Three dead and dozens injured as man drives vehicle into crowd in Austria

No immediate indication of the drivers motives is given, as four helicopters and about 60 ambulances converge on the scene in the city of Graz.

A man drove his vehicle into a crowd in Graz, Austrias second largest city, on Saturday, killing three people and injuring 34 others.

Police said they had arrested the driver and sealed off the area of the city centre where the incident took place.

The provincial governor gave the casualty figures and said the driver was thought to be a 26-year old Austrian.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/20/three-dead-and-dozens-injured-as-man-drives-vehicle-into-crowd-in-austria

An updated report on the UK Indpendent states that the driver got out of the vehicle and began stabbing people that he ran over.. Apparently he is Bosnian..

Yet another example of not needing a gun to party...

But Obama said mass killings never happen in other countries. ..

a) What is the relevance of the title to the topic?

b) No.
What Obama said was:

Nit-picking his comment with contractual legal precision might find a few flaws.

But as a general rule, what I've read of it indicates it tends to be true.
Citing anecdotal exceptions is pointless.

What's relevant is per capita statistics.

I eagerly invite anyone here to post that, with authentication link.

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/obama-said-this-about-mass-shootings-proven-wrong-instantly/

http://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/85391-international-mass-shooting-fatalities-continue-to-climb

I guess obonzo must've conveniently, been asleep during the news of all the mass killings in the discoteque bombings of the 70s and 80s, that occurred in several European countries.

And, I suppose, obonzo simply overlooked the mass killings in Sudan, Liberia, South Africa, West Africa, and Nigeria.... All while he had the best seat in the house, to witness it all.

It is indeed a tragedy, the recent events in Austria. As it is when people are needlessly murdered anywhere.

IMO this is a scary thing to say.

It totally separates the military as a separate class of people, excusing all of their behavior.

As though "well, it's the military, it's war, it's done by this one certain group of people, so we'll just leave that out, it doesn't matter, it's different, it's based on good intentions."

Mass violence is highly perpetrated by "advanced" countries.

IMO no real difference between a 15-25 year using guns to shoot up a school, and a 18-25 year old sitting in Vegas using a drone to shoot up a school in another country.

Mass violence is mass violence.

IMO no real difference between Manson and his family and the president, his military, and his agencies.

A culture that focuses on and idealizes violence in their toys, music, entertainment, and media can't really be compared to countries where that isn't as true.


Not when you are picking and choosing what to measure, and measuring apples to oranges, all among countries that produce their statistics in different ways.

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/153828/155-dead-more-than-3000-car-crashes-during-brazilian-carnival-celebrations

That type of mass carnival death doesn't happened in other developed countries.

Oh LT...I was just having a lil fun at O's expense. I mean.....if he can exploit citizens deaths for a political agenda, surely he can take a lil good natured ribbing.

Thanks C7 for confirming Obama's assertion.
According to the data in your post, the U.S. is the only one on the list with fatalities in triple digits, nearly three times the next closest.

No.
I understand why one might "suppose" this, if the opinion is based upon what Obama-bashers claim.

I base my opinion of what Obama says, on what Obama says.

ct posted:

Thanks for corroborating Obama's injudiciously worded assertion.

PS

You may believe that.

But Ockham's Razor, that perspective is backward.

Most presidents are problem-solvers.

Most U.S. presidents know, they don't get the easy problems.

The problems presidents get are the hard ones; the ones subordinates couldn't solve.

In addition to being from Kenya, or wherever else he was born, Obama's also from Chicago; where gun violence is a prominent feature of life for less than wealthy Blacks.



Not sure what's to be gained by falsely attributing motive here; other than simply to falsely undermine character.

I suspect the reason persons resort to such illegitimate means is because they can't find legitimate means to undermine it.

Thus paradoxically, it's not Obama whose motives are suspect, but Obama's critics that resort to such falsification.

Quite interesting,EU and also Switzerland have the type of Firearms-Code the US-Gungrabbers would like to institute in the USA,trying to make the Sheeple believe Mass-shootings and general Guncrimes would cease!
How come they still take place in those restricted Countries?
Mister Obama,you are trying to bamboozle someone!
And if it isn't Firearms,it will be Cars,or blunt or edged Implements!
Got News for you,Mister Know-It-All President,people been killing others way before Guns!

Falsely? Hmmm....

"" Obama has consistently supported gun control
legislation that came up while he was in the
Illinois state legislature and the U.S. Senate.
For example, when Obama ran for the Illinois
state senate the political group, Independent
Voters of Illinois (IVI), asked him if he
supported a “ban [on] the manufacture, sale
and possession of handguns” and he
responded “yes.”
Realizing how damaging this could prove in
the general election, his presidential campaign
“flatly denied” Obama ever held this view,
blaming it instead on a staffer from his state
senate race.
But then IVI provided Politico the
questionnaire with Obama’s own handwritten
notes revising another answer. Members of
IVI’s board of directors, some of whom have
worked on Obama’s past campaigns, told
Politico that “I always believed those to be his
views, what he really believes in, and he’s
tailoring it now to make himself more
palatable as a nationwide candidate.”
But the IVI questionnaire isn’t the only one
out there.
In 1998, another questionnaire administered
by IL State Legislative National Political
Awareness Test didn’t ask about banning all
handguns, but it did find that Obama wanted
to “ban the sale or transfer of all forms of
semi-automatic weapons.”
Indeed, such a ban would outlaw virtually all
handguns and the vast majority of rifles sold
in the United States.
In addition, from 1998 to 2001, Obama was on
the board of directors for the Joyce
Foundation, which funded such anti-gun
groups as the Violence Policy Center, the Ohio
Coalition Against Gun Violence, and Handgun
Free America. Both the Violence Policy Center
and Handgun Free America, as its name
suggests, are in favor of a complete ban on
handguns. During his tenure on the board, the
Joyce Foundation was probably the major
funder of pro-control research in the United
States.
In fact, I knew Obama during the mid-1990s,
and his answers to IVI’s question on guns fit
well with the Obama that I knew. Indeed, the
first time I introduced myself to him he said
“Oh, you are the gun guy.”
I responded “Yes, I guess so.” He simply
responded that “I don’t believe that people
should be able to own guns.”
When I said it might be fun to talk about the
question sometime and about his support of
the city of Chicago’s lawsuit against the gun
makers, he simply grimaced and turned away,
ending the conversation.
If taken literally, Obama’s statement to me
was closer to what the IL State Legislative
National Political Awareness Test found,
indicating that Obama's bans would extend
well beyond handguns.
Obama also opposes the current laws in 48
states that let citizens carry concealed
handguns for protection claiming, despite all
the academic studies to the contrary, that "I
think that creates a potential atmosphere
where more innocent people could (get shot
during) altercations."""
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/04/07/obama-and-guns-two-different-views.html

I submit that O's stance on firrearms is pretty clear.

Deaths per 1,000,000 citizens, we're 6th.

Oh?
Please quote that.

I thought both gun-banners, and gun-proliferators alike merely claim reflecting their agenda in our law would help reduce it; not eliminate it.

Fine.
But even if true, immaterial.

I never denied that.

Instead, I took issue with your:

If you can prove that, I hope you will.

And if you can't, I hope you'll cease presenting personal opinion as objective reality.

Totally!

PS

I read the chart.
But Obama didn't mention a per capita statistic.

What Obama said was:

I don't mean to seem an Obama apologist; though to many I appear to be.

I'm simply a man of principle; I defend those that are attacked that are undefended.

Key words in the above quoted statement:

How he defines "this type" could narrow it down to the only one.

I can make an educated guess based off his past statements about the issue at hand....gun control.....and the fact that he made a lil quip about it a scant 18 or so hours after the incident happened.....and lead off that portion of his whole statement with.....

"" We don' t have all the facts ,""

But Ill defer to you....can YOU prove it WASNT part of an agenda?

I generally don't attempt to prove assertions I don't believe.

OF COURSE gun control is his agenda!
I've NEVER disputed that.

I simply addressed your:

You see RA:

I give benefit of doubt.
I may have lots of suspicions about lots of persons.
But I try to avoid accepting as truth that which has not been proved.

Obama may be many things, but if he's a Machiavellian, he's a rank amateur.

Is it really necessary to cut People's Posts up into a bunch of quotes,when the Thread already has tons of Quotes,or is there a more sinister purpose behind it,like for instance Obfuscation,and altering the meaning of posts?
actually not even bother to read those truncated pieced up posts!
Answer to the post as a whole,or don't bother!

If your inquiry is addressed to me C7, of course.

Why would I do something so deliberately, and consistently, without purpose?

a) Countless times my position has been misrepresented by others. It's tedium to correct the record.

If posters wish to address my position, it's best that they quote the specific words I posted, with attribute; so readers can know:
1) what EXACTLY was said, &

2) by whom.

Then if there was a misunderstanding, spelling error, or any other miscommunication, it can be cleared up.

But this style of lucid communication has been with us since the Holy Bible.

Some may quote the Holy Bible, and assert the source is "The Holy Bible".
But for more precise study, the "Chapter and Verse" standard is applied.
For purpose of specificity and clarity, the latter is widely recognized as the superior standard.

It's called "context".

And as a matter of fact; it's much the same in face to face conversation.

Person A speaks.
Then person B replies.
Then person A comments on that ...
etc.

It's merely superior communication style, honed over decades of posts, tens of thousands.

http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/white-house-gun-magazines-to-be-limited-to-one-round-only-t16484.html