Shooting in New Jersey Supermarket leaves 3 Dead

This is a little different than some of the other shootings. The shooter knew the people and obviously targeted them. This isn't a random act of violence, these were his "colleagues" he was trying to kill. Not saying it's not horrible or anything, but there's something less scary about someone going after people they know - having a motive that makes some sense, rather than just killing random people (including very young children) with not motive whatsoever.

In otherwords, I don't like that the article draws a parallel to the Aurora Theater Shooting.
 
Ever since that shooting during the premiere of "The Dark Knight Rises", there have been tons of shootings across the country.

Awful, just like every shooting.
 
There really haven't. They've just received more coverage. There are shootings practically every day in Chicago, people just don't care.
 
^It's probably because most shootings in Chigago are gang related.

When a former Marine though is the one pulling trigger, the media will be over that.
 
This is a little different than some of the other shootings. The shooter knew the people and obviously targeted them. This isn't a random act of violence, these were his "colleagues" he was trying to kill. Not saying it's not horrible or anything, but there's something less scary about someone going after people they know - having a motive that makes some sense, rather than just killing random people (including very young children) with not motive whatsoever.

In otherwords, I don't like that the article draws a parallel to the Aurora Theater Shooting.

Exactly. Random acts are terrifiying because there is no motive other than bloodshed, and are way harder to stop.
 
There really haven't. They've just received more coverage. There are shootings practically every day in Chicago, people just don't care.

Not sure how the shootings even occur. Chicago has pretty strict gun control laws.
 
You two, report to any of the other shooting threads in the opinions section. We are not going through this song and dance again. Proving the same points wrong over and over gets tiresome.
 
It'd be a good start.. :)

You're incredibly naive if you think this is so. Like, beyond incredibly naive. Britain, and island nation that is tiny, can't even keep guns off it's black market, and you expect the US to do so?

Nope. Just nope.
 
Damnit, none of the armed citizens managed to shoot the culprit before things got out of hand.

Right_To_Bear_Arms.jpg



That thread, there are only 2 pages to it.
But those 2 pages have been said in 200 differant ways. Amazing
 
Last edited:
You're incredibly naive if you think this is so. Like, beyond incredibly naive. Britain, and island nation that is tiny, can't even keep guns off it's black market, and you expect the US to do so?

Nope. Just nope.

On a rather more serious note, I believe the problem of the US is that people have been told to defend themselves from the very start and in order to control crime and socially related problems, you beef up. Because someone may carry a gun, more people get guns and then you have a catch 22. It's not really about gun control, rather a much needed change of mentality and the problems are probably related to the culture in a deeper way than most people think. I'm just seeing this from the outside you know, and the US has a very high rate of shootings and other killings - surely not just based on population? Which brings me to the next point:

and that will end up leaving people defenseless against people who don't care about the law...

As you may know we had some guy here in Norway last year shooting nearly 70 defenseless young people.. There will always be some people off scale enough to do such a thing, you can't prevent it - as stated above in the reply to my post, there are always a way to acquire a weapon if you really want one. But this is an exception, luckily. Of course, there are 5 million Norwegians and roughly 310+ million Americans - but there were 12,600 homicide deaths with a firearm involved in 2007 in the US. It's just crazy.


Take a look at this list:
http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/CTS10 homicide.pdf

The US ranks very high for a first world country not in a civil war (i.e not **** countries if I dare say so). Of course, a high percentage of the killings are without a doubt gang related, drug related etc (and probably a low percentage of it related to random shooings) but I think my point is still valid - something needs to be done with the right to carry and misunderstood protection.
 
Last edited:
On a rather more serious note, I believe the problem of the US is that people have been told to defend themselves from the very start in order to control crime and socially related problems Be the last line of defense against tyranny

Fixed.

You can't change the mentality of a population in regards carrying/owning a gun as it's not a mentality, it's simply who we are. We are very protective people. We don't carry guns because we want to use them, we carry them because we fear others who have no regards for the law and will misuse them.
 
Banning guns will do nothing but increase sales on the black market, making even more people criminals. Then most (if not all) of those people will pretty much turn every city into a warzone.
 
As I found out in another thread here, legally owning guns is a cultural thing.

Many Europeans are not used to it.

Banning guns will do nothing but increase sales on the black market, making even more people criminals. Then most (if not all) of those people will pretty much turn every city into a warzone.

Utter nonsense.
 
Last edited:
The US ranks very high for a first world country not in a civil war (i.e not **** countries if I dare say so). Of course, a high percentage of the killings are without a doubt gang related, drug related etc (and probably a low percentage of it related to random shooings) but I think my point is still valid - something needs to be done with the right to carry and misunderstood protection.

Almost all gun violence is from illegally acquired guns in the US - more heavily restricting them wouldn't change that at all. On top of that, in most urban areas, legal gun ownership isn't a common thing and most citizens don't carry or own. It is mostly the rural areas, where everyone is raised with guns and incredibly comfortable around them.

It is an extremely cultural thing that you clearly do not understand. I don't get uncomfortable if someone has a gun in a room unless they are pointing it at people. It is a very normal thing to me as I started shooting when I was 4 and I've spent a great deal of my life around guns.
 
Banning guns will do nothing but increase sales on the black market, making even more people criminals. Then most (if not all) of those people will pretty much turn every city into a warzone.

Seems like you're living in a Hollywood world...
 
Seems like you're living in a Hollywood world...

Only the bit about a warzone. The reality is banning guns in the US would be hilariously stupid, as many states would never allow it to happen and I could see them trying to separate from the Union over it, not to mention it would be impossible to police black market guns. Like I said before, England can't even manage to control its gun black market reasonably well, it is a small island nation that doesn't have a 200 year history of having firearms.
 
Not sure how the shootings even occur. Chicago has pretty strict gun control laws.

Regardless of how strict the gun laws are ... YOU WILL NEVER - EVER control the black market movement of firearms.

Americans should not be allowed to buy guns at all. Period.

Really :rolleyes:
So I'm not allowed to buy guns for my personal entertainment of shooting and protection of my household and family ? What's next .... you want to revoke my CCP ? * Holds tight to the 2nd amendment *

It'd be a good start.. :)

It would be an epic fail !

On topic ... sad story once again.
 
Of course, a high percentage of the killings are without a doubt gang related, drug related etc (and probably a low percentage of it related to random shootings) but I think my point is still valid - something needs to be done with the right to carry and misunderstood protection.

Let's say we've banned guns:

Now we have to worry about people wielding a stick with a nail in it. So, is the solution is a bigger stick with a sharper nail in it? Or just a stick that is so strong, it fires off nails from one end? And does that stop other violent and destructive crimes? Yes, the outlaws already have guns. And admittedly, the number of people who have genuinely protected themselves by ownership of a deadly weapon is likely also quite a small statistic (which is brought up an inversely proportional amount of times by fervent gun rights activists).

But in the vein of "saving even just one one life", both proper measures of gun control and gun rights should be balanced in society, for the equation of game theory to be balanced. That's why you can't bring a gun everywhere, but you're hardly restricted from doing so, except in cases where it usually is of the least worry. I don't worry about being shot, either way.
 
I like how people who take the side of "ban all the guns" never actually respond to the points raised against them. Quoting replies that you agree with and showering them with thumbs ups doesn't help your case.

Damnit, none of the armed citizens managed to shoot the culprit before things got out of hand.

Go look up gun laws in New Jersey, specifically pertaining to concealed carry.
 
Last edited:
Back