The nut case with guns living next door to you is an interesting question.
Because it is not gun I worry about.
It is the nut case I fear.
If he is so fucked up he would take a gun and shoot people, he is fucked up enough to go on a knife rampage, or build pipe bombs, or go crazy behind the wheel of a car.
I love the drama around this subject, however, 10,000 people a year die from guns.
You want to change the fabric of the laws that support our country over statistically irrelevant causes of death.
Take all the gun owners in the country, divide that by the number of actual shooters who kill and the number would be far less than 1%.
Facts be damned ... and emotions rule when it comes to guns.
That's awfully dramatic. On so many ways. First, it's not a rewrite of the constitution or changing the fabric of our laws to require background checks on all sales. Among a few other common sense things we can do.
What if we can get that 10,000 down to 8,000. Isn't the 5 minutes for a background check to save thousands of lives, worth it?
The only way to have gun control, outside of using both hands, is to ban guns across the board via repealing the 2nd amendment.
That is a simple fact supported by Chicago's death rate via handguns.
If I'm a nut case and I want to kill people ... I'm going to kill them. If I want to use a gun, I'm going to get a gun. If I can't get a gun, I'm going to use a pressure cooker ... or a big ass knife, or a car, or a pipe bomb.
So you want to reduce 10,000 to 8,000 ... GREAT! Statistically that's a rounding error. Put in all the gun "restrictions" you want ... but you will never get to zero. You are arguing an extreme deviation position, which can only be won on emotion.
Facts don't change because you want to ban guns.
I would also ask ... why are you and your friends so anxious to ban guns? Have you lost a loved one to a crazed shooter?
Where's your outrage over drunk driving, or drug addiction, child abuse?
Those items kill far more people every day than guns.
And why do you only show up on this subject when the media applies their latest faux outrage.
Why don't you care when the 3 year old African American is killed by a stray bullet from a gang banger who stole his gun from someone who passed a background check?
I guess 9/11 and those 4,000 people were just a rounding error too?
You put an awful lot of words in my mouth. Nice work.
I'm guessing his words taste allot like Rachel Maddows cock?
The nut case with guns living next door to you is an interesting question.
Because it is not gun I worry about.
It is the nut case I fear.
If he is so fucked up he would take a gun and shoot people, he is fucked up enough to go on a knife rampage, or build pipe bombs, or go crazy behind the wheel of a car.
I love the drama around this subject, however, 10,000 people a year die from guns.
You want to change the fabric of the laws that support our country over statistically irrelevant causes of death.
Take all the gun owners in the country, divide that by the number of actual shooters who kill and the number would be far less than 1%.
Facts be damned ... and emotions rule when it comes to guns.
That's awfully dramatic. On so many ways. First, it's not a rewrite of the constitution or changing the fabric of our laws to require background checks on all sales. Among a few other common sense things we can do.
What if we can get that 10,000 down to 8,000. Isn't the 5 minutes for a background check to save thousands of lives, worth it?
The only way to have gun control, outside of using both hands, is to ban guns across the board via repealing the 2nd amendment.
That is a simple fact supported by Chicago's death rate via handguns.
If I'm a nut case and I want to kill people ... I'm going to kill them. If I want to use a gun, I'm going to get a gun. If I can't get a gun, I'm going to use a pressure cooker ... or a big ass knife, or a car, or a pipe bomb.
So you want to reduce 10,000 to 8,000 ... GREAT! Statistically that's a rounding error. Put in all the gun "restrictions" you want ... but you will never get to zero. You are arguing an extreme deviation position, which can only be won on emotion.
Facts don't change because you want to ban guns.
I would also ask ... why are you and your friends so anxious to ban guns? Have you lost a loved one to a crazed shooter?
Where's your outrage over drunk driving, or drug addiction, child abuse?
Those items kill far more people every day than guns.
And why do you only show up on this subject when the media applies their latest faux outrage.
Why don't you care when the 3 year old African American is killed by a stray bullet from a gang banger who stole his gun from someone who passed a background check?
I guess 9/11 and those 4,000 people were just a rounding error too?
You put an awful lot of words in my mouth. Nice work.
I'm guessing his words taste allot like Rachel Maddows cock?
The nut case with guns living next door to you is an interesting question.
Because it is not gun I worry about.
It is the nut case I fear.
If he is so fucked up he would take a gun and shoot people, he is fucked up enough to go on a knife rampage, or build pipe bombs, or go crazy behind the wheel of a car.
I love the drama around this subject, however, 10,000 people a year die from guns.
You want to change the fabric of the laws that support our country over statistically irrelevant causes of death.
Take all the gun owners in the country, divide that by the number of actual shooters who kill and the number would be far less than 1%.
Facts be damned ... and emotions rule when it comes to guns.
That's awfully dramatic. On so many ways. First, it's not a rewrite of the constitution or changing the fabric of our laws to require background checks on all sales. Among a few other common sense things we can do.
What if we can get that 10,000 down to 8,000. Isn't the 5 minutes for a background check to save thousands of lives, worth it?
The only way to have gun control, outside of using both hands, is to ban guns across the board via repealing the 2nd amendment.
That is a simple fact supported by Chicago's death rate via handguns.
If I'm a nut case and I want to kill people ... I'm going to kill them. If I want to use a gun, I'm going to get a gun. If I can't get a gun, I'm going to use a pressure cooker ... or a big ass knife, or a car, or a pipe bomb.
So you want to reduce 10,000 to 8,000 ... GREAT! Statistically that's a rounding error. Put in all the gun "restrictions" you want ... but you will never get to zero. You are arguing an extreme deviation position, which can only be won on emotion.
Facts don't change because you want to ban guns.
I would also ask ... why are you and your friends so anxious to ban guns? Have you lost a loved one to a crazed shooter?
Where's your outrage over drunk driving, or drug addiction, child abuse?
Those items kill far more people every day than guns.
And why do you only show up on this subject when the media applies their latest faux outrage.
Why don't you care when the 3 year old African American is killed by a stray bullet from a gang banger who stole his gun from someone who passed a background check?
While I, and probably most here, would ackowledge that Top's post is depressing, we'd also have to agree with it as factual.
If I thought there was even a 0.00001% chance that a full-on gun ban would reduce this shit by at least 50% I'd be all for it.
I'm fairly convinced it wouldn't do a damn thing. The Genie is out of the bottle. Too many guns out there. And more to the point, there are too many pressure cookers, pipes, moving vans, fertilizer, etc. etc.
Sure, the whole militia argument is for stupidities who think they need to defend themselves against the federal government. And even for those people, if you take their 30 ots aways, they'll just rent a Ryder and buy fertilizer.
Bottom line: you live in a dangerous world full of crazy fucks, and when your # is up, it's up. Period. Reach into your pants, feel around, and grab your ballz for Christ's sake. It's about all you can do.
So what you are saying. That banning all guns wouldn't do anything. So we should just do nothing at all.
Do you realize how silly that statement is?
No, I realize no such thing, because it's not silly at all.
Banning guns wouldn't put a dent in the problem. There are too many fucking guns out there, and people want to have them. So they will.
Like prohibition, all you'd do is create a rather robust and frothy black market for guns. Moreover, you'd incentivize people desperate for them to hurt, mame or even kill other people who have them in the process of stealing them.
No, Sandy Hook happens, Va. Tech happens, Columbine happens, Marysville Pilchuck (by fucking definition this very fucking week) happens ... all of them happen with a full-on gun ban.
You probably think telling kids to practice abstinence or they'll go to hell will curb the # of abortions.
Fuck, turn the light on dude.
Note that's funny. You clearly don't get what I said. In no way did I say we should ban one gun. Your argument is that if we banned guns, it won't fix the problem. Given that concept, we should just do nothing.
Or another argument is that we shouldn't do anything because people will still die.
There are practical things we can do to save lives. That will not infringe on our rights. But you ignore them on false Rush Limbaugh talking points.
Would you just admit that you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment and confiscate weapons already so we can quit doing laps around your retarded track?
The nut case with guns living next door to you is an interesting question.
Because it is not gun I worry about.
It is the nut case I fear.
If he is so fucked up he would take a gun and shoot people, he is fucked up enough to go on a knife rampage, or build pipe bombs, or go crazy behind the wheel of a car.
I love the drama around this subject, however, 10,000 people a year die from guns.
You want to change the fabric of the laws that support our country over statistically irrelevant causes of death.
Take all the gun owners in the country, divide that by the number of actual shooters who kill and the number would be far less than 1%.
Facts be damned ... and emotions rule when it comes to guns.
That's awfully dramatic. On so many ways. First, it's not a rewrite of the constitution or changing the fabric of our laws to require background checks on all sales. Among a few other common sense things we can do.
What if we can get that 10,000 down to 8,000. Isn't the 5 minutes for a background check to save thousands of lives, worth it?
The only way to have gun control, outside of using both hands, is to ban guns across the board via repealing the 2nd amendment.
That is a simple fact supported by Chicago's death rate via handguns.
If I'm a nut case and I want to kill people ... I'm going to kill them. If I want to use a gun, I'm going to get a gun. If I can't get a gun, I'm going to use a pressure cooker ... or a big ass knife, or a car, or a pipe bomb.
So you want to reduce 10,000 to 8,000 ... GREAT! Statistically that's a rounding error. Put in all the gun "restrictions" you want ... but you will never get to zero. You are arguing an extreme deviation position, which can only be won on emotion.
Facts don't change because you want to ban guns.
I would also ask ... why are you and your friends so anxious to ban guns? Have you lost a loved one to a crazed shooter?
Where's your outrage over drunk driving, or drug addiction, child abuse?
Those items kill far more people every day than guns.
And why do you only show up on this subject when the media applies their latest faux outrage.
Why don't you care when the 3 year old African American is killed by a stray bullet from a gang banger who stole his gun from someone who passed a background check?
While I, and probably most here, would ackowledge that Top's post is depressing, we'd also have to agree with it as factual.
If I thought there was even a 0.00001% chance that a full-on gun ban would reduce this shit by at least 50% I'd be all for it.
I'm fairly convinced it wouldn't do a damn thing. The Genie is out of the bottle. Too many guns out there. And more to the point, there are too many pressure cookers, pipes, moving vans, fertilizer, etc. etc.
Sure, the whole militia argument is for stupidities who think they need to defend themselves against the federal government. And even for those people, if you take their 30 ots aways, they'll just rent a Ryder and buy fertilizer.
Bottom line: you live in a dangerous world full of crazy fucks, and when your # is up, it's up. Period. Reach into your pants, feel around, and grab your ballz for Christ's sake. It's about all you can do.
So what you are saying. That banning all guns wouldn't do anything. So we should just do nothing at all.
Do you realize how silly that statement is?
No, I realize no such thing, because it's not silly at all.
Banning guns wouldn't put a dent in the problem. There are too many fucking guns out there, and people want to have them. So they will.
Like prohibition, all you'd do is create a rather robust and frothy black market for guns. Moreover, you'd incentivize people desperate for them to hurt, mame or even kill other people who have them in the process of stealing them.
No, Sandy Hook happens, Va. Tech happens, Columbine happens, Marysville Pilchuck (by fucking definition this very fucking week) happens ... all of them happen with a full-on gun ban.
You probably think telling kids to practice abstinence or they'll go to hell will curb the # of abortions.
Fuck, turn the light on dude.
Note that's funny. You clearly don't get what I said. In no way did I say we should ban one gun. Your argument is that if we banned guns, it won't fix the problem. Given that concept, we should just do nothing.
Or another argument is that we shouldn't do anything because people will still die.
There are practical things we can do to save lives. That will not infringe on our rights. But you ignore them on false Rush Limbaugh talking points.
Would you just admit that you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment and confiscate weapons already so we can quit doing laps around your retarded track?
Would you just admit you are a Rush Limbaugh dick sucking twat?
The nut case with guns living next door to you is an interesting question.
Because it is not gun I worry about.
It is the nut case I fear.
If he is so fucked up he would take a gun and shoot people, he is fucked up enough to go on a knife rampage, or build pipe bombs, or go crazy behind the wheel of a car.
I love the drama around this subject, however, 10,000 people a year die from guns.
You want to change the fabric of the laws that support our country over statistically irrelevant causes of death.
Take all the gun owners in the country, divide that by the number of actual shooters who kill and the number would be far less than 1%.
Facts be damned ... and emotions rule when it comes to guns.
That's awfully dramatic. On so many ways. First, it's not a rewrite of the constitution or changing the fabric of our laws to require background checks on all sales. Among a few other common sense things we can do.
What if we can get that 10,000 down to 8,000. Isn't the 5 minutes for a background check to save thousands of lives, worth it?
The only way to have gun control, outside of using both hands, is to ban guns across the board via repealing the 2nd amendment.
That is a simple fact supported by Chicago's death rate via handguns.
If I'm a nut case and I want to kill people ... I'm going to kill them. If I want to use a gun, I'm going to get a gun. If I can't get a gun, I'm going to use a pressure cooker ... or a big ass knife, or a car, or a pipe bomb.
So you want to reduce 10,000 to 8,000 ... GREAT! Statistically that's a rounding error. Put in all the gun "restrictions" you want ... but you will never get to zero. You are arguing an extreme deviation position, which can only be won on emotion.
Facts don't change because you want to ban guns.
I would also ask ... why are you and your friends so anxious to ban guns? Have you lost a loved one to a crazed shooter?
Where's your outrage over drunk driving, or drug addiction, child abuse?
Those items kill far more people every day than guns.
And why do you only show up on this subject when the media applies their latest faux outrage.
Why don't you care when the 3 year old African American is killed by a stray bullet from a gang banger who stole his gun from someone who passed a background check?
While I, and probably most here, would ackowledge that Top's post is depressing, we'd also have to agree with it as factual.
If I thought there was even a 0.00001% chance that a full-on gun ban would reduce this shit by at least 50% I'd be all for it.
I'm fairly convinced it wouldn't do a damn thing. The Genie is out of the bottle. Too many guns out there. And more to the point, there are too many pressure cookers, pipes, moving vans, fertilizer, etc. etc.
Sure, the whole militia argument is for stupidities who think they need to defend themselves against the federal government. And even for those people, if you take their 30 ots aways, they'll just rent a Ryder and buy fertilizer.
Bottom line: you live in a dangerous world full of crazy fucks, and when your # is up, it's up. Period. Reach into your pants, feel around, and grab your ballz for Christ's sake. It's about all you can do.
So what you are saying. That banning all guns wouldn't do anything. So we should just do nothing at all.
Do you realize how silly that statement is?
No, I realize no such thing, because it's not silly at all.
Banning guns wouldn't put a dent in the problem. There are too many fucking guns out there, and people want to have them. So they will.
Like prohibition, all you'd do is create a rather robust and frothy black market for guns. Moreover, you'd incentivize people desperate for them to hurt, mame or even kill other people who have them in the process of stealing them.
No, Sandy Hook happens, Va. Tech happens, Columbine happens, Marysville Pilchuck (by fucking definition this very fucking week) happens ... all of them happen with a full-on gun ban.
You probably think telling kids to practice abstinence or they'll go to hell will curb the # of abortions.
Fuck, turn the light on dude.
Note that's funny. You clearly don't get what I said. In no way did I say we should ban one gun. Your argument is that if we banned guns, it won't fix the problem. Given that concept, we should just do nothing.
Or another argument is that we shouldn't do anything because people will still die.
There are practical things we can do to save lives. That will not infringe on our rights. But you ignore them on false Rush Limbaugh talking points.
Would you just admit that you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment and confiscate weapons already so we can quit doing laps around your retarded track?
Would you just admit you are a Rush Limbaugh dick sucking twat?
Lol.
you still haven't offered a single solution that would have prevented Roseburg. Not a fucking one.
The nut case with guns living next door to you is an interesting question.
Because it is not gun I worry about.
It is the nut case I fear.
If he is so fucked up he would take a gun and shoot people, he is fucked up enough to go on a knife rampage, or build pipe bombs, or go crazy behind the wheel of a car.
I love the drama around this subject, however, 10,000 people a year die from guns.
You want to change the fabric of the laws that support our country over statistically irrelevant causes of death.
Take all the gun owners in the country, divide that by the number of actual shooters who kill and the number would be far less than 1%.
Facts be damned ... and emotions rule when it comes to guns.
That's awfully dramatic. On so many ways. First, it's not a rewrite of the constitution or changing the fabric of our laws to require background checks on all sales. Among a few other common sense things we can do.
What if we can get that 10,000 down to 8,000. Isn't the 5 minutes for a background check to save thousands of lives, worth it?
The only way to have gun control, outside of using both hands, is to ban guns across the board via repealing the 2nd amendment.
That is a simple fact supported by Chicago's death rate via handguns.
If I'm a nut case and I want to kill people ... I'm going to kill them. If I want to use a gun, I'm going to get a gun. If I can't get a gun, I'm going to use a pressure cooker ... or a big ass knife, or a car, or a pipe bomb.
So you want to reduce 10,000 to 8,000 ... GREAT! Statistically that's a rounding error. Put in all the gun "restrictions" you want ... but you will never get to zero. You are arguing an extreme deviation position, which can only be won on emotion.
Facts don't change because you want to ban guns.
I would also ask ... why are you and your friends so anxious to ban guns? Have you lost a loved one to a crazed shooter?
Where's your outrage over drunk driving, or drug addiction, child abuse?
Those items kill far more people every day than guns.
And why do you only show up on this subject when the media applies their latest faux outrage.
Why don't you care when the 3 year old African American is killed by a stray bullet from a gang banger who stole his gun from someone who passed a background check?
While I, and probably most here, would ackowledge that Top's post is depressing, we'd also have to agree with it as factual.
If I thought there was even a 0.00001% chance that a full-on gun ban would reduce this shit by at least 50% I'd be all for it.
I'm fairly convinced it wouldn't do a damn thing. The Genie is out of the bottle. Too many guns out there. And more to the point, there are too many pressure cookers, pipes, moving vans, fertilizer, etc. etc.
Sure, the whole militia argument is for stupidities who think they need to defend themselves against the federal government. And even for those people, if you take their 30 ots aways, they'll just rent a Ryder and buy fertilizer.
Bottom line: you live in a dangerous world full of crazy fucks, and when your # is up, it's up. Period. Reach into your pants, feel around, and grab your ballz for Christ's sake. It's about all you can do.
So what you are saying. That banning all guns wouldn't do anything. So we should just do nothing at all.
Do you realize how silly that statement is?
No, I realize no such thing, because it's not silly at all.
Banning guns wouldn't put a dent in the problem. There are too many fucking guns out there, and people want to have them. So they will.
Like prohibition, all you'd do is create a rather robust and frothy black market for guns. Moreover, you'd incentivize people desperate for them to hurt, mame or even kill other people who have them in the process of stealing them.
No, Sandy Hook happens, Va. Tech happens, Columbine happens, Marysville Pilchuck (by fucking definition this very fucking week) happens ... all of them happen with a full-on gun ban.
You probably think telling kids to practice abstinence or they'll go to hell will curb the # of abortions.
Fuck, turn the light on dude.
Note that's funny. You clearly don't get what I said. In no way did I say we should ban one gun. Your argument is that if we banned guns, it won't fix the problem. Given that concept, we should just do nothing.
Or another argument is that we shouldn't do anything because people will still die.
There are practical things we can do to save lives. That will not infringe on our rights. But you ignore them on false Rush Limbaugh talking points.
Would you just admit that you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment and confiscate weapons already so we can quit doing laps around your retarded track?
Would you just admit you are a Rush Limbaugh dick sucking twat?
Lol.
you still haven't offered a single solution that would have prevented Roseburg. Not a fucking one.
I've offered several that would reduce the number of times we have a mass shooting. But you say I just want to overturn the second amendment.
The nut case with guns living next door to you is an interesting question.
Because it is not gun I worry about.
It is the nut case I fear.
If his so fucked up he would take a gun and shoot people, he is fucked up enough to go on a knife rampage, or build pipe bombs, or go crazy behind the wheel of a car.
I love the drama around this subject, however, 10,000 people a year die from guns.
You want to change the fabric of the laws that support our country over statistically irrelevant causes of death.
Take all the gun owners in the country, divide that by the number of actual shooters who kill and the number would be far less than 1%.
Facts be damned ... and emotions rule when it comes to guns.
That's awfully dramatic. On so many ways. First, it's not a rewrite of the constitution or changing the fabric of our laws to require background checks on all sales. Among a few other common sense things we can do.
What if we can get that 10,000 down to 8,000. Isn't the 5 minutes for a background check to save thousands of lives, worth it?
The only way to have gun control, outside of using both hands, is to ban guns across the board via repealing the 2nd amendment.
That is a simple fact supported by Chicago's death rate via handguns.
If I'm a nut case and I want to kill people ... I'm going to kill them. If I want to use a gun, I'm going to get a gun. If I can't get a gun, I'm going to use a pressure cooker ... or a big ass knife, or a car, or a pipe bomb.
So you want to reduce 10,000 to 8,000 ... GREAT! Statistically that's a rounding error. Put in all the gun "restrictions" you want ... but you will never get to zero. You are arguing an extreme deviation position, which can only be won on emotion.
Facts don't change because you want to ban guns.
I would also ask ... why are you and your friends so anxious to ban guns? Have you lost a loved one to a crazed shooter?
Where's your outrage over drunk driving, or drug addiction, child abuse?
Those items kill far more people every day than guns.
And why do you only show up on this subject when the media applies their latest faux outrage.
Why don't you care when the 3 year old African American is killed by a stray bullet from a gang banger who stole his gun from someone who passed a background check?
While I, and probably most here, would ackowledge that Top's post is depressing, we'd also have to agree with it as factual.
If I thought there was even a 0.00001% chance that a full-on gun ban would reduce this shit by at least 50% I'd be all for it.
I'm fairly convinced it wouldn't do a damn thing. The Genie is out of the bottle. Too many guns out there. And more to the point, there are too many pressure cookers, pipes, moving vans, fertilizer, etc. etc.
Sure, the whole militia argument is for stupidities who think they need to defend themselves against the federal government. And even for those people, if you take their 30 ots aways, they'll just rent a Ryder and buy fertilizer.
Bottom line: you live in a dangerous world full of crazy fucks, and when your # is up, it's up. Period. Reach into your pants, feel around, and grab your ballz for Christ's sake. It's about all you can do.
So what you are saying. That banning all guns wouldn't do anything. So we should just do nothing at all.
Do you realize how silly that statement is?
No, I realize no such thing, because it's not silly at all.
Banning guns wouldn't put a dent in the problem. There are too many fucking guns out there, and people want to have them. So they will.
Like prohibition, all you'd do is create a rather robust and frothy black market for guns. Moreover, you'd incentivize people desperate for them to hurt, mame or even kill other people who have them in the process of stealing them.
No, Sandy Hook happens, Va. Tech happens, Columbine happens, Marysville Pilchuck (by fucking definition this very fucking week) happens ... all of them happen with a full-on gun ban.
You probably think telling kids to practice abstinence or they'll go to hell will curb the # of abortions.
Fuck, turn the light on dude.
There's overwhelming popular support for common sense gun laws. .
The nut case with guns living next door to you is an interesting question.
Because it is not gun I worry about.
It is the nut case I fear.
If he is so fucked up he would take a gun and shoot people, he is fucked up enough to go on a knife rampage, or build pipe bombs, or go crazy behind the wheel of a car.
I love the drama around this subject, however, 10,000 people a year die from guns.
You want to change the fabric of the laws that support our country over statistically irrelevant causes of death.
Take all the gun owners in the country, divide that by the number of actual shooters who kill and the number would be far less than 1%.
Facts be damned ... and emotions rule when it comes to guns.
That's awfully dramatic. On so many ways. First, it's not a rewrite of the constitution or changing the fabric of our laws to require background checks on all sales. Among a few other common sense things we can do.
What if we can get that 10,000 down to 8,000. Isn't the 5 minutes for a background check to save thousands of lives, worth it?
What exactly would background checks on all sales solve? The Oregon shooter passed his checks. The gangbanger is either going to steal a gun directly or have someone else steal it or have someone with a clean record buy it.
All 3 scenarios for the gangbanger acquisition are already against the law.
Are you going to bring up the gun show loophole next? If you do, can you please explain how that loophole works?
If you remove LA, Chicago, DC, Atlanta, and NYC how much gun violence is happening in America?
Here is a Roseburg fact: Old town was blown down by a freak truck explosion in the middle of the night. Fourteen people died in that. Shit happens to people.
The doctors in this country are the ones doing the mass killing. Check the facts.
Comments
you still haven't offered a single solution that would have prevented Roseburg. Not a fucking one.
All 3 scenarios for the gangbanger acquisition are already against the law.
Are you going to bring up the gun show loophole next? If you do, can you please explain how that loophole works?
What does that solve... exactly?
Here is a Roseburg fact: Old town was blown down by a freak truck explosion in the middle of the night. Fourteen people died in that. Shit happens to people.
The doctors in this country are the ones doing the mass killing. Check the facts.