At Least 3 dead in New Jersey shooting.

Sad to say....SOME PEOPLE will give up their firearms, without a fight. Then, the only people left with guns, will be the "extremist" and the cops/military. Once bullets start flying....many will drop their guns, and ruuuuuuuuun! Y'all think there's gonna be some kind of "all out war"? YOU'RE NUTS!!!

For those who aren't aware of NJ's gun laws, the following information is given for whatever it is worth...

New Jersey has arguably the most restrictive gun laws in the country. At a minimum, to purchase a handgun, a special permit is needed. This permit is by law to be issued in under 30 days. However, it is routine for it to take over 6 months. NJ has restrictions on the size of magazines, types of long arms, number of modifications that can be made to a gun, type of ammo, and a host of other "public safety" rules & regulations. Also, while federal law allows for firearm transport for hunting, target shooting, etc between states, NJ doesn't always recognize this law and individuals have been arrested for legally transporting their guns. Concealed carry permits? Unless you bribe a judge, you won't get one. They are issued to only those with "reasonable need", and the term reasonable need has never been defined. For example, kidnapped victims fearful of their uncaught attackers don't qualify as having reasonable need for protection. What does all this mean? NJ is not firearm friendly. We're not as bad as the UK, but pretty close.

Crazy will always be crazy. An abundance of gun laws does nothing to prevent such acts, NJ is a perfect example of this.

So if guns are restricted there will be no more murders?Of course not.The lunatic fringe shall always be there with or without guns.Its also incorrect too assume every American is packing,,a silly stereotype.

reply to post by AgentX09


They aren't worried about the lunatic fringe, nor will they ever be because criminals and random people who go on shooting sprees are not a threat to power. If anything these individuals help those in power by instilling fear in the general population, so there will always be an atmosphere of anxiety when you go to the store or the movies or the workplace.

The real goal for these people is to make the average person defenseless (and without possibility of armament) against them, those who have the power.

Criminality means absolutely nothing to them, while maintaining dominance over the vast majority of people means everything. They would be happy to see criminals have weapons and the average American have nothing.

So really, on the surface, a ban on guns would be advertised as a way to stop criminal activity when in reality the purpose is to control the herd and absolve those who create an atmosphere of anxiety for the herd.

As much as it is an effort to ban guns, it would seem to be an effort to disredit ex-servicemen too.

I saw that article recently about those 4 ex-soldiers who were plotting to kill 0bama... maybe they are scared?

Very Sad indeed. What Yahoo has to say about it:

uk.news.yahoo.com...

Makes me wonder what the hell is going on. I find it very convenient that there is such a push for stricter guns laws, and *poof* shooting after shooting after shooting. Time to renew my LTC. Wayyy too many wackos out there.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Why is it that suburban shootings seem to get far more attention than urban ones?

Some loser upset his woman dumped him or he lost his awesome grocery bagging job goes and shoots a couple of people in a fit of idiot rage and it's plastered all over the news.

At the same time a few blocks away some 15 year old wannabe gangsters get into a shootout with some other kids killing a half dozen and it's just dismissed. Unless of course a poor bystander gets hit then it pops up to top story for at least a little while.

Is it the same phenomenon that gets all the little missing white girls TV time while all the missing black kids go ignored?

Im in NJ and here is y it isnt the same. The kids in the gang are shooting EACH OTHER. They chose that lifestyle. Not the same as a person innocently working. Take your mind off of race and stop using it as an excuse for your life.

Well, anyone whos ever been to New Jersey or had to endure more than 3 minutes of the show "Jersey Shore" would agree that this was for the best.
Now that I got the humor out of the way-JEEZUS HAROLD CHRISTMAS!!!!! People-stop shooting each other! Its not worth giving the gun grabbers more reason!

Welcome to your future, America:

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Why is it that suburban shootings seem to get far more attention than urban ones?

Some loser upset his woman dumped him or he lost his awesome grocery bagging job goes and shoots a couple of people in a fit of idiot rage and it's plastered all over the news.

At the same time a few blocks away some 15 year old wannabe gangsters get into a shootout with some other kids killing a half dozen and it's just dismissed. Unless of course a poor bystander gets hit then it pops up to top story for at least a little while.

Is it the same phenomenon that gets all the little missing white girls TV time while all the missing black kids go ignored?

Could it possibly be because two INNOCENT people were killed for no good reason as opposed to "wanna-be gansters?" Sorry, but this incident hit too close to home as I live 6 miles away and my daughter graduated with the girl this past June who was killed. No life should ever be lost to violence of any kind....in a perfect world! But alas, it is NOT! It was her first overnight shift at the supermarket, and the young man was only 24, trying to work to pay for college...an only child. Forgive me if I can't have as much pity for "wanna-be gansters" that get killed. In all sincerity, I do know what you are saying, that sensationalism is not fairly balanced, and in general I do agree!

reply to post by elrem48


what pray tell is the difference between "wanna be gangsters" and this particular instance? In my perspective motive is illusory. Unbalanced individuals are to blame. Not some socioeconomic pandering.

Blame a group of uninvolved and everyone is to blame.

this is not an attack on your post nor meant to be an end all on sociology.

I'd like to add I am empathetic to your community's loss. I like to investigate the difference between individual culpability and social culpability.

Originally posted by conspiracyrus
reply to post by elrem48

 

what pray tell is the difference between "wanna be gangsters" and this particular instance? In my perspective motive is illusory. Unbalanced individuals are to blame. Not some socioeconomic pandering.

Blame a group of uninvolved and everyone is to blame.

this is not an attack on your post nor meant to be an end all on sociology.

I'd like to add I am empathetic to your community's loss. I like to investigate the difference between individual culpability and social culpability.

edit on 31-8-2012 by conspiracyrus because: (no reason given)

The difference for me is "choice." If a person WANTS to join a gang, that is a choice, albeit a poor and many times fatal one. Even if they had it rough in their life and this leads them on this path, I believe it's a choice to follow that path, as there are many fine examples of people who chose a different, more productive one. The difference is innocent people were killed by a unstable individual, and the only choice they did have was in deciding to work at this supermarket...WITHOUT any foreknowledge of events such as these taking place. However, people who join gangs have some preconception of the activities of a gang member. Where in my post did I blame a so-called group?
What "pray tell" are you thinking when you try to balance innocent lost lives who have no inclination to lose them, against "wanna be gansters" that may very well expect to lose theirs?