Gun fire in Jersey Mall
Alucard
Fortunately it seems no one was killed. This kind of thing needs to STOP.
Repeal the 2nd Amendment and confiscate and destroy all civilian possessed guns and guns from retailers that sell them without proper precautions, PARTICULARLY gun shows. Outlaw the NRA.
Repeal the 2nd Amendment and confiscate and destroy all civilian possessed guns and guns from retailers that sell them without proper precautions, PARTICULARLY gun shows. Outlaw the NRA.
99 comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UX51lmL6…
My stance on this is WELL known. And I'll avail myself of EVERY opportunity to voice my opinion on the subject, NO matter how much it irritates other pro-gun members.
Driving under the influence of alcohol is a crime. If making something illegal can magically stop the deaths, why is there a DUI related death every 48 minutes?
Heart Disease . . . . . 780,213
Cancer . . . . . . . . 575,000
Accidents (non-auto). . 85,000
Alzheimer's . . . . . . 83,500
Nephritis, Nephrosis . 50,476
Diabetes . . . . . . . 69,071
Drug induced . . . . . 40,373
Suicide . . . . . . . . 38,364
Septicemia . . . . . . 34,812
Alcohol induced . . . . 25,692
Parkinson's Disease . . 22,032
Pneumonitis/Solids-Liq. 17,011
Gun deaths, homicide. . 11,101
. . (approximately 96% of gun homicides committed by career criminals using illegal weapons)
Gun deaths, accident. . 851
Gun deaths, unknown . . 222
Total number of deaths related to firearms discharge, all causes including proximate and non proximate (including suicide, accident, undetermined) in 2011 . . 31,940
Approximate number of guns in civilian hands in the USA 350,000,000
Banning AND confiscating all firearms in the USA might reduce firearm homicides by 300 to 400 per year. A 1992 study by ATF and CDC estimated that any attempt to confiscate firearms in this country would result in between 2,650,000 and 16,000,000 deaths.
Only an amoral idiot, desiring fascist control of US citizens and the deaths of millions would suggest banning and confiscating firearms.
Now shut the hell up aluretard
“In Hospital Deaths from Medical Errors at 195,000 per Year USAâ€
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases…
LMFAO!
That is less than septicemia which can occur in a hospital which is where the turd works.
Is there anyone out there who believes that a person who wants to commit suicide would be deterred by a lack of a firearm.
generally i''m not one to heedlessly attack, but dougster is right. No matter how much facts and evidence and political heresay you bring into the conversation, Alucard will NEVER listen to anything but his own thoughts. Even if it's about how a computer works and you're a certified microsoft/mac technician, he will always think he is right with no proof to back it up. Sad but proven fact
US population is over 350,000,000, the number of domestic shooting fatalities is under 800. That works out to about 00.0023%, or a slightly greater risk than getting hit by lightning.
Only a liberal calls something that happens lees often than a $1,000,000 lottery win, "very often."
Logic just isn't one of your strengths is it, Alucard?
I'm surprised Alucard is suggesting such as a thing. There are laws against mass murder and suicide.
Only Alucard believes if a. law is passed banning something, then everyone will obey the law. No speeders, no thieves, no killers, no guns, yep, life as Alucard believes it. ONly the criminals will be able to defend themselves.
Since it is not reasonable to believe you can take all the guns away from all the suicidal people or people with mental problems, it is reasonable that everyone else take means to defend themselves. Not defending yourself is like playing Russian roulette. Criminals would have it good if people couldn't defend themselves. Alucard is in effect suggesting something that would promote crime. Only criminals would have guns and they would be free to gun down anyone who stood in their way. Their only worry would be psychos with explosives or compound bows with explosive arrow tips. I haven't shot one of those but I did see Rambo shoot one.
Most strippers like shopping at the mall.
Do they like being around gunfire? And maybe being hit.
Well, they may not LIKE it, but I know far too many that tolerate it.
Do they like being around gunfire? And maybe being hit.â€
very, very MUCH less risky than walking into a hospital and being killed by masked murders making preventable medical errors. hmmmm
So now alutard is up'ing it a notch and is even against freedom of association? Man, it's become nearly impossible to express how big a faggot this guy has become.
They shouldn't have to tolerate it.
Well obviously. He's doing it right in this thread.
Wants moderation on board - anti-1st amendment
Wants to ban self-protection - anti-2nd amendment
Wants to ban NRA - anti-1st amendment
Has said banning alcohol - anti-21st amendment
Really if you think about it, all of our past mass murderers except for a few used guns instead of explosives or they really could have killed and maimed a lot more people. I know how I could kill all large animal life on the planet with just a little bit of the right material. Only a madman would kill everyone.
I think it would be interesting if Eco terrorists tried an experiment to see if they could trigger an ice age. I think it would be too big of an effort though. I think I could with some major funding and not having to worry about getting sued for causing global cooling.
Be that as it may, I agree that banning guns is both pointless and unconstitutional, and banning the NRA (!) is a totalitarian idea.
Could it be that some here are correct that you don't *have* a defense, just a position, and you seek to divert attention from that fact? Like every other ad hominem attack is designed to do?
Didn't work out so well the first time.
Ban guns
Ban booze
Ban smoking
Ban 32 oz Sodas
What's next? Ban strip clubs. Ban porn?
Be careful what we wish for.
I would never attend a school with the nickname of Cocks
but they do have my favorite college football guy -
The ole" ball coach. Where are you gatorfan BTW?
You next point is a math error. Yours, not mine. The decimal fraction of 0.000023 is the same as the percentage of 00.0023%
@zel8mich, minor detail - but I said "less than 800." The actual number of domestic deaths by firearms is not "available." - I guessed. But I stand by my comparison to total population. Your chances of getting killed by firearms accident in your home is related to the total population versus the number of accidental deaths (in home) by firearms. The number of people who died of all causes is irrelevant.
Only momentarily it appears. This is why a full time Moderator is needed.
---
Lol. I agree !!!!
Feel free to post any PMs you want in the public forum. After all, they belong to you, you can do anything you want with them. And since I started doing that, I haven't gotten a single one from him.
zef8mich: "Using the % sign is confusing and could give the wrong impression."
Only to those who don't understand statistical mathematics. Which, to be fair, is a large portion of the population of the world.
There are 2AMers posted about every other day. It goes like this:
Shadowcat posts the story
Drac posts the same comment every time
There are 4 or 5 comments how lame Alucard is and always reposting the same comment
And then it ends until the next shooting
But what made this one special? Hmmmm
I said, "mildly irritated" because, while I do consider those opposed to the US Constitution and yet living in the US to be amoral assholes, the OP's repeated moronic posts are about as bothersome as a single fly in a busy SC.
Now, repeal of the 2nd amendment isn't going to happen. Not anytime soon, at the very least. But your argument about the CDC study is specious. The strong opposition to the seizure of privately owned guns is why the 2nd amendment isn't going to be repealed. If popular sentiment were such that a repeal were possible the landscape would be fundamentally different.
Now personally, I'm not a gun control advocate. I think people who use guns in crimes should get very severe sentences (more severe than is typical now). I also think existing laws should be enforced. But I support the right of law abiding citizens to purchase guns and keep them.
However, I call bullshit on any dude who supports on provision of the constitution out of one side of his mouth while telling people who exercise their rights under another provision that they are amoral assholes out of the other side. Now, you have every right to say and believe that shit. Just as I have the right to call you on it.
If you're going to sling shit at Alucard that is your right and within the rules of this unmoderated board. And it is Alucard's right to sling shit back at you. Or choose not to. Hell, you are entitled to the opinion that Alucard is whatever you think he is. But don't pretend to be supporting liberty while calling people who want to exercise their rights in a way you disagree with amoral assholes.
Good for you zipman68, even if we disagree on gun violence & what to do about it.
goodsouthernboy - I'm under NO requirement to offer explanations to anyone. If & when I do decide to explain, you'll see it.
"brainless drivel repeatedly posted"
Your opinion ONLY Asshole. If you don't want to read what I say - DON'T read it. This isn't Rocket Science.
"that you conclude that he is anti-American"
Your opinion ONLY! And considering the way you supposedly "think" I am not surprised at that BS statement. Your insult falls flat, just like all of those directed at me do. I am SURE as hell glad that my beliefs & thoughts as far as possible in a direction away from yours Dougster. I invite any member who isn't a Dougster minion & is reasonably open minded to read Dougster's countless posts & decide for yourself what he is all about. Include all the "members" who have already attacked me in this thread.
First, I never stated nor implied any desire to restrict anyone's rights, including the First Amendment right of free speech. I never said, nor implied, that the OP did not have the right to free speech. Please note, contrary to zipman68's assertion, free speech is NOT the same as dissent. The US Constitution does NOT specifically protect any right of dissent. Under certain circumstances, dissent has even been successfully prosecuted as treason.
What I did say was, I consider those opposed to the US Constitution and yet living in the US to be amoral assholes. That is because I do consider anyone opposed to the rights, protections, responsibilities and benefits created and protected by the US Constitution, and yet residing here enjoying those self same benefits, to be both amoral and an asshole. That doesn't mean the OP does not have the right to express his opinion. It means that I sincerely believe his opinion makes him an amoral asshole. My opinion is offered, not because he exercises a right granted under the Constitution, but because he benefits from those rights and protections and yet openly opposes the very principles, structure and documents that provide the benefits he enjoys.
Zipman68's criticism is misplaced, duplicitous and unwarranted. I spoke no word in opposition anyones rights. I said nothing about liberty. I did not in any form suggest the mitigation of any portion of the US Constitution, nor the restriction of any right, power nor authority granted therein.
"shooting in New Jersey? Who cares?"
That entire state could fall into the ocean and not many would care. Not even Snooki or Paulie Walnuts
I have a friend from New Jersey. He came to the Mudwest to go to college and ended up staying here.
He's tried to tell me that NJ is not what I think. It does have lots of rural farms, (hence the name, The Garden State). But not having visited, my idea of it comes from TV - oil refineries, pollution, the Mob, horrible crime in the ghettos of Newark and Trenton, and -- of course -- the assholes on Jersey Shore.
Lol. Though sometimes after the snow melts it can be the Mudwest
I will, however, address one issue for the interest of those who actually want to hear something besides their own voice, like ol' Dallas. Dallas is correct that people have successfully been prosecuted for dissent in America, beginning as early as the Alien and Sedition acts. However, such actions on the part of the government were fundamentally contrary to the spirt of liberty. First amendment rights are meaningless unless one can express ideas that would logically correspond to dissent. We are, unfortunately, returning to such dark days. I wonder if Dallas ACTUALLY believes in liberty or actually doesn't give a fuck as long as "da gummint don't take his gunz".
I took no position for or against Monsieur Dallas' posts until he characterized Alucard as an amoral asshole for disagreeing with his position. To be fair to Alucard, he never advocated doing anything he said through any means other than the democratic process. Above I stated my own position on gun control clearly. I also did not accuse Dallas of restricting Alucard or anybody else's rights. I'm sure he doesn't have that power. however, the characterization of one's opponents as not just wrong, but evil, if not exactly a pathway toward reasoned debate. I specifically called bullshit on that part and stand by that.
On the other hand, I find it interesting that Monsieur Dallas declares that I'm on his ignore list then proceeds to ridicule me...a sure sign that he doesn't want a respectful dialog. I suspect that I'd find him a stupid, ignorant blowhard if I had a beer (alcoholic or non-alcoholic) with him.
Now I don't care about him ridiculing me...but the fact that I'm on his ignore list (if I really am...) raises an important question. Given that he doesn't want a respectful dialog and purports to be ignoring me, how am I going to get some LOLZ from the guy?
Sorry, alutard, but I am not the only one who believes. Many in this thread see you for being the anti-American that you are. Can a person leap to that conclusion based only on your opposition to the 2nd amendment? I would say no, but given how fundamental the right of self-defense is to preservation of a democracy, I do think that is almost close enough to clinch it by itself. However, if we add in your opposition to free speech and free association as demonstrated by your calls to "Ban the NRA!" there is 0% doubt that you are anti-American at that point. It's a slam dunk. In fact, I would challenge you to find a single person here who would say you are not anti-American after making such a statement (making the big, but possibly wrong, assumption that you are even sane enough to understand the things you say).
alutard: "Your insult falls flat, just like all of those directed at me do."
They do not fall flat at all. Many have publically and private, via PMs, stated their agreements of my assessments of you. And, here's the best part - even you know they are true, and it is funny to see you retreat even deeper into paranoia and put up your other defense mechanisms ("I am a martyr!" "The end is near!") so you don't have to admit it publically on the board or even consciously to yourself.
Keep trying though. Like I say, it's great amusing. Know, however, that you fool nobody. Not even yourself.