Missing Publix pharmacist

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
You still didn't answer how you can be pro-death causing device (guns) but anti-death.

The problem anti gun people have is they see violence whether it's gang related or a school shooting and they immediately say oh it's the guns. Making guns harder to get is not going to stop anyone from getting their hands on one.

As often as you hear about these shootings, you also hear about the person who also had a gun taking out the shooter. You take away guns and that shooter will kill more people until they either flee or the police handles the situation.

Do people kill with guns? Yes. But guns also save lives and I believe people should be allowed to protect themselves.

Members don't see this ad.
 
At what point in development do you think "suffering" can occur? I imagine a somewhat developed central nervous system would be required, right?

When I say suffering I mean after being born. If I knew the child wasn't going to live very long, whatever would cause the least amount of suffering should be done.
 
The problem anti gun people have is they see violence whether it's gang related or a school shooting and they immediately say oh it's the guns. Making guns harder to get is not going to stop anyone from getting their hands on one.

As often as you hear about these shootings, you also hear about the person who also had a gun taking out the shooter. You take away guns and that shooter will kill more people until they either flee or the police handles the situation.

Do people kill with guns? Yes. But guns also save lives and I believe people should be allowed to protect themselves.
So you're pro-killing killers?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
So you're pro-killing killers?

If it's going to stop them from murdering more people, yes. However I'd prefer the person be taken in alive. I don't believe death should be rewarded to them. For their heinous act, they should suffer in prison.

None of my beliefs are based on religion and I understand my stance here many would probably disagree with.
 
If it's going to stop them from murdering more people, yes. However I'd prefer the person be taken in alive. I don't believe death should be rewarded to them. For their heinous act, they should suffer in prison.

None of my beliefs are based on religion and I understand my stance here many would probably disagree with.
Woah. Now you're pro-suffering?
 
Woah. Now you're pro-suffering?

What do you think should be done? I assume killed immediately.

Why should we reward someone for murdering multiple people with death?
 
What do you think should be done? I assume killed immediately.

Why should we reward someone for murdering multiple people with death?
So, for some people death is a reward, but for others, it's a punishment. Also, suffering should be minimized for some and encouraged for others?

Here's the problem: You speak in absolutes about situations where you aren't involved and end up with conflicting decrees.
 
So, for some people death is a reward, but for others, it's a punishment. Also, suffering should be minimized for some and encouraged for others?

Here's the problem: You speak in absolutes about situations where you aren't involved and end up with conflicting decrees.

These are two different sufferings. A child suffering for nothing they did doesn't deserve that suffering. However the child does deserve to live.

A man who goes on a shooting spree shouldn't be rewarded with death. Their suffering is punishment.

A person is allowed to have whatever belief they want. I don't follow beliefs whether it's from the Bible or a political class.

Like I said above, I will disagree with a person but will not hold it against them.

Finally yes these are situations I'm not involved in that's why they are simply my beliefs. You aren't involved either. Just because I'm on the childs side and believe they have the right to live and you are on the opposite doesn't make either of us right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
These are two different sufferings. A child suffering for nothing they did doesn't deserve that suffering. However the child does deserve to live.

A man who goes on a shooting spree shouldn't be rewarded with death. Their suffering is punishment.

A person is allowed to have whatever belief they want. I don't follow beliefs whether it's from the Bible or a political class.

Like I said above, I will disagree with a person but will not hold it against them.

Finally yes these are situations I'm not involved in that's why they are simply my beliefs. You aren't involved either. Just because I'm on the childs side and believe they have the right to live and you are on the opposite doesn't make either of us right.
You say I’m “pro-death” and not “pro-choice” because I think a biological mass with an undeveloped nervous system developing fully might not always be the best outcome depending on the best judgement of the person inside whom it resides. But you’ve just chosen which hypothetical people should live and die. I hope you realize what a hypocrite that makes you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
What do you think should be done? I assume killed immediately.

Why should we reward someone for murdering multiple people with death?
To decrease the burden on society?
 
You say I’m “pro-death” and not “pro-choice” because I think a biological mass with an undeveloped nervous system developing fully might not always be the best outcome depending on the best judgement of the person inside whom it resides. But you’ve just chosen which hypothetical people should live and die. I hope you realize what a hypocrite that makes you.

I will gladly have a conversation with you but you can't seem to keep anger out of it so I think it's best we, to use your word, kill the conversation.
 
I will gladly have a conversation with you but you can't seem to keep anger out of it so I think it's best we, to use your word, kill the conversation.
I’m not angry at you for your beliefs. I’m angry that you thought this was the time and place to bring up your insane algorithm of who should and should not be allowed to die and start name-calling.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I’m not angry at you for your beliefs. I’m angry that you thought this was the time and place to bring up your insane algorithm of who should and should not be allowed to die and start name-calling.

I never named called. Calling someone pro-death is not name calling. It's simply the opposite of pro-life.

If SDN considers that name calling then I report myself.

So I will leave you with this to blow your mind even more. I hunt to kill.

Like I said beliefs unless linked to religion, a political class or anything else, do not have to follow set guidelines. Believing a child has the same rights the mother has and should be allowed to live does not mean I have to have the same beliefs for other situations.
 
I never named called. Calling someone pro-death is not name calling. It's simply the opposite of pro-life.

If SDN considers that name calling then I report myself.

So I will leave you with this to blow your mind even more. I hunt to kill.

Like I said beliefs unless linked to religion, a political class or anything else, do not have to follow set guidelines. Believing a child has the same rights the mother has and should be allowed to live does not mean I have to have the same beliefs for other situations.
In what world do you think anyone has the opposite belief of “pro-life”? Nobody thinks all babies should be aborted.
 
No I guess I'll give up since no one wants to give me a straight up answer.

All I want to know is a few things: why does the mothers life matter more then the child?

Why is it at that instance a child is born is it now considered murder?

If it was you would you rather be killed or be alive?

How hard is it to answer these simple questions?

I keep getting responses that don't answer any of these questions. I think there's a reason pro-death people won't answer.

Well, I will take a stab at your ridiculously leading questions:

The mother's life is more important because she is a fully developed person who should have the right to decide how much risk she should accept before attempting to give birth to another person. Basically she is worth more and has more rights than what is really just the potential of her offspring.

I would rather be alive.

Not hard.

Now can you explain to me why it is killing to get an abortion but it is not murder to have an IUD (or do you also consider IUDs "killing")?
 
Well, I will take a stab at your ridiculously leading questions:

The mother's life is more important because she is a fully developed person who should have the right to decide how much risk she should accept before attempting to give birth to another person. Basically she is worth more and has more rights than what is really just the potential of her offspring.

I would rather be alive.

Not hard.

Now can you explain to me why it is killing to get an abortion but it is not murder to have an IUD (or do you also consider IUDs "killing")?

It's all about where the line is drawn. I have no problems preventing. My line is drawn at life and I consider any point during the pregnancy to be life. I think your going a little too far if you say well what about all the other million eggs that don't make. The world can't handle that.

The reason I ask if you want to live is this decision that is being made is ending that person. There are things I will joke about and yes I do call it pro death because you are actually ending that person's life.

I have no idea how many abortions are for the right reasons but I'm willing to bet a person would rather live then be dead even in some pretty bad situations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Finally yes these are situations I'm not involved in that's why they are simply my beliefs. You aren't involved either.

Right. That’s why I don’t think either of us should be making decisions. My opinion is literally that the people involved should be making a choice here and not anybody else. Did I say anything to the contrary?
 
It's all about where the line is drawn. I have no problems preventing. My line is drawn at life and I consider any point during the pregnancy to be life.

Why is an IUD “prevention” but abortion killing? Does the pregnancy not begin at conception?
 
Do you guys not sleep? Holy crap, it's past 1 AM here for me and I've just been checking in between episodes of Mad Men on Netflix lmao
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Why is an IUD “prevention” but abortion killing? Does the pregnancy not begin at conception?

Why is after birth killing but before birth "choice"?

I can ask the same thing.
 
Do you guys not sleep? Holy crap, it's past 1 AM here for me and I've just been checking in between episodes of Mad Men on Netflix lmao

Good show, you can skip the last season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Why is an IUD “prevention” but abortion killing? Does the pregnancy not begin at conception?
Because "dehumanization" is a key step in genocide.

Granted, I absolutely am pro-abortion up to the 320th Trimester
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Do you guys not sleep? Holy crap, it's past 1 AM here for me and I've just been checking in between episodes of Mad Men on Netflix lmao
Hawaiian time. It’s almost 8pm.
 
Why is after birth killing but before birth "choice"?

I can ask the same thing.
A cancerous tumor being removed from an oncologist’s patient is not typically considered killing either. It has a distinct and unique genome. It’s human, genetically. But unless it has a capacity for independent homeostasis, we don’t call it murder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Weak arguments. Pull up the stats on deaths due to guns in this country vs. other countries. You definitely failed statics class and scored low in logic if this is the conclusion you come up with.

“You take away more guns...” Dude......seriously??? Go live in a country where you can’t purchase a gun like you can here in the US and then come back and try to hold a legit convo.

“You also hear about the victim taking out the shooter” Right. 0.0001% of the time.

“Making guns harder to get is not going to stop anyone getting their hands on one.” Right dumb*** but we can make it a hell of a lot harder.

They sure have some idiots on this site. It’s obvious you’ve never traveled outside the US. Get your head out your ***. You probably think USA is still numero uno, lol. Travel sometime and you will see how far behind we are in many areas including laws on gun control.

If these are the kinds of people you have on this site offering up opinions and advice in pharmacy.............

Calm down there buddy. Everything is going to be ok.

If you can't handle other people's opinions, this isn't the right place for you.
 
Weak arguments. Pull up the stats on deaths due to guns in this country vs. other countries. You definitely failed statics class and scored low in logic if this is the conclusion you come up with.

“......
I think you mean "vs other wealthy, white, small, culturally homogeneous countries that enjoy their status as a result of centuries of violent conflict and imperial oppression"
Please, PLEASE say "Muh Australia!"

Are you a white supremacist, or have you just not actually pulled up "the stats"?

Ignoring the fact that violence is directly proportional to GDP and almost nothing else, you can see that all "1st world" nations have experienced a steep, steady decline in violence since the late 70s.

Britain experienced a sharp uptick in violence after 1997, but the trend continues downward nonetheless.

Furthermore, the fact that ~70 percent of America's "gun violence" can be attributed to a handful of cities should be significant to you.
 
Last edited:
Weak arguments. Pull up the stats on deaths due to guns in this country vs. other countries. You definitely failed statics class and scored low in logic if this is the conclusion you come up with.

“You take away more guns...” Dude......seriously??? Go live in a country where you can’t purchase a gun like you can here in the US and then come back and try to hold a legit convo.

“You also hear about the victim taking out the shooter” Right. 0.0001% of the time.

“Making guns harder to get is not going to stop anyone getting their hands on one.” Right dumb*** but we can make it a hell of a lot harder.

They sure have some idiots on this site. It’s obvious you’ve never traveled outside the US. Get your head out your ***. You probably think USA is still numero uno, lol. Travel sometime and you will see how far behind we are in many areas including laws on gun control.

If these are the kinds of people you have on this site offering up opinions and advice in pharmacy.............

Next time you visit one of these utopias, stay there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You know I might get overly excited, compassionate, or even attack someone when I feel they are attacking me but in the end of the day if you can't handle opposing opinions, stay off the forums.

This guy is going to give himself a heart attack.
 
Amazing how off duty LEO here in Los Angeles use the exact same ammo in their personal carry. I mean, their lives must mean nothing to them...
Is that you Mr. Burzinski?!?!?

Lol, don't take it so seriously.
I'm just busting your chops.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Any fellow gun enthusiasts on here? I'd like to get a six shooter next.

I normally carry 18 rounds of 124gr HST in a cz75, or 10 rnds of 10mm Sig V-crown, depending on how spicy I'm feeling.

I almost bought two Ed Browns today at an estate sale, but someone beat me to the punch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I keep a S&W SD9VE in my car when I'm not at school. I usually carry HSTs as well. It shoots well and I'd imagine the terminal ballistics are good as well.
 
I've been to Mexico before, I know exactly how well strict gun control laws work. They disarm the honest and further arm the dishonest. I have never felt more unsafe than going into Durango, Mexico which is more or less Sinaloa Cartel administered as the police were either thoroughly corrupted to the Cartel or constituted gangsters with a badge.

In particular though, nothing sold on the US civilian market is a threat against the state by its existence (I'm pretty ok with the restrictions against machine guns and antipersonnel explosives). Anyone stupid enough to think that their gun collection alone is of any threat to a green light infantry platoon (even with illegal hardware) is delusional. That's not the point. The point is that the gun collection is a reasonable threat to someone who shouldn't be threatening you as a private citizen in an era where the police either can't get to you in time (why the West and particularly AZ have permissive gun laws is because of the lack of law enforcement per capita) or the police are not competent as an institution to help you (Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit).

The best defense is living and being with people who you would not need to think about being shot by or having to shoot. That means no public transportation in your area, no high-density housing in your area, and high property taxes to both support the law enforcement institutions and the state oversight equivalent such that mysteries do get solved in your district (and that those on the bench or take the silk live in your area).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I've been to Mexico before, I know exactly how well strict gun control laws work. They disarm the honest and further arm the dishonest. I have never felt more unsafe than going into Durango, Mexico which is more or less Sinaloa Cartel administered as the police were either thoroughly corrupted to the Cartel or constituted gangsters with a badge.

In particular though, nothing sold on the US civilian market is a threat against the state by its existence (I'm pretty ok with the restrictions against machine guns and antipersonnel explosives). Anyone stupid enough to think that their gun collection alone is of any threat to a green light infantry platoon (even with illegal hardware) is delusional. That's not the point. The point is that the gun collection is a reasonable threat to someone who shouldn't be threatening you as a private citizen in an era where the police either can't get to you in time (why the West and particularly AZ have permissive gun laws is because of the lack of law enforcement per capita) or the police are not competent as an institution to help you (Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit).

The best defense is living and being with people who you would not need to think about being shot by or having to shoot. That means no public transportation in your area, no high-density housing in your area, and high property taxes to both support the law enforcement institutions and the state oversight equivalent such that mysteries do get solved in your district (and that those on the bench or take the silk live in your area).
To be frank, I think both sides overestimate their abilities.

Modern infantry is literally nothing if they're not mechanized, and even less so if not supported by artillery or air.

That said, the average NRA member is one KFC bucket away from death, so they're even less of a threat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Survival depends on how many NFA items you have. I'm up to three so far.
To be frank, I think both sides overestimate their abilities.

Modern infantry is literally nothing if they're not mechanized, and even less so if not supported by artillery or air.

That said, the average NRA member is one KFC bucket away from death, so they're even less of a threat.

Hey! I'm a life member and I don't eat KFC! I've been modern infantry too, all depends on terrain. CAS and artillery definitely help but ultimately you need dismounted troops to maneuver.

Also, survival depends upon how many NFA items you've got. I'm up to three so far!
 
Survival depends on how many NFA items you have. I'm up to three so far.
Hey! I'm a life member and I don't eat KFC! I've been modern infantry too, all depends on terrain. CAS and artillery definitely help but ultimately you need dismounted troops to maneuver. Also, survival depends upon how many NFA items you've got. I'm up to three so far!

I keep a S&W SD9VE in my car when I'm not at school. I usually carry HSTs as well. It shoots well and I'd imagine the terminal ballistics are good as well.

You'd be mad jelly if you saw what I pay for 124gr HST
 
I've been to Mexico before, I know exactly how well strict gun control laws work. They disarm the honest and further arm the dishonest. I have never felt more unsafe than going into Durango, Mexico which is more or less Sinaloa Cartel administered as the police were either thoroughly corrupted to the Cartel or constituted gangsters with a badge.

In particular though, nothing sold on the US civilian market is a threat against the state by its existence (I'm pretty ok with the restrictions against machine guns and antipersonnel explosives). Anyone stupid enough to think that their gun collection alone is of any threat to a green light infantry platoon (even with illegal hardware) is delusional. That's not the point. The point is that the gun collection is a reasonable threat to someone who shouldn't be threatening you as a private citizen in an era where the police either can't get to you in time (why the West and particularly AZ have permissive gun laws is because of the lack of law enforcement per capita) or the police are not competent as an institution to help you (Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit).

The best defense is living and being with people who you would not need to think about being shot by or having to shoot. That means no public transportation in your area, no high-density housing in your area, and high property taxes to both support the law enforcement institutions and the state oversight equivalent such that mysteries do get solved in your district (and that those on the bench or take the silk live in your area).
Why compare with Mexico when there are first world countries like Japan with strict gun control? Really not a fair comparison. Japan isn’t the same either based on differing cultural norms but if you’ve seen a Mexican slum, our “slums” look mild.
 
Why compare with Mexico when there are first world countries like Japan with strict gun control? Really not a fair comparison. Japan isn’t the same either based on differing cultural norms but if you’ve seen a Mexican slum, our “slums” look mild.
Japan literally has more suicides than Mexico has murders some years.

If one is to believe the American left, suicides are a form of "_____ violence", so the countries are comparable.
 
Why compare with Mexico when there are first world countries like Japan with strict gun control? Really not a fair comparison. Japan isn’t the same either based on differing cultural norms but if you’ve seen a Mexican slum, our “slums” look mild.

Japan is actually the worst of the counterexamples. Japan has always had sword hunts and the patently unfair rule of immediate execution on the spot for manners offenses against a higher class (kirisute). The current state of Japan's disarmament was actually imposed by the US through the Treaty of San Francisco. We *insist* that the locals do not arm themselves, and that their military is completely subordinated to the US. However, there is a very widespread understanding that if this imposition was not there, the Japanese would impose it on themselves due to the history of the upper classes using weapons on the rest of society. The same goes for Germany, although their police have better weapons training than ours do in general (you basically have to do your National Service in the military as a prerequisite to becoming police there).

Because Mexico's issues are closer (both by geography and philosophy) to ours. Other first world nations like the Europeans either have class issues with ownership, or have post-war issues. The only country to have imposed strict gun control that was not a wartime situation was the UK, and that was because of some crazy American. Mexico has the longstanding tradition of both having self-independence and a frontier to manage without government intervention. Unlike the US, the Mexicans have had a long history of military government which disarms the civilian population, and this is the origin of their current gun problems. As for another comparison, the Canadians were in Dominion to the UK, and did not have the same immigration or military issues that the US did as the UK would fight on their behalf (even the Canadian's splendid work in WWI and WWII was UK-driven rather than internally). That said, the Canadians have fairly liberal possession rules like the US. The differences are just how armed the citizenry are, and that I prefer the US's stance on.

The one particular matter I despise in US policy is that the 2nd Amendment is not equally applied to everyone. Blacks and Hispanics do not get the benefit of the doubt from law enforcement on legal ownership that the others get. If you are Black private citizen, in practice, there is a greater risk that police will consider shooting before verifying legal ownership even if the citizen behaves entirely appropriately with the gun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The fact that his brother/family are not questioning the police from their conclusion, as I assume the family saw the video of him leaving his phone at the Bar&Grill and the footage of him walking towards the lake, it really looks like a clear suicide. Which is wild but the police report makes a lot of sense. They even found a note with the suicide plan in his phone.

Someone in reddit pharmacy looked at the Georgia licensed pharmacist database and did not find him listed, assuming he possibly failed NAPLEX/law potentially. However, this is speculation.
 
The fact that his brother/family are not questioning the police from their conclusion, as I assume the family saw the video of him leaving his phone at the Bar&Grill and the footage of him walking towards the lake, it really looks like a clear suicide. Which is wild but the police report makes a lot of sense. They even found a note with the suicide plan in his phone.

Someone in reddit pharmacy looked at the Georgia licensed pharmacist database and did not find him listed, assuming he possibly failed NAPLEX/law potentially. However, this is speculation.

Oof
 
The fact that his brother/family are not questioning the police from their conclusion, as I assume the family saw the video of him leaving his phone at the Bar&Grill and the footage of him walking towards the lake, it really looks like a clear suicide. Which is wild but the police report makes a lot of sense. They even found a note with the suicide plan in his phone.

Someone in reddit pharmacy looked at the Georgia licensed pharmacist database and did not find him listed, assuming he possibly failed NAPLEX/law potentially. However, this is speculation.

That's a lot of assumptions. Is it known that he already took his boards?

But even so, it's hard to imagine that failing any exam (especially one that can be retaken) could drive someone to such lengths.

Also, if he truly wanted to stage a murder/kidnaping, why would he leave open evidence of his schemes to be found out on his phone? (which he himself would have needed to delete the passcode/face/finger sensor for police to access it).
 
Last edited:
Top