmire: Obama was an emissary from hell
Dave Daubenmire: Obama was an emissary from hell
Bill Maher - What if Obama said ...?
Bill Maher - What if Obama said ...?
Faking Obama with artificial intelligence
Faking Obama with artificial intelligence