Douglas County Oregon says Obama not welcome there

[lazarus]

In how many of these countries is private gun ownership either prohibited or highly restricted/regulated?  Did anyone ever do a study on killings with knives, machetes, torture,etc.?

I must admit that it's probably easier to own a gun in the U.S. than in most other countries; andI'm imagine it's easier to kill someone with a gun (both physically and emotionally) than it is with a knife or your bare hands (less personal; and the" bravery of being out of range".

At any rate, the U.S. already has so many gun restriction laws that any new laws would likely be redundant.  Why make new laws when we can't even afford to enforce the ones that are already on the books?

Homicide by knife in the UK is up in the last few years. Despite that,  the number of murders last year was only 800. If guns were  were more freely available then I'm sure it would be a lot more.

Obviously, A gun is a more efficient killing machine than a knife. I would suggest that the magnitude of deaths from guns in the US is in large part due to the availability of guns. All the talk about mental health avoids the real issue.

[Naomi]

 All the talk about mental health avoids the real issue.

In many cases mental health is the real issue.  Our laws are so restrictive that it is difficult to get help for those who are ticking time-bombs.  (Sorry this is probably off-topic)

[Tom Wetmore]

Back to the original topic...  It seems fairly obvious that those opposed to Obama going to Oregon are doing a whole lot more politicizing of the tragedy than he ever will.  Even if he had a political motive, which I think is pure speculation at this point, his primary reason for going is more likely human decency and appropriate condolences.  (As already noted, he would be soundly criticized for not showing a serious effort of reaching out to the grieving families.  Looking at the prejudging by those refusing his gesture, it seems singularly and only politically motivated.  What other reason would  they possibly have?  

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

 Looking at the prejudging by those refusing his gesture, it seems singularly and only politically motivated.  What other reason would  they possibly have?  

I have relatives there in Roseburg.  And they are Democrats.  They felt that the immediate politicizing Mr Obama did first thing after the UCC massacre was terribly disrespectful and hurtful to the victims and their families.  It was their feeling that if the POTUS would come to the city and ONLY make condolences, that would be fine... but because of his previous words, it would be difficult give his gesture as much credit as it would have, had he not done the politicizing in the first place.

[joeb]

Do any of you know what the largest mass killing in a school setting is?  The Bath School massacre.  The perp killed 45 people and he used dynamite and incindiares to accomplish his goals.  It happened back in 1927 and the only time he used a gun was to set off the dynamite in his pickup in his final act of terror in which he himself was killed. 

As to the idea that a "gun culture" is the cause of killings, that is plain nuts.  Millions of law abiding Americans own guns.  They never harm another person with them, unless they themselves are attacked.  Thus, the problem isn't one of guns, but one of criminal behavior.   Let's look at where that comes from.  Does criminal behavior come from owning a gun?  No.  It cannot for millions of people own guns who never commit crimes.  Owning a tool does not create criminal behavior.

For the past 40 to 50 years this country has taught people that there are no moral imperatives.  It has taught there is no set of morals that is of more value than any other set of morals.   The left has objected vociferously to the idea that the 10 commandments be held up as valuable and an integral part of our history as a nation.  So, what are we left with?  The idea that nothing is wrong, and nothing is right.  So, why not kill if it's not really wrong?  It's just another way to get attention. 

Our standards of moral behavior have been destroyed and that lies totally at the door of the socialists.  Their agenda has been one that is consistently anti-God, anti-morality, anti-moral_standards.  One of their main goals has been to destroy the Judeo-Christian ethic in this country. Yes, conservatives are also sinners, but they have not advocated for the destructions of moral standards and the removal of God from society.  There's the real reason for all the murder.  Take away the objective moral standards and all a person is left with is whatever is right in their own eyes.  That's exactly where Israel went every time they walked away from God. How do we know that?  The Bible plainly tells us that is so. And they experienced the same societal problems we are experiencing. 

Edited October 9, 2015 by joeb

[joeb]

I have relatives there in Roseburg.  And they are Democrats.  They felt that the immediate politicizing Mr Obama did first thing after the UCC massacre was terribly disrespectful and hurtful to the victims and their families.  It was their feeling that if the POTUS would come to the city and ONLY make condolences, that would be fine... but because of his previous words, it would be difficult give his gesture as much credit as it would have, had he not done the politicizing in the first place.

I lived there quite a few years ago and still know people in that area.  None of them are happy about Obama showing up there.  They find his stop there to be very objectionable. 

[joeb]

Back to the original topic...  It seems fairly obvious that those opposed to Obama going to Oregon are doing a whole lot more politicizing of the tragedy than he ever will.  Even if he had a political motive, which I think is pure speculation at this point, his primary reason for going is more likely human decency and appropriate condolences.  (As already noted, he would be soundly criticized for not showing a serious effort of reaching out to the greasing families.  Looking at the prejudging by those refusing his gesture, it seems singularly and only politically motivated.  What other reason would  they possibly have?  

Pure speculation?  Obama came out within an hour or two of the shootings and said outright that he was going to use these shootings for political purposes.

[Tom Wetmore]

That would be your perception and opinion. Your opinion of disagreement and disapproval from a huge political chip on your shoulder does not make everything he says or does political.  

There are those, such as you, who seem to filter almost everything through a political filter, even many things with no political significance. Every word of the president is weighed on a fixed political scale and perceived as political if for no other reason than an intense and irrational dislike of him and predisposition to disagree with anything that he says on any topic.  

I strongly suspect that had one of the conservatives candidates that has been making numerous pro-gun statements in the wake of this most recent tragedy, starting right after it happened,  gone to Roseburg, that candidate would have never been accused of politicizing the tragedy. And likely would have been welcomed with open arms. 

Why aren't you condemning those candidates politicizing of this tragedy? Did you even notice?