Jersey City Shootout: 6 Dead Including Police Officer; Suspects Found Dead In Kosher Grocery Store Along With 3 Civilians

[supermike80 1,285]

13 hours ago, sderk said:

More than 90 people get killed per day in the US by car accidents. Are you willing to give up your license to drive because of that? Offer that up. And that can be a start to your mission.

I am 100% behind gun rights..but this is one of the DUMBEST arguments for gun rights that has ever been offered up.  It's just stupid.

 

[MDC 5,890]

4 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

I am 100% behind gun rights..but this is one of the DUMBEST arguments for gun rights that has ever been offered up.  It's just stupid.

 

Agreed. A small retarded child would immediately know that almost every American gets in a car versus a very small number of people who use a firearm on any given day. That same little boy would also know that driving serves a routine functional purpose for nearly everyone, but firearms are almost never necessary in day to day life.

A little retard could figure that out on his own.

But not Peefoam.  

[supermike80 1,285]

Just now, MDC said:

Agreed. A small retarded child would immediately know that almost every American gets in a car versus a very small number of people who use a firearm on any given day. That same little boy would also know that driving serves a routine functional purpose for nearly everyone, but firearms are almost never necessary in day to day life.

A little retard could figure that out on his own.

But not Peefoam.  

It's stupid...It's like saying I found a cure for cancer but don't use it, because heart disease still kills millions--and if you cant fix that, then don't fix anything

dumb dumb dumb

Every argument that goes with  "But knives kill, but hammers kill, but cars kill" is ---have I said it yet????...DUMB!!!!

[MDC 5,890]

6 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

It's stupid...It's like saying I found a cure for cancer but don't use it, because heart disease still kills millions--and if you cant fix that, then don't fix anything

dumb dumb dumb

Every argument that goes with  "But knives kill, but hammers kill, but cars kill" is ---have I said it yet????...DUMB!!!!

My favorite is when one of these morons posts a link to a mass knifing and says BAN KNIVES! And most of the time you read the story and it turns out 5-6 people were stabbed and none of them died.  

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

 

4 minutes ago, MDC said:

My favorite is when one of these morons posts a link to a mass knifing and says BAN KNIVES! And most of the time you read the story and it turns out 5-6 people were stabbed and none of them died.  

Almost as dumb as thinking a gun free zone would be effective policy 

[MDC 5,890]

19 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

 

Almost as dumb as thinking a gun free zone would be effective policy 

But I don’t think that.  

[cyclone24 1,814]

It's stupid because it's comparing apples and oranges. A car has to be mis used to kill someone. Its design for travel and transportation. A gun when it's being used is doing exactly what it was designed for. Killing other living things. Huge distinction. But carry on about baseball bats and knives and whatever other cliches you want to try to use to deflect.

 

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

6 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

It's stupid because it's comparing apples and oranges. A car has to be mis used to kill someone. Its design for travel and transportation. A gun when it's being used is doing exactly what it was designed for. Killing other living things. Huge distinction. But carry on about baseball bats and knives and whatever other cliches you want to try to use to deflect.

 

Again, I can see why a person from Iowa sees it this way

[cyclone24 1,814]

2 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

Again, I can see why a person from Iowa sees it this way

Lol... Easy Snoop Dogg you're in Florida. I'm sure you gotta go strapped up into the villages. GTFOH with that nonsense.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

Just now, cyclone24 said:

Lol... Easy Snoop Dogg you're in Florida. I'm sure you gotta go strapped up into the villages. GTFOH with that nonsense.

You live in Iowa dude. I bet if you lived in LA, Miami, Baltimore or another crime infested area you may feel differently. At the very least I guarantee you would have some home protection. If you didn’t kinda stupid. It’s actually stupid not having home protection even being in Iowa. 

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

5 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

Lol... Easy Snoop Dogg you're in Florida. I'm sure you gotta go strapped up into the villages. GTFOH with that nonsense.

There were only 54 murders in the entire state of Iowa in 2018.  Orlando probably had that in one month. 

[cyclone24 1,814]

1 minute ago, iam90sbaby said:

You live in Iowa dude. I bet if you lived in LA, Miami, Baltimore or another crime infested area you may feel differently. At the very least I guarantee you would have some home protection. If you didn’t kinda stupid. It’s actually stupid not having home protection even being in Iowa. 

Dude... I haven't always lived here. I lived in pretty crappy places. One of them I was called the spot because I was the only white guy around and that's what the brothers called me because they could always find me.  Places where I would play pick up ball in I could see a guy playing with a gun on him. Lived in another place where I saw guys welding a metal ball to the end of a crowbar for a weapon. Still didn't need a gun. 

Like I said get out of here with this nonsense.

[cyclone24 1,814]

And again you're trying to get away from the point. You have to miss use a car to kill someone. A gun is designed to kill living things so when it's used it's working just like it's supposed to.

[BiffTannen 651]

I won't be using it for protection, but as a critter gun around the yard. The new Glock 44 chambered in .22LR available January of 2020. 

 

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

11 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

Dude... I haven't always lived here. I lived in pretty crappy places. One of them I was called the spot because I was the only white guy around and that's what the brothers called me because they could always find me.  Places where I would play pick up ball in I could see a guy playing with a gun on him. Lived in another place where I saw guys welding a metal ball to the end of a crowbar for a weapon. Still didn't need a gun. 

Like I said get out of here with this nonsense.

What if you still lived in that area now with a family?  Wouldn’t feel the need for home protection then?  Kinda irresponsible don’t you think brotha?

[cyclone24 1,814]

6 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

What if you still lived in that area now with a family?  Wouldn’t feel the need for home protection then?  Kinda irresponsible don’t you think brotha?

I dunno. We didnt grow up with them...so I'm sure that's a personal factor. IMO...and I get folks will disagree...IMO theres a far greater chance me or my kids get killed with a gun in the house accidentally than itll ever be used in some shootout. 

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

2 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

I dunno. We didnt grow up with them...so I'm sure that's a personal factor. IMO...and I get folks will disagree...IMO theres a far greater chance me or my kids get killed with a gun in the house accidentally than itll ever be used in some shootout. 

Not everyone has the luxury of living in low crime areas. If you live in an area that is prone to crime, you have a family and you aren’t taking extra measures to protect them you aren’t doing your job. 

Also I doubt it, that only happens with idiots. Like when people handle firearms (even to just clean them) after they’ve had a few drinks and they AD.  There are just certain things you don’t do. 99% of legal gun owners understand that. 

[vuduchile 1,941]

1 hour ago, iam90sbaby said:

I wasn’t being a gun nut just pointing out it was fine for hundreds of years and only the last 3-4 decades has it actually been a huge issue. I’m just wondering why is all.  Do you have any theories?

Yes.  

Too many people have no regard for human life.  

It would be interesting to travel back in time to the old west or even farther to the days of the Roman Empire to see how violent the world was then.

The history we’ve been taught paints a picture of some pretty violent cultures throughout.   

It seems like our society evolved beyond that then stopped, or possibly took a step back.  Of course, I’m only looking at a very short period of time compared to all of recorded history.  

[cyclone24 1,814]

14 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

Not everyone has the luxury of living in low crime areas. If you live in an area that is prone to crime, you have a family and you aren’t taking extra measures to protect them you aren’t doing your job. 

Also I doubt it, that only happens with idiots. Like when people handle firearms (even to just clean them) after they’ve had a few drinks and they AD.  There are just certain things you don’t do. 99% of legal gun owners understand that. 

True but everyone is a responsible owner right up until they are not. Thus..why we dont go a week without a child under 5 dying from a gun. 

[5-Points 2,727]

1 hour ago, supermike80 said:

I am 100% behind gun rights..but this is one of the DUMBEST arguments for gun rights that has ever been offered up.  It's just stupid.

 

Well, the argument in favor of gun control is that it supposedly saves lives. So, if that's your argument (Not you sm), "it's about saving lives" then the automobile comparison is valid. Unless you're only interested in saving lives until it negatively impacts your convenience. 

The same anti-gun arguments can be made wrt cars.

"Most people don't need a car, there's plenty of mass transit available,  leave the driving to the professionals."

"We should ban sports cars. Nobody needs a car that's capable of traveling faster than the speed limit." 

"If everybody is out there on the road with a car it'll only result in road rage incidents where somebody gets killed."

 

Yes, I know those are asinine arguments for banning cars. They're just as stupid when it comes to banning guns. 

 

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

23 minutes ago, vuduchile said:

Yes.  

Too many people have no regard for human life.  

It would be interesting to travel back in time to the old west or even farther to the days of the Roman Empire to see how violent the world was then.

The history we’ve been taught paints a picture of some pretty violent cultures throughout.   

It seems like our society evolved beyond that then stopped, or possibly took a step back.  Of course, I’m only looking at a very short period of time compared to all of recorded history.  

I agree. Probably has a lot do with people having so much exposure to violence before they even become a teenager. 

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

3 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Well, the argument in favor of gun control is that it supposedly saves lives. So, if that's your argument (Not you sm), "it's about saving lives" then the automobile comparison is valid. Unless you're only interested in saving lives until it negatively impacts your convenience. 

The same anti-gun arguments can be made wrt cars.

"Most people don't need a car, there's plenty of mass transit available,  leave the driving to the professionals."

"We should ban sports cars. Nobody needs a car that's capable of traveling faster than the speed limit." 

"If everybody is out there on the road with a car it'll only result in road rage incidents where somebody gets killed."

 

Yes, I know those are asinine arguments for banning cars. They're just as stupid when it comes to banning guns. 

 

Ay!  You made the car argument not retarded anymore, nice. 

[lickin_starfish 1,480]

The difference is that you don't use cars to stop a tyrannical government. You use guns. Lots of guns.

[sderk 1,040]

2 hours ago, MDC said:

Agreed. A small retarded child would immediately know

So your wife...?

[sderk 1,040]

48 minutes ago, lickin_starfish said:

The difference is that you don't use cars to stop a tyrannical government. You use guns. Lots of guns.

You use anything you can. Guns help the most since the government has them at the ready.

It seems the dopes on this site don't understand why the 2nd amendment was put in place.

[cyclone24 1,814]

2 minutes ago, sderk said:

You use anything you can. Guns help the most since the government has them at the ready.

It seems the dopes on this site don't understand why the 2nd amendment was put in place.

Cute that you think youd stand a chance if our gubment wanted to exterminate us all. 

Yall wont stop mass shootings but suddenly going to stop military arsenals? Oh ok.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

3 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

Cute that you think youd stand a chance if our gubment wanted to exterminate us all. 

Yall wont stop mass shootings but suddenly going to stop military arsenals? Oh ok.

Can you respond to 5-Points post? He made some really solid points 

[sderk 1,040]

1 hour ago, 5-Points said:

Well, the argument in favor of gun control is that it supposedly saves lives. So, if that's your argument (Not you sm), "it's about saving lives" then the automobile comparison is valid. Unless you're only interested in saving lives until it negatively impacts your convenience. 

The same anti-gun arguments can be made wrt cars.

"Most people don't need a car, there's plenty of mass transit available,  leave the driving to the professionals."

"We should ban sports cars. Nobody needs a car that's capable of traveling faster than the speed limit." 

"If everybody is out there on the road with a car it'll only result in road rage incidents where somebody gets killed."

 

Yes, I know those are asinine arguments for banning cars. They're just as stupid when it comes to banning guns. 

 

Many lefties don't see the dumb logic I used to combat their stupid logic. It's all the same logic. Go figure.

[sderk 1,040]

37 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

Cute that you think youd stand a chance if our gubment wanted to exterminate us all. 

Yall wont stop mass shootings but suddenly going to stop military arsenals? Oh ok.

What makes you think that the whole government would side with a tyrannical onslaught? Go ahead and bow down to your favorite superiors in government and hope and pray they don't turn into tyrants. The left is pretty close to wanting to control your every action. What you say. The terminology you use. They want to change the constitution to fit their narrative. They want to tell you what and how you should feel.  

And you suck up to it.

[cyclone24 1,814]

1 hour ago, iam90sbaby said:

Can you respond to 5-Points post? He made some really solid points 

 Well hes essentially making the same argument I am just in reverse. Where I'm saying that the functionality of a gun to kill living things is not the same as an automobile which main function is transportation.

 Yeah you absolutely could reduce the number of cars and I would venture to guess you would also lower the number of auto fatalities. Just as you would reducing a number of dangerous thing this we do. 

 For me it just comes back to design of use. A car was not created to kill living things. A gun was. 

[Vince44 202]

Looks like it's time to break out those three favorite words of Republicans in Congress, whom are controlled by those NRA campaign donations and are still blocking bills in the Senate. 

Thoughts and Prayers. 🕯

[GobbleDog 816]

All the ridiculous arguments from gun-supporters..... "drugs are banned - we can get drugs, so it's pointless to ban anything;  cars kill people - ban cars;  people will just kill with knives and bats, and of course - we need guns to stop a tyrannical government." 

Aside from that laughable line of reasoning, the thing that drives me most insane about gun supporters is they use no critical thinking whatsoever.  Hypothetically, if gun violence rates and mass shooting rates were similar with every other first world country, then I wouldn't favor gun control.  At that point, I'd say the pros probably outweigh the cons.

However, if you ask a gun-supporter if gun violence rates were hypothetically twice as much as they currently are, then would they favor gun control?  Answer: No.  What about TEN times as much?  Answer: No.  Is there ANY scenario in which you'd favor gun control?  Answer: No - I just love guns. 

 

There's no point in debating with people who think like that. 

[sderk 1,040]

2 hours ago, cyclone24 said:

 For me it just comes back to design of use. A car was not created to kill living things. A gun was. 

So, thoughts of intent are more important. Results don't matter.

Gotcha.

[sderk 1,040]

5 hours ago, cyclone24 said:

IMO theres a far greater chance me or my kids get killed with a gun in the house accidentally

Sounds like you are very irresponsible in life. What if you kids worked heavy machinery? Would you just let them play with it without training? Sounds like yes. Maybe we should get rid of farming machinery in your opinion.

[vuduchile 1,941]

4 hours ago, 5-Points said:

Well, the argument in favor of gun control is that it supposedly saves lives. So, if that's your argument (Not you sm), "it's about saving lives" then the automobile comparison is valid. Unless you're only interested in saving lives until it negatively impacts your convenience. 

The same anti-gun arguments can be made wrt cars.

"Most people don't need a car, there's plenty of mass transit available,  leave the driving to the professionals."

"We should ban sports cars. Nobody needs a car that's capable of traveling faster than the speed limit." 

"If everybody is out there on the road with a car it'll only result in road rage incidents where somebody gets killed."

 

Yes, I know those are asinine arguments for banning cars. They're just as stupid when it comes to banning guns. 

 

I don’t think the comparison works all that well.   Cars can and do kill people, but that’s not their primary function.  

And cars aren’t intentionally used as a deadly weapon on a regular basis.  Driver negligence is usually involved when someone ends up dead. 

There are also hundreds of laws in place regulating the use of cars to help keep the masses from killing each other.  Of course, we don’t all obey them, but they are randomly enforced. 

Speeding, reckless driving, DUI, running a red light, busted tail light,  failure to yield, not using turn signals, and more.  

Existing gun laws aren’t really comparable. 

[sderk 1,040]

4 hours ago, vuduchile said:

I don’t think the comparison works all that well.   Cars can and do kill people, but that’s not their primary function.  

And cars aren’t intentionally used as a deadly weapon on a regular basis.  Driver negligence is usually involved when someone ends up dead. 

There are also hundreds of laws in place regulating the use of cars to help keep the masses from killing each other.  Of course, we don’t all obey them, but they are randomly enforced. 

Speeding, reckless driving, DUI, running a red light, busted tail light,  failure to yield, not using turn signals, and more.  

Existing gun laws aren’t really comparable. 

1. How does primary function come into this when one thing kills more innocent people than the other?

2. Sure, cars are often not intentionally used to kill, they are often used to unintentionally kill people. Drunken driving is a great example. Or, people people like you who, "of course we don't all obey them", decide not to obey the laws and people end up dead by that way of thinking.

3. So you admittedly don't obey the car laws knowing that the outcome of your actions could be the death of someone. And as an aside, don't say "we" when you mean you.

Many say "guns kill", but in the end, just like in driving cars recklessly, users kill. The only thing is, cars kill more people than guns do.

 

[5-Points 2,727]

9 hours ago, GobbleDog said:

All the ridiculous arguments from gun-supporters..... "drugs are banned - we can get drugs, so it's pointless to ban anything;  cars kill people - ban cars;  people will just kill with knives and bats, and of course - we need guns to stop a tyrannical government." 

Aside from that laughable line of reasoning, the thing that drives me most insane about gun supporters is they use no critical thinking whatsoever.  Hypothetically, if gun violence rates and mass shooting rates were similar with every other first world country, then I wouldn't favor gun control.  At that point, I'd say the pros probably outweigh the cons.

However, if you ask a gun-supporter if gun violence rates were hypothetically twice as much as they currently are, then would they favor gun control?  Answer: No.  What about TEN times as much?  Answer: No.  Is there ANY scenario in which you'd favor gun control?  Answer: No - I just love guns. 

 

There's no point in debating with people who think like that. 

Speaking of critical thinking, maybe you could use a little yourself and see if you can't come up with a couple of other dissimilarities besides murder rates between the U.S. and all of those first world countries you want to compare us to. 

Then use a little more critical thinking and see that we actually have more in common with Mexico in terms of size, history and ethnic diversity than we do with any of those European, Asian or Scandanavian countries you want to cherry pick for comparison. 

 

[5-Points 2,727]

8 hours ago, vuduchile said:

I don’t think the comparison works all that well.   Cars can and do kill people, but that’s not their primary function.  

And cars aren’t intentionally used as a deadly weapon on a regular basis.  Driver negligence is usually involved when someone ends up dead. 

There are also hundreds of laws in place regulating the use of cars to help keep the masses from killing each other.  Of course, we don’t all obey them, but they are randomly enforced. 

Speeding, reckless driving, DUI, running a red light, busted tail light,  failure to yield, not using turn signals, and more.  

Existing gun laws aren’t really comparable. 

We also don't use cars defensively to save lives. Studies have shown that there are as many as 2.5 million instances of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. Gary Kleck did a survey back in the 90's and found the following:

(From wiki)

 

"Kleck conducted a national survey in 1994 (the National Self-Defense Survey) and, extrapolating from the 5,000 households surveyed^[15], estimated that in 1993 there were approximately 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use (DGU - the use of guns for self-protection), compared to about 0.5 million gun crimes as estimated by the National Crime Victimization Survey."

 

If we remove a certain demographic and suicides from the gun homicide rate our numbers drop to some of the lowest on the planet. The gun isn't the problem. 

[BiffTannen 651]

10 hours ago, Vince44 said:

Looks like it's time to break out those three favorite words of Republicans in Congress, whom are controlled by those NRA campaign donations and are still blocking bills in the Senate. 

Thoughts and Prayers. 🕯

It was your kind that shot up the joos, Barry. 

[cyclone24 1,814]

10 hours ago, sderk said:

Sounds like you are very irresponsible in life. What if you kids worked heavy machinery? Would you just let them play with it without training? Sounds like yes. Maybe we should get rid of farming machinery in your opinion.

Dope at least quote my entire sentence if you're going to say something stupid.

Better chance than some mythical shootout in my home? Absolutely.  

Farming machinery? What in the actual fock? Weird argument. "Well well guns aren't as bad as ________ so it's all good. " so odd.