Florida school shooting

250Rocket said:
Don't try to take the high road by claiming I avoided your question. You are the first to deviate by avoiding my thought exercise by asking the ridiculously impertenent question. Who cares how many members did or didn't, the point of my theoretical example was to differentiate that given the choice of facing a barrel of a gun or a person with strong words which would you take. Anybody who's not lying would take the latter.

Because you fail to understand this your whole second paragraph is useless. Again, think preventative not reactionary. It's not about using the gun when the robber comes in, it's about stopping them from even thinking about breaking in the first place because they fear the possibility that they'll get shot.

Let me give a more extreme/ridiculous theoretical example to prove this. I do this to eliminate variables so that hopefully even simple minded people can participate. If for example police could blow you up with a predator drone if you ran from them, how many high speed car chases would we see? There's laws on the books now that make it illegal to do so but people still do. Just the very thought that you have no chance will stop all but the most desperate of people.

Inb4 you go potato on me and ask how many MR members have been predator droned.
Click to expand...

I totally get the fact that a robber will be more scared to rob someone who has gun. Ok, we get it.

Now If we take your absurd example of predator drones, let's say we do as you suggest, and we give the police predator drones to destroy cars on high speed chase. What you are doing is you are suggesting a solution (predator drone) for a really ISOLATED problem (high speed car chases). Yes, you are right, there will probably be LESS high speed car chases (even simple minded people like me can understand this). Now what if I tell you that the after 5 years of using these predator drones, the number of civilians killed because of impacts are actually HIGHER than the car chases avoided?
You see the simple math there or is that too simple for your elevated soul?

Your only argument is basically this, hey let's just give weapons to the whole population to cover that 1/300 chance of having a robber at your place! Then we come up and explain you how this causes other issues like having fuckin 360+ school shootings every year (we won't talk about incidents out of school) and you just completely ignore these and go back straight to you point that makes no common sens what so ever lol

At one point even if we could prove you that one has more chance to get shot in a school than get robbed, you would still prefer having to guns to protect your ass because simple math is complicated.

Meanwhile, stay tucked in your home with your AR15 watching the window every night instead of sleeping, on my part I will sleep just fine as usual and if ever a robber comes in i'll let him take what he wants, I have good insurance.

I invite you to take a look at this video, you could learn one thing or two lol

 
Last edited:
4frnt. said:
T'es au courant que la seule grande différence au niveau fonctionnalité de nos armes VS ce qui est dispo aux USA c'est la longueur des canons? Contrairement à la croyance, ils ont pas accès à des armes automatiques sinon c'est hyper restreint au niveau license et coût d'acquisition, alors leurs armes d'assaut sont semi-automatiques, comme nous.

Pour la capacité des mags, la majorité ici sont pinnés d'usine avec un rivet qui prendrait 10 secondes à enlever à quelqu'un qui le voudrait parce que ça coûte moins cher que de produire un mag "Canada legal" qui est restreint par sa vraie capacité.

On a énormément de choix au Canada pour tout ce qui est armes "d'assaut" semi-automatique, suffit d'avoir un permis restreint pour se les procurer dans la majorité des cas.
Click to expand...

Oui, j'suis au courant. J'parle pas de full auto avec tax stamps a tous les coins de rues... Mais par fonctionalité je parlais du fait que t'es capper a 5 coups et qu'ils vont jusqu'a 30-50-100 ou wtv a leur convenance. Tant qu'a moi c'est ça en grande partie la différence entre une carabine et un fusil d'assault.

Ils n'auraient probablement pas la même amplitude dans leurs tueries avec moins de capacité. Mais ça serais probablement autant un sacrilege que d'interdir ces armes la. On a une couple de personnes ultra américanisés ici qui vont pouvoir le décrire et nous le confirmer.
 
*VR6* said:
I totally get the fact that a robber will be more scared to rob someone who has gun. Ok, we get it.

Now If we take your absurd example of predator drones, let's say we do as you suggest, and we give the police predator drones to destroy cars on high speed chase. What you are doing is you are suggesting a solution (predator drone) for a really ISOLATED problem (high speed car chases). Yes, you are right, there will probably be LESS high speed car chases (even simple minded people like me can understand this). Now what if I tell you that the after 5 years of using these predator drones, the number of civilians killed because of impacts are actually HIGHER than the car chases avoided?
You see the simple math there or is that too simple for your elevated soul?

Your only argument is basically this, hey let's just give weapons to the whole population to cover that 1/300 chance of having a robber at your place! Then we come up and explain you how this causes other issues like having fuckin 360+ school shootings every year (we won't talk about incidents out of school) and you just completely ignore these and go back straight to you point that makes no common sens what so ever lol

At one point even if we could prove you that one has more chance to get shot in a school than get robbed, you would still prefer having to guns to protect your ass because simple math is complicated.

Meanwhile, stay tucked in your home with your AR15 watching the window every night instead of sleeping, on my part I will sleep just fine as usual and if ever a robber comes in i'll let him take what he wants, I have good insurance.

I invite you to take a look at this, you could learn one thing or now lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0&list=PL8cgy8dae0sjW5pfWffuLr658QRubgfzS
Click to expand...

anyway let's say everybody has a gun then the criminals will just kill everyone they rob before they can react like they mostly do where everyone has a gun. I.E. there are way more robbery in the US versus the rest of the world guess what everybody has a gun.
 
S1FAP said:
There is nothing wrong with me. I'm just not a socialist. You are the fucked up person if you think people who aren't socialists aren't right in their minds. It's just a political opinion. And like I said before in this thread, I don't even own any guns, at all. So even though I have no trust in government, I never said they are out to get ME, in particular.

I suggest you research the story about the oregon ranchers and tell me why it was a bad idea that these ranchers protect themselves and their lands against the cops and the government. It happened 2 years ago. 2016.
Click to expand...

I didn't say people who aren't socialists are fucked, I said those who are so paranoid to think the government is out to get them so they need to be armed are fucked.

I didn't look up your oregon story, although there are 2 sides to the story, but let's say I give you 100% reason that particular story. Are there any other stories out there to confirm that the government is out to get people so people should be armed?

Because I can easily pull out lots of articles of ordinary people who are armed and ended up losing a child because the gun went off or the kid got their hand on the gun...


I understand you want to side with people keeping their rights to owning guns, but implying that you need to do so because of the government, that's just retarded and really doesn't help build a case for your side.
 
JimBlouin said:
anyway let's say everybody has a gun then the criminals will just kill everyone they rob before they can react like they mostly do where everyone has a gun. I.E. there are way more robbery in the US versus the rest of the world guess what everybody has a gun.
Click to expand...

Yes but you don't get it, there is less chance for a robber to rob you if he knows you have guns, if you don't understand this, any fact your gonna point to me is therefor invalid.
 
kahos said:
Oui, j'suis au courant. J'parle pas de full auto avec tax stamps a tous les coins de rues... Mais par fonctionalité je parlais du fait que t'es capper a 5 coups et qu'ils vont jusqu'a 30-50-100 ou wtv a leur convenance. Tant qu'a moi c'est ça en grande partie la différence entre une carabine et un fusil d'assault.

Ils n'auraient probablement pas la même amplitude dans leurs tueries avec moins de capacité. Mais ça serais probablement autant un sacrilege que d'interdir ces armes la. On a une couple de personnes ultra américanisés ici qui vont pouvoir le décrire et nous le confirmer.
Click to expand...
Je comprends ton point, mais comme je te dit, au Canada souvent les chargeurs sont limités avec un dispositifs mécanique (souvent un rivet cheap) qui permettent pour les carabines de passer à une capacité de 30 balles+ à la capacité max légale de 5 au Canada. Ça prends littéralement 10 secondes à driller pour retomber aux capacités originales du mag. Pourtant, on a pas vraiment de tueries au Canada avec du monde qui utilisent des chargeurs modifiés.

Au final, la capacité de l'arme, c'est juste une loi sur un bout de papier. Le proprio d'armes à feu légales et qui respecte les lois aux USA qui va tirer au range avec son AR15 équippé d'un drum de 100 balles causera jamais de problème. À l'inverse, malgré la loi de capacité maximale de 5 balles au Canada, tu peux avoir un fou furieux qui modifie son chargeur pour aller dans une école. Les criminels, ça respecte pas les lois, et n'importe quelle arme à feu, peu importe sa puissance ou sa capacité, sera jamais dangereuse dans les mains d'un proprio responsable qui respecte les lois.
 
CuddlyJen said:
I didn't say people who aren't socialists are fucked, I said those who are so paranoid to think the government is out to get them so they need to be armed are fucked.

I didn't look up your oregon story, although there are 2 sides to the story, but let's say I give you 100% reason that particular story. Are there any other stories out there to confirm that the government is out to get people so people should be armed?

Because I can easily pull out lots of articles of ordinary people who are armed and ended up losing a child because the gun went off or the kid got their hand on the gun...


I understand you want to side with people keeping their rights to owning guns, but implying that you need to do so because of the government, that's just retarded and really doesn't help build a case for your side.
Click to expand...


People owning gun(s) to protect themselves against the government is just one argument among many others. You might say it is retarded, but throughout history, even in the 20th century, governments have unarmed the population to better control them and eventually commit genocides.

How can you say, how can you be sure, that this won't happen again? How can you not believe in World War 3?
 
S1FAP said:
People owning gun(s) to protect themselves against the government is just one argument among many others. You might say it is retarded, but throughout history, even in the 20th century, governments have unarmed the population to better control them and eventually commit genocides.

How can you say, how can you be sure, that this won't happen again? How can you not believe in World War 3?
Click to expand...

The zombies....don't forget the zombies who are coming to take over... I've seen the walking dead, i'm sure it's going to happen soon.
 
By watching a lot of hunting and pest control videos on YT, the AR15 is the most popular rifle for that. A lot of people also use it for big game hunting, but it's banned in some states from big game hunting because they say that too many times it injures the animal instead of killing it because it's not a very powerful rifle compared to other rifles (I don't know, not an expert). If the gov going to ban the AR15, or assault weapons all together, watch how fast the shotgun that holds more than 12+1 cartridges going to be every mass shooter's choice using 00 buck shots that sends 9 large caliber projectiles out from each cartridge taking down a lot of people before a reload. I don't think that there is really a winning formula besides making every school with only one entrance to the property protected by 2 armed guards buzzing in people through a 2 gate setup with an airport style metal detector between. FFS at this point money spent on school security is money well spent.
 
CRNKY said:
By watching a lot of hunting and pest control videos on YT, the AR15 is the most popular rifle for that. A lot of people also use it for big game hunting, but it's banned in some states from big game hunting because they say that too many times it injures the animal instead of killing it because it's not a very powerful rifle compared to other rifles (I don't know, not an expert). If the gov going to ban the AR15, or assault weapons all together, watch how fast the shotgun that holds more than 12+1 cartridges going to be every mass shooter's choice using 00 buck shots that sends 9 large caliber projectiles out from each cartridge taking down a lot of people before a reload. I don't think that there is really a winning formula besides making every school with only one entrance to the property protected by 2 armed guards buzzing in people through a 2 gate setup with an airport style metal detector between. FFS at this point money spent on school security is money well spent.
Click to expand...
The AR15 is not banned for hunting. It's simply that most AR15 platforms are chambered in .223/5.56 caliber, which is underpowered for hunting big game. Its a perfect varmint caliber, but for larger animals, it is deemed unethical since it would mostly hurt them but not kill on the spot.

Some AR15 are chambered in larger calibers, like .308/7.62 which would be good for deer.
 
S1FAP said:
People owning gun(s) to protect themselves against the government is just one argument among many others. You might say it is retarded, but throughout history, even in the 20th century, governments have unarmed the population to better control them and eventually commit genocides.

How can you say, how can you be sure, that this won't happen again? How can you not believe in World War 3?
Click to expand...

It's one thing to defend gun ownership, but it's another to suggest potential genocide by the US Government... Put the crack pipe down buddy...
 
*VR6* said:
I totally get the fact that a robber will be more scared to rob someone who has gun. Ok, we get it.

Now If we take your absurd example of predator drones, let's say we do as you suggest, and we give the police predator drones to destroy cars on high speed chase. What you are doing is you are suggesting a solution (predator drone) for a really ISOLATED problem (high speed car chases). Yes, you are right, there will probably be LESS high speed car chases (even simple minded people like me can understand this). Now what if I tell you that the after 5 years of using these predator drones, the number of civilians killed because of impacts are actually HIGHER than the car chases avoided?
You see the simple math there or is that too simple for your elevated soul?
Click to expand...

Basically you're making up the result to justify your point of view. I'd argue the opposite based on human nature and self preservation. After a few times people would get the message and it would stop. The only way I can remotely see it continuing is if people want suicide by cop. Instead of jumping in front of a train or taking some pills they go out for one last joy ride, but again we digress.

I still don't think you understand the fundamental point that i'm trying to make. I don't give a flying fuck about home protection with a firearm but you seem to be hung up on that. All i'm saying that without force to back up the law, there could be no

Your only argument is basically this, hey let's just give weapons to the whole population to cover that 1/300 chance of having a robber at your place! Then we come up and explain you how this causes other issues like having fuckin 360+ school shootings every year (we won't talk about incidents out of school) and you just completely ignore these and go back straight to you point that makes no common sens what so ever lol

At one point even if we could prove you that one has more chance to get shot in a school than get robbed, you would still prefer having to guns to protect your ass because simple math is complicated.

Meanwhile, stay tucked in your home with your AR15 watching the window every night instead of sleeping, on my part I will sleep just fine as usual and if ever a robber comes in i'll let him take what he wants, I have good insurance.

I invite you to take a look at this video, you could learn one thing or two lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0&list=PL8cgy8dae0sjW5pfWffuLr658QRubgfzS
Click to expand...

I like how because I gave an example about home defense to prove another point and you automatically ASSume that I'm pro firearm home defense.

In Canada we have laws friendly to criminals where the criminal who breaks into your home practically has more rights than you, so using a weapon here is pretty stupid unless you have amazing lawyer friends.

And yes, sourcing a comedian who even pokes fun at himself to not take it seriously is a good source of learning. *tu**tu* C'est fort
 
4frnt. said:
Je comprends ton point, mais comme je te dit, au Canada souvent les chargeurs sont limités avec un dispositifs mécanique (souvent un rivet cheap) qui permettent pour les carabines de passer à une capacité de 30 balles+ à la capacité max légale de 5 au Canada. Ça prends littéralement 10 secondes à driller pour retomber aux capacités originales du mag. Pourtant, on a pas vraiment de tueries au Canada avec du monde qui utilisent des chargeurs modifiés.

Au final, la capacité de l'arme, c'est juste une loi sur un bout de papier. Le proprio d'armes à feu légales et qui respecte les lois aux USA qui va tirer au range avec son AR15 équippé d'un drum de 100 balles causera jamais de problème. À l'inverse, malgré la loi de capacité maximale de 5 balles au Canada, tu peux avoir un fou furieux qui modifie son chargeur pour aller dans une école. Les criminels, ça respecte pas les lois, et n'importe quelle arme à feu, peu importe sa puissance ou sa capacité, sera jamais dangereuse dans les mains d'un proprio responsable qui respecte les lois.
Click to expand...

QFT

I would even call bullshit on the 5 bullet cap. I would argue that even limited to 5, firstly you can carry 10+ magazines and swap them pretty quickly. I'd also argue that given a limited amount there would be less spray and pray. Instead of 28 bullets in the wall and 2 that hit people by chance, the limit of 5 means a shooter would try an make them count.

It essential boils down to the appearance of feeling safe, not actually being. Kind of like security at the airport, gun laws do prevent base level incidences but if somebody really wants to, they'll manage to find a way.

Meanwhile as a law abiding citizen I have to annoyingly reload every 5 shots when I go to the gun range.
 
CuddlyJen said:
I wouldn't have to worry about someone robbing my house with a gun if they weren't so damn easy to obtain...

I don't see why pro-gun people would be against a better control...unless they have something to hide.
Click to expand...

Are you a gun owner? If not please don't talk about how easy it is to get one. It's like a man talking about child birth.


S1FAP said:
People owning gun(s) to protect themselves against the government is just one argument among many others. You might say it is retarded, but throughout history, even in the 20th century, governments have unarmed the population to better control them and eventually commit genocides.

How can you say, how can you be sure, that this won't happen again? How can you not believe in World War 3?
Click to expand...

It goes back to my point about who holds the government accountable and how. Only a fool looks back at history and disregards it. You know i'm pretty sure the "Hey-Hey, Ho-Ho" chant would have worked wonders in Tienanmen square or screeching "This is police brutality" at the top of your lungs would make them change their minds on the spot when they're getting you to dig your own grave.

And I hate how they try to discredit you by implying that you think it'll happen tomorrow. Bitch please, short of people trying to make a buck off of the easily scared, and the idiots that say it'll never happen there is a middle ground. There's a middle ground of vigilance. VR6 was so quick to talk about home insurance, so what insurance do you have in case of government tyranny. Actually the more likely event is what happens in the event of government failure. It's not even outlandish in this age of debt. I think places like Detroit can't afford cops so at times it's possible that you call them and they never show up because they're so busy.

But no, if you want a back up policy you're a nut job, a lunatic, a cowboy just looking for a shoot'em up scenario. It's unfathomable that you hope to never use it but are glad you have it should it come to be.
 
250Rocket said:
Are you a gun owner? If not please don't talk about how easy it is to get one. It's like a man talking about child birth.




It goes back to my point about who holds the government accountable and how. Only a fool looks back at history and disregards it. You know i'm pretty sure the "Hey-Hey, Ho-Ho" chant would have worked wonders in Tienanmen square or screeching "This is police brutality" at the top of your lungs would make them change their minds on the spot when they're getting you to dig your own grave.

And I hate how they try to discredit you by implying that you think it'll happen tomorrow. Bitch please, short of people trying to make a buck off of the easily scared, and the idiots that say it'll never happen there is a middle ground. There's a middle ground of vigilance. VR6 was so quick to talk about home insurance, so what insurance do you have in case of government tyranny. Actually the more likely event is what happens in the event of government failure. It's not even outlandish in this age of debt. I think places like Detroit can't afford cops so at times it's possible that you call them and they never show up because they're so busy.

But no, if you want a back up policy you're a nut job, a lunatic, a cowboy just looking for a shoot'em up scenario. It's unfathomable that you hope to never use it but are glad you have it should it come to be.
Click to expand...

Lol it doesnt take much to buy a gun in the usa. That is a known fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top