Posts by jojorabbit

18

Ex JWs who use the catch phrase "Friends"

by jojorabbit in

its a personal pet peeve to me but i hate it when ex jws use the catch phrase friends.

this was used at every convention and many meetings i went to.

the friends, mother and others.

jojorabbit

Its a personal pet peeve to me but I hate it when EX JWs use the catch phrase Friends. This was used at every convention and many meetings I went to. The friends, Mother and others. To me I want nothing of this cult left in my life. This is why I guess its so offensive to me. Not saying in any way someone can not use it. But if you left this group why would you keep some of its catch phrases? I know the term catch phrase is a group of words but in JW speak one word catch phrases exist. I see that one lady on YouTube who opens Hello Friends. I cringe when I hear this. Anyone else or is it just my crazy mind?

117

14 kids dead and one teacher at Texas school shooting.

by jojorabbit in

another shooting, this time 14 kids dead more wounded and a teacher dead.

i am all for the second amendment and this does not change my mind.

but i do hate this kind of thing, makes my stomach turn.

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.

117

14 kids dead and one teacher at Texas school shooting.

by jojorabbit in

another shooting, this time 14 kids dead more wounded and a teacher dead.

i am all for the second amendment and this does not change my mind.

but i do hate this kind of thing, makes my stomach turn.

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.

117

14 kids dead and one teacher at Texas school shooting.

by jojorabbit in

another shooting, this time 14 kids dead more wounded and a teacher dead.

i am all for the second amendment and this does not change my mind.

but i do hate this kind of thing, makes my stomach turn.

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?

117

14 kids dead and one teacher at Texas school shooting.

by jojorabbit in

another shooting, this time 14 kids dead more wounded and a teacher dead.

i am all for the second amendment and this does not change my mind.

but i do hate this kind of thing, makes my stomach turn.

jojorabbit

First off we can stop spending money on woke nonsense and puberty blockers and Gender studies and spend it on something useful. Like hardening schools and the like. Windows that are bullet resistant with wire so they can not be shot out to gain entry. Armed guards and magnetometers at the entrance. Double doors so once someone comes in the first they are trapped between doors if someone sees they are a threat. No one enters or leaves the school while its running without going through this system. Heck I take a cruise and I have to go through this every time I leave the ship and come back on board.

Stop acting like putting up gun free zone signs is anything more than and avert for where to go and shoot up the place. Stop using gun control and shooting to push political agendas. There is a reason most shootings do not happen in police dept. or places where its known the people are armed. To live in a free society there will always have to be risk. Heck someone with a big truck like in London and in the USA where the racist black man ran over whites can ram into people and kill many, we don't ban trucks.

Gun control is not about stopping killings. The left nuts in England don't give a rat about radical Muslims killing its citizens by bombs, cars and trucks, or Machetes knives or hammers. They just wanted to control the people. England has become a land of lemmings and spinless idiots.

Islam wants the death of western civilization for the most part. But I don't hear the left saying we should limit how many come into these nations as they are the ones cutting off heads, and bombing and killing people who do not subscribe to their way of religious thinking. So its not really about saving lives it about control.

The left even wants now to control free speech. If its not the kind of speech that agrees with their point of view its should be banned as radical, hate speech or dangerous speech. The left press covers up when the shooter was a Bernie Saunders supporter and shooting at Republicans. In fact many radical leftists were saying this was a good thing. The left covered up or did very little reporting when a racist black man ran over a bunch of white people at a gathering. But then lie about what Trump said at Charlottesville.

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.

There are reasons for the things we see today and most have little to do with the availability of guns.

117

14 kids dead and one teacher at Texas school shooting.

by jojorabbit in

another shooting, this time 14 kids dead more wounded and a teacher dead.

i am all for the second amendment and this does not change my mind.

but i do hate this kind of thing, makes my stomach turn.

jojorabbit

Assault weapon is a term that is almost always misused. The term came from the StG-44. At the tail end of WW2 the Germans started to get that most fire fights were less than 300 meters and they did not really need the K98 capable of long range accuracy. So they create the StG44.

It was a short 8mm Mauser round and was capable of semi or full auto fire. So in reality assault weapons or weapons of the military are not readily sold in the USA. If the state does not ban it you can buy a full auto. But its a lot of steps to get one. First you have to buy one, but that does not get the gun in hand. After you buy one from a class 3 dealer they do a lot of paper work and if you don't have a gun trust you need to have the sheriff of your county sign off that you are not insane or a known criminal.

Then the ATF and FBI do a long back ground check and this all takes between 6 months and a year. Once you pass that you get the gun, suppressor SBSG or other NFA item. So assault weapon is a word that the left has taken and redefined it to mean any gun they don't like, which is all guns.

I have seen this over the years how the left just will demonize a gun. If its semi auto its an assault weapon, if its a bolt action and or has a scope or optics on it its a sniper rifle. Anything they can do to try to push an agenda. The left does not care one bit about those kids shot in Texas, they are just not letting a crisis go to waste so they can push an agenda. That is the complete disarming of America.

117

14 kids dead and one teacher at Texas school shooting.

by jojorabbit in

another shooting, this time 14 kids dead more wounded and a teacher dead.

i am all for the second amendment and this does not change my mind.

but i do hate this kind of thing, makes my stomach turn.

jojorabbit

https://www.guns.com/news/2013/08/30/harvard-study-concludes-gun-control-prevent-murders-violent-crime

A study which was recently published by Harvard took a look at firearm ownership, gun laws and violent crime, and suicide rates around the world. The authors sought to answer the question would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide?

The study, which was conducted by Don B. Kates, an American criminologist and constitutional lawyer, and Gary Mauser, a Canadian criminologist and university professor, offered a stark truth: More guns does not equal more deaths and less guns does not equal less deaths.

Kates and Mauser claim in the study that while some international comparisons have been viewed as evidence that more guns equals more deaths and therefore to reduce guns will reduce deaths, they indicate that some of these studies use inaccurate or misleading information to obtain the results.

According to the study, the so-called fact that the reason the murder rate is so high in the United States compared with other modern developed countries is due to the U.S. having uniquely easy access to guns, is simply not true. The study indicates those homicide rates are not an accurate representation and moreover, that those rates have nothing to do with the number of firearms in the country.

While gun ownership in the U.S. is high, the unusually high murder rate is not the norm. The study compares other developed countries with high gun ownership rates, including Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark. These countries all have significantly lower murder rates than the U.S. as well as those countries in which gun ownership is much more uncommon. In other words, the high murder rate of the U.S. is the exception, not the rule, when comparing homicide rates to gun ownerships rates.

Euro guns

For example, in Luxembourg handguns are completely banned and gun ownership of any kind is extremely rare. However, the country’s murder rate is nine times that of Germany’s, despite Germany having gun ownership rates 30,000 times higher than Luxembourg.

In another instance, the study compares the U.S. with Russia. It cites that once the Soviet Union succeeded in disarming the majority of civilians, beginning in the 1960s murder rates skyrocketed. By the 1990s murder rates had become so high that the basically gun-less Russia was left with the highest murder rate of the civilized world, three times higher than that of the U.S., despite the country’s long-standing strict and stringent gun control policies.

In addition, other countries of the former Soviet Union, which have held on to the strict gun control policies, including the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, as well as various other now‐independent European nations, all have similar murder rates.

The fact that these countries have very few firearms has not reduced the rate of violent crimes. In fact, according to the study, “Homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.”

In comparing gun ownership rates with homicide rates, the study concludes that “where firearms where are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”

Just as the United States’ unusually high murder rate is used in the argument for gun control, England’s unusually low murder rate prior to the 1990s along with the country’s low rate of gun ownership presently is often cited as factual evidence that gun control reduces violence.

Yet, according to the study, what fails to be acknowledged is that first, England was already experiencing an all-time low in violence before gun control measures were introduced. Secondly, in the late 1990s England started to initiate stricter gun control policies, resulting in a complete ban of handguns as well as many long guns. Hundreds of thousands of firearms were confiscated from law-abiding citizens. By the year 2000, violent crime in England had increased so much that it had one of the highest violent crime rates in all of Europe, evening higher than that of the U.S.

When guns aren’t available for killing people, criminals just find another tool, according to a Harvard Study. (Photo credit: Lehigh Valley Live)

In addition, England’s most recent crime statistics have been grossly misrepresented. In 2006 the criminal justice system, in an attempt to conserve resources, initiated a policy in which the police would no longer investigate “minor” crimes, such as burglary and minor assault. If a mugger, robber, burglar or others engaged in minor criminal activities are caught, the police simply give them a warning – a virtual slap on the wrist – then send them on their way, without filing charges, arresting or prosecuting them. In other words, crime has not gone down in England, but rather “minor” crimes are simply no longer counted as crime.

Moreover, after years of England’s police forces not even carrying guns, with violent crime on the rise, many departments are now opting to arm their officers.

Meanwhile, as England initiated stricter gun control for its residents, the U.S. was loosening gun laws, which eventually allowed for citizens to legally carry firearms in 40 states. Concealed carry permit holders are now estimated to be at 3.5 million.

And as states adopted statutes to allow the carrying of firearms, the U.S. saw a dramatic drop in violent crime, particularly homicides. Additionally, states that approved residents to carry firearms saw a greater decrease in crime than those who did not.

However, the theory that gun ownership reduces crime is a highly controversial one. And as the study points out, even though the correlation is clear, there still remains other factors that may have influenced the drop in crime in the U.S. as well.

One study indicated that the drop in violent crime was partially the outcome of the legalization of abortion, which “resulted in the non‐birth of vast numbers of children who would have been disproportionately involved in violent crime had they existed in the 1990s.”

The same study also questioned if the possibility of the increase in both prison populations, from 100 to 300 per 100,000, and executions, from five each year to 27, resulted in reduced violent crime.

Regardless of the reason – or reasons – the fact remains that the U.S. has seen the lowest violent crime rate in the last 15 years.

The study then skims the surface of the societal problems of violent crime, citing that most violent criminals – and especially murders – almost always have a long history of criminal behavior. “So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder. By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians.”

A statement which aims to debunk the idea that thousands of law-abiding citizens are turned into murders each year simply because they have access to a firearm. “The day‐to‐day reality is that most family murders are prefaced by a long history of assaults.” In other words, normal, ordinary, law-abiding people don’t murder other people, but rather homicide is more likely motivated by socio-economic and cultural factors and marked by an extensive history of violence.

Suicide rates

The highly debated issue of suicide was explored as well. The World Health Organization ascertains, “The easy availability of firearms has been associated with higher firearm mortality rates.” While this is true, removing the firearm does not remove the suicide risk. The study points out that, “The evidence, however, indicates that denying one particular means to people who are motivated to commit suicide by social, economic, cultural, or other circumstances simply pushes them to some other means,” concluding that there is “no social benefit in decreasing the availability of guns if the result is only to increase the use of other means of suicide and murder, more or less resulting in the same amount of death.”

While the question of whether or not gun ownership rates have a direct effect on violent crime and suicides will continue to no doubt remain a highly debated topic, the study does bring some interesting points to light. And although the study more strongly indicates that gun control does not reduce crime, it doesn’t necessarily strongly debate that an increase in gun ownership reduces crime either. However, a CDC study released earlier this year showed that even with the U.S. owning half the guns on earth, those guns are more often used in self-defense than for violent crimes.

Moreover, in addition to the Harvard study, at least two other studies have come up with similar conclusions. In 2003 the U.S. Center for Disease Control and again in 2004 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences both concluded that they “failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicides, or gun accidents.”

117

14 kids dead and one teacher at Texas school shooting.

by jojorabbit in

another shooting, this time 14 kids dead more wounded and a teacher dead.

i am all for the second amendment and this does not change my mind.

but i do hate this kind of thing, makes my stomach turn.

jojorabbit

From a person I know who lives in England. "I live in Britain. We had a terrorist attack last year

- and because they couldn’t get guns the terrorists used machetes. Three able bodied terrorists in a crowded area killed a total of eight people, three with their vans and five with machetes. Gun control worked to protect us from terrorists.

We had a gang war in London earlier this year (which is why the murder rate spiked for a couple of months). Our gang war participants used knives because they couldn’t get guns, thus protecting innocent bystanders. Gun control worked.

Gun control works in the country I live in, clearly and obviously. It doesn’t miraculously change people’s hearts but means that people who want to do harm, either to themselves or to others, have to work harder and mostly endanger innocent bystanders a whole lot less."

117

14 kids dead and one teacher at Texas school shooting.

by jojorabbit in

another shooting, this time 14 kids dead more wounded and a teacher dead.

i am all for the second amendment and this does not change my mind.

but i do hate this kind of thing, makes my stomach turn.

jojorabbit

This is a quote from the daily wire on line.

2. The gun bans in Australia and Britain also didn’t work. Australia and Britain are both hailed by the Left as evidence that gun control works. However, the facts tell a different story.

Two studies – a 2007 British Journal of Criminology study and a 2008 University of Melbourne study – concluded that Australia’s temporary gun ban had no effect on the gun homicide rate. Crime Research Prevention Center president John Lott had similar findings.

“Prior to 1996, there was already a clear downward [trend] in firearm homicides, and this pattern continued after the buyback,” wrote Lott. “It is hence difficult to link the decline to the buyback.”

“Again, as with suicides, both non-firearm and firearm homicides fell by similar amounts,” Lott continued. “In fact, the trend in non-firearms homicides shows a much larger decline between the pre- and post-buyback periods. This suggests that crime has been falling for other reasons. Note that the change in homicides doesn’t follow the change in gun ownership – there is no increase in homicides as gun ownership gradually increased.”

In Britain’s case, the Crime Research Prevention Center found that after the gun ban was implemented, there was initially a severe increase in the homicide rate, followed by a gradual decline once Britain beefed up their police force. However, there has only been one year where the homicide rate was lower than it was pre-ban:

Additionally, there was an 89 percent spike in gun crime from 1998/1999 to 2008/2009, all of which occurred after the gun ban.

A closer look at the actual facts show that the Left’s favorite examples of Britain and Australia are actually examples of how gun control doesn’t work.

117

14 kids dead and one teacher at Texas school shooting.

by jojorabbit in

another shooting, this time 14 kids dead more wounded and a teacher dead.

i am all for the second amendment and this does not change my mind.

but i do hate this kind of thing, makes my stomach turn.

jojorabbit

So it's acceptable that someone who has serious mental health problems, as you suspect the shooter does, to be able to get their hands on a gun ?
Speaking from a British point of view l am so happy to live in a country where we can send our kids to school KNOWING that they won't be shot . Or that l can pop to the shops , which is where the last mass shooting occurred, and KNOW that l won't be killed by a schizophrenic with a legal gun
Or l won't be killed by a child playing with Pop's revolver because it's fun .
That is freedom.

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.

Bombing in England, are high. And one is too high for any country. It’s a favorite method of most terrorist and foreign ISIS, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups. With a new method emerging that involves a moving vehicle. Where persons, have access to a box truck or semi truck (a lorry for UK), drives thru a crowd or a crowded street.

The leftist news or propaganda is another source of violence in the USA. They make up stories or focus on stories that support the narrative they want to push while suppressing the stories that do not support their narrative. London has become a crap hole from all accounts. So don't try to tell us how much of a Utopia England is. Its not.