Mass Shootings Up Under Obama

[JojoBag]

Mass shootings, i.e. false flags, are up under Obama.

 

 

Ronald Reagan- 1981-1989  11 mass shootings                    Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5

 

George H. W. Bush- 1989-1993  12 mass murders            Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 3
Bill Clinton- 1993-2001  23 mass murders                          Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 4

 

George W. Bush- 2001-20090  20 mass murders               Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5
Obama- 2009-2015 (< 7 years) 162 mass murders          Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 18

 

Statistical Analysis

The numbers do not lie with regard to the number of mass murders that have taken place under Obama vs. the four Presidents that have come before him.

    President                        Average Number of Mass Murders Per Month

1. Obama                           23+  per year or almost 2 per month
2. GHW Bush                   3.0  per year
3. Clinton                           2.875 per year
4. GW Bush                       2.5 per year
5. Ronald Reagan           1.375 per year

An American citizen is nearly 8 (7.666) times more likely to be killed in a mass murder event under the current President than the previous four Presidents.

During the incomplete tenure of the Obama administration, there have a total of 163 murders in less than 7 years. During the previous tenure of the last 4 Presidents, 66 total mass murder events. These 66 mass murders took place in 28 Presidential years. When one takes this perspective, an American is 10 times more likely to be killed in a mass murder event under Obama than the four previous Presidents. 

 

Why?  Obama wants the guns and this is the only way he can think of to get them: make the American people believe that giving up guns is the only way to safety and security.  What I simply cannot wrap my head around is the liberal-communist belief is that the criminals will give up their guns along with the law abiding citizens.  Of course, liberals know that getting the guns is only a sham.  They want total control and that cannot be achieved with an armed populace.

[Guest MormonGator]

Um, no. 

Obama and I disagree strongly on guns. 

 

But these mass shootings are deeply horrific and you can't blame him for them. You can't blame the gun, either.

People died under these. It's really, really insulting to call it a "false flag".  

You know what you can blame? Human evil. 

Edited December 6, 2015 by MormonGator

[David13]

I don't think jojoberg was 'blaming' Oblabama.  I think he was pointing out the coincidence of it. 

I also think the true cause is human evil, but also that the liar in Chief is in fact ...  evil.

Just my opinion based on observation.

dc

[Guest]

False flag?  Nope.  Doesn't need to be.  He just puts the screws to society in just the right way, espouse a "culture of corruption", promote evil ideas, and criticize good ones, there are enough people who are on the edge, that they will do these acts.

 

Then... never let a good tragedy go to waste.

[LeSellers]

Mass shootings, i.e. false flags, are up under Obama.

There is no need to assign "false flag" status to these events. There is quite enough evil in the world (and it's growing) to account for it.

Does O'bama relish them? No doubt in my mind. He doesn't want to let a crisis go to waste that could advance his agenda of a bigger, more intrusive government with less freedom for individuals. But he is an exploiter, not necessarily an instigator.

Obama wants the guns and this is the only way he can think of to get them: make the American people believe that giving up guns is the only way to safety and security. What I simply cannot wrap my head around is the liberal-communist belief is that the criminals will give up their guns along with the law abiding citizens. Of course, liberals know that getting the guns is only a sham. They want total control and that cannot be achieved with an armed populace.

Indeed. An armed populace (i.e., a well regulated militia) will not allow their our freedoms to go trampled under the jackboots of a tyrant. At least, one hopes not.

Lehi

Edited December 7, 2015 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

People died under these. It's really, really insulting to call it a "false flag".

While I agree that these are unlikely to be false flag events, it does not mean that a false flag can't result in real deaths. The U.S.S. Maine and the Gulf of Tonkin were both false flags, and people died.

Lehi

[pam]

I don't think it matters who has been in office.  We sometimes tend to forget what prophecy has told us about the last days.  Evil will increase and we are seeing an increase.  Has there been more mass shootings since Obama has been in office?  Sure there has been.  But he is also the most current President in office as we move closer and closer to the second coming of Christ where evil will abound before His coming.  It's just easier to blame the current President.

[Guest]

Pam,

 

You've certainly got a point.  It is a bit like the supposed European columnist who said something like, "I am not disappointed that Obama is such a bad president.  I'm disappointed that America has become a people who would elect such a president.

 

This has been building since long before all of us were born.

[Scovy]

Obama has something positive going, he's become the #1 gun salesman the past few years.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Scovy

[NeuroTypical]

Hey, if we're looking to politically spin US deaths, let's be careful.  It can be politically spun lots of ways.  Don't forget those christian racist terrorists!

 

   

[SpiritDragon]

Mass shootings, i.e. false flags, are up under Obama.

 

 

Why?  Obama wants the guns and this is the only way he can think of to get them: make the American people believe that giving up guns is the only way to safety and security.  What I simply cannot wrap my head around is the liberal-communist belief is that the criminals will give up their guns along with the law abiding citizens.  Of course, liberals know that getting the guns is only a sham.  They want total control and that cannot be achieved with an armed populace.

 

What I can't get my head around is why events that would cause me to want a gun more is supposed to get people to willingly give up their guns. I know when our liberal government in Canada under Chretien implemented gun registration it was the biggest waste of tax dollars imaginable for an essentially unenforceable policy. Fortunately we got rid of it - and hopefully it never returns. Naturally you're correct that the criminals don't run up and register a weapon prior to committing a crime. It only creates one more thing for law abiding citizens to comply with and gives the criminals another thing to ignore. 

[JojoBag]

I don't think jojoberg was 'blaming' Oblabama.  I think he was pointing out the coincidence of it. 

I also think the true cause is human evil, but also that the liar in Chief is in fact ...  evil.

Just my opinion based on observation.

dc

 

I'm not specifically blaming Barry for these shootings.  I am blaming the Gadianton organization that is using him for most of these shootings.  I have no doubt in my mind that many of these are orchestrated by this organization.  The more I read into the history of false flags, and begin connecting seemingly unrelated facts, the more I am convinced that many, not all, of these mass shootings are related and controlled by the Gadiantons.. 

 

In his book, "The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil," Elder Andersen tells us that it is our responsibility to learn about Satan, his plan, how he operates, and who he uses in his church.  What is interesting is that the Devil's church is actually a collection of people and organizations from all walks of life, including a majority of active, but deceived Latter-day Saints.  However, there is a major shadow organization that he uses to coordinate his activities.  It is this organization that I am blaming for many of the mass shootings.

 

I believe it is the same organization that arranged the mass shooting in, Tasmania, Australia in 1996, which lead to the Australian government banning most firearms.  I also think this same organization is trying to use the same tactics - outrage the citizens through a horrific massacre -  here in the U.S. and convince them that only the government can protect you.  I also believe that Obama is part of this organization, but that he is a loose warhead who is getting out of control.  His Muslim religion and his wholehearted support of it is at odds with the goals of the Gadiantons. 

 

I know this sounds a bit crazy, but as I search the writings, sermons and speeches of various LDS prophets and GA's, I'm convinced my crazy ideas are fairly accurate.

[Guest]

I know y'all don't like Pres. Obama, but as Americans, you really do need to respect his office even if you don't respect the man.  Addressing the President should at least have his last name correct, preferably with the title President.

 

Just my 2 cents as a non-American.

[Guest]

The office of President hasn't really been respected to the level you're talking about since Kennedy or perhaps Eisenhower.

 

The popularization of omitting the title "President" was because of Clinton's first White House run, when he made it a point to never refer to Bush Sr. as "President Bush", but always as "Mr. Bush".  From there it was a very short step to omit the "Mr."

Edited December 7, 2015 by Guest

[LeSellers]

Addressing the President should at least have his last name correct, preferably with the title President.

I understand your PoV, but respectfully disagree.

I use "(Mr.) O'bama", and never "President Obama" precisely to show my utter abhorrence of the man, not as a man, but of his theft of the office he holds, of his derision for the Constitution and our freedoms, and most of all, his stated desire to fundamentally change this once-great country.

BTW, "O'bama" is a sign of respect for his Irish heritage. He went to Moneygall to celebrate his Irish ancestors. I can't afford to go there, so I spend what I can: a few billion electrons to show it.

Finally, lest anyone imagine me a racist (as some doubtless will), it is his Black half I respect: his White half is completely degenerate.

Lehi

Edited December 8, 2015 by LeSellers

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I know y'all don't like Pres. Obama, but as Americans, you really do need to respect his office even if you don't respect the man. Addressing the President should at least have his last name correct, preferably with the title President.

Just my 2 cents as a non-American.

Thanks, I agree.

[Guest]

I don't need anyone (least of all someone who doesn't even consider herself American) telling me what I "need" to do as an American, first of all. 

 

Second, I agree with LeSeller's sentiment. I'd be more prone to respect the office of the president if the man who held the office did.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Eowyn

[Guest MormonGator]

I know y'all don't like Pres. Obama, but as Americans, you really do need to respect his office even if you don't respect the man.  Addressing the President should at least have his last name correct, preferably with the title President.

 

Just my 2 cents as a non-American.

 Agree. That's why I stand and place my hand over my heart when I hear the Canadian national anthem. Out of respect to my Canadian grandparents as well. 

 

Sadly though, leftists don't agree with you. They hated Bush and treated him like garbage. I didn't like his policies at all (In fact, I disagreed strongly with most of them) but I had great respect for him personally. I feel the same about Obama. Don't agree with much, but have respect for him personally  

Edited December 7, 2015 by MormonGator

[Guest]

Thanks, I agree.

 

LP,

 

I'd ask you to ask yourself an honest question.  When Clinton refused to use the title "President" when discussing or even addressing the first Bush, did you even raise an eyebrow?  Did you raise an eyebrow when the media went against their standards and omitted the title with the second Bush?

 

You have your standards.  I get it.  But it has to go both ways.  I've had three liberal friends object to my omitting the title of President when just discussing Obama, yet they did not even think about it when discussing Bush.

 

I myself haven't used it with pretty much any president except as an emphasis for which person I was talking about.  And I liked Reagan.  I still didn't really call him President Reagan for most discussions.

 

No matter what you think of this, at least I'm consistent.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

LP,

I'd ask you to ask yourself an honest question. When Clinton refused to use the title "President" when discussing or even addressing the first Bush, did you even raise an eyebrow? Did you raise an eyebrow when the media went against their standards and omitted the title with the second Bush?

You have your standards. I get it. But it has to go both ways. I've had three liberal friends object to my omitting the title of President when just discussing Obama, yet they did not even think about it when discussing Bush.

I myself haven't used it with pretty much any president except as an emphasis for which person I was talking about. And I liked Reagan. I still didn't really call him President Reagan for most discussions.

No matter what you think of this, at least I'm consistent.

Carb, first I have a question for you. Anatess made the intial comment and then I and MormonGator agreed, but you singled me out to respond to. Why?

FYI it's not the title omission that I was objecting to. It was calling the President by his first name, not even his name but a nickname. That's really disrespectful.

Further when I complained about Pres Bush on LDS message boards, people told be to respect our leaders.

Finally, I don't recall the incident you speak of but you seem to assume that I was a fan of Clinton. I was not.

[Guest MormonGator]

Carb, first I have a question for you. Anatess made the intial comment and then I and MormonGator agreed, but you singled me out to respond to. Why?

FYI it's not the title omission that I was objecting to. It was calling the President by his first name, not even his name but a nickname. That's really disrespectful.

Further when I complained about Pres Bush on LDS message boards, people told be to respect our leaders.

Finally, I don't recall the incident you speak of but you seem to assume that I was a fan of Clinton. I was not.

 Lit, something great about you is that you aren't nasty. You have critiqued Bush but I've never, ever heard you say anything personal about him. 

When Lit and I disagree (and we do, on several issues) she is the farthest thing from nasty or disrespectful. Truth. 

[Guest]

LP,

 

I'd ask you to ask yourself an honest question.  When Clinton refused to use the title "President" when discussing or even addressing the first Bush, did you even raise an eyebrow?  Did you raise an eyebrow when the media went against their standards and omitted the title with the second Bush?

 

You have your standards.  I get it.  But it has to go both ways.  I've had three liberal friends object to my omitting the title of President when just discussing Obama, yet they did not even think about it when discussing Bush.

 

I myself haven't used it with pretty much any president except as an emphasis for which person I was talking about.  And I liked Reagan.  I still didn't really call him President Reagan for most discussions.

 

No matter what you think of this, at least I'm consistent.

 

My post stated "at least have his last name correct, preferably with the title President".  The Title may be omitted but his last name should at least be correct.  Mr. Obama, therefore, is an acceptable address, including simply informally referring to him as Obama in informal settings - same with Mr. Aquino which I sometimes use in writing articles about the Philippine President and informally addressing him as simply Aquino.

 

Oblabama, etc. etc. are, generally, in the same level as calling people "Hey, moron!".  Barry would be acceptable if you're an intimate relation and only when talking about him under that context.

 

You may not agree with him but unless the courts prove that he came into the Presidency illegally or disqualified himself from the office, he is the President.  Patriotism, at least, points to honoring the process by which Presidents are chosen.

Edited December 7, 2015 by anatess

[Guest MormonGator]

 

 

You may not agree with him but unless the courts prove that he came into the Presidency illegally, he is the President.

 Exactly. I don't agree with him on much and didn't vote for him either time, but he's still the president and that deserves respect. 

Many leftists treated Bush horribly, and I'm not going to lower myself to that level. I called them out for disrespecting him, and it's hypocrisy if I treat Obama differently. 

[Guest]

Anatess made the intial comment and then I and MormonGator agreed, but you singled me out to respond to. Why?

 

That's a fair question.

1) I already responded to Anatess.

2) Gator gave his position that indicated that he is at least consistent in his position.

3) I was not asking the question as a criticism, but an honest suggestion to honestly ask yourself that question.  I know you tend to be fair in much of what you do, so I was asking an honest question.  Are you at least being consistent?

 

FYI it's not the title omission that I was objecting to. It was calling the President by his first name, not even his name but a nickname. That's really disrespectful.

 

Ok.  That's fair.

 

Further when I complained about Pres Bush on LDS message boards, people told be to respect our leaders.

 

I don't know what this has to do with this current thread or line of questioning.  BTW, I didn't like Bush either.

 

Finally, I don't recall the incident you speak of but you seem to assume that I was a fan of Clinton. I was not.

 

Incident?  I'm not sure what you're talking about.  When I said Clinton refused to use the term President, it wasn't something he announced.  It was his common practice.  He did it throughout the campaign.  I conclude from your response then, that the answer is that you didn't notice?

 

I did not assume you were a fan of Clinton.  I didn't even think about it.  That had nothing to do with it.  I was just looking for consistency.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Guest

[Blackmarch]

Mass shootings, i.e. false flags, are up under Obama.

 

 

Why?  Obama wants the guns and this is the only way he can think of to get them: make the American people believe that giving up guns is the only way to safety and security.  What I simply cannot wrap my head around is the liberal-communist belief is that the criminals will give up their guns along with the law abiding citizens.  Of course, liberals know that getting the guns is only a sham.  They want total control and that cannot be achieved with an armed populace.

gun control laws or lack thereof are a symptom not a cause.

of course they want total control- every faction in the gov wants it.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Blackmarch