This is one of the main things I struggle with living here in the US. Thankfully, my son is less than 1 year old, so I don't need to worry about school shootings yet.
I might have to seriously consider moving back to Canada in a few years when he's old enough to attend elementary school
Don't let the fear-mongering get to you. The actual chance of being a completely innocent victim of a mass school shooting, even in the US, is still well below one in a million. If you're that concerned about your child's safety, don't necessarily move to Canada, move next to a school....because if your child has to take a vehicle to get to class, he is far far far more likely to die that way.
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
Don't let the fear-mongering get to you. The actual chance of being a completely innocent victim of a mass school shooting, even in the US, is still well below one in a million. If you're that concerned about your child's safety, don't necessarily move to Canada, move next to a school....because if your child has to take a vehicle to get to class, he is far far far more likely to die that way.
Is that true?
It is true that a car accident is more likely to kill a person. But a car accident on the way to school I would suspect is near 0 for persons in the car. Maybe if you had to take a highway or a real road but for going to a neighbourhood school I suspect the school shooting is higher risk.
Woman randomly attacked with chainsaw in Lantanahttps://www.wptv.com/news/region-c-palm-beach-county/lantana/woman-attacked-by-man-with-chainsaw-in-lantana-suspect-in-custody
Are we now moving on to chainsaw massacres?
Not trying to be flip; it’s just ridiculous.
What if this guy had a gun?
He just wanted to randomly end this woman’s life..wtf.
House Speaker Paul Ryan signaled Tuesday he isn't supportive of the proposals to impose new restrictions on gun purchases, telling reporters "we shouldn't be banning guns for law abiding citizens."
I mean, by all accounts then I should be able to purchase anything until I become non-law abiding. Personally, I think it would be need to have just a wee bit of uranium to make a little power source and free myself from the grid. I don't see why I can't have that. I'd keep it safe.
This was a few years ago in NYC, 2 cops kill a gun touting bandit, the cops got to within 10 feet of this guy and still the bullets missed there mark enough to hit 9 other people in the area. Chances of these 2 cops getting close enough to take down a guy firing an AR-15 in a crowded school with success are likely slim and none, it's more likely they would injure other kids before they die themselves.
Most people just don't realize the crazy power these assault style weapons have, rounds can go 3000ft/sec and will go threw a police vest. when this bullet hits a human body it leaves an incredible mess, you can have the entry wound in the shoulder and the exit wound in the ass, everything in between is ripped to shreds.
I mean, by all accounts then I should be able to purchase anything until I become non-law abiding. Personally, I think it would be need to have just a wee bit of uranium to make a little power source and free myself from the grid. I don't see why I can't have that. I'd keep it safe.
Look, I need to protect my home and my family, and in my opinion the best way to do that is by owning feral tigers. I'm a law abiding citizen and no one has been eaten by my tigers so far, so clearly I'm a responsible tiger owner. Why should the government be allowed to take them away from me?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
We'll frankly if we're going to have tiger's in the neighborhood, I frankly don't feel its safe for my children. So I demand the right to dig a moat and stock it with great white sharks.
Unlike your tigers which can break free and reak havoc, because frankly people with tigers don't kill people, tigers kill people. My Sharks can be controlled and contained.
Unless I put lasers on their heads.
But that should be legal too.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Look, I need to protect my home and my family, and in my opinion the best way to do that is by owning feral tigers. I'm a law abiding citizen and no one has been eaten by my tigers so far, so clearly I'm a responsible tiger owner. Why should the government be allowed to take them away from me?
Sadly, there are more captive Tigers in the United States than exist in the wild.
So, they got that going for them too.
__________________
Dear Lord, help me to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am. - Anonymous
The Following User Says Thank You to Cowperson For This Useful Post:
Most people just don't realize the crazy power these assault style weapons have, rounds can go 3000ft/sec and will go threw a police vest. when this bullet hits a human body it leaves an incredible mess, you can have the entry wound in the shoulder and the exit wound in the ass, everything in between is ripped to shreds.
Replace “assault style weapons” with “any rifle”.
If you’re so concerned about the speed at which a bullet travels, you’re going to have to start by banning certain calibers, because a .223 round doesn’t care if it’s fired from a black gun with a plastic stock or one with a wood stock.
There are also pistol rounds in the 2500fps range
Last edited by llwhiteoutll; 02-27-2018 at 05:28 PM.
Right, but it seems like the majority of handguns out there are firing at, what, 500fps or so? Whereas most semi-automatic rifles get up in that 2000+ range? Because that muzzle velocity thing is a difference worth considering.
Is there any legitimate reason for wanting high-velocity rounds? It seems like it'd make very little difference at the range (and if it did the rounds could simply be allowed on ranges and not elsewhere). Given what it does to the internals, I don't know why you'd necessarily want to hunt with them; seems like they'd destroy your meat.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
If you’re so concerned about the speed at which a bullet travels, you’re going to have to start by banning certain calibers, because a .223 round doesn’t care if it’s fired from a black gun with a plastic stock or one with a wood stock.
There are also pistol rounds in the 2500fps range
Are you related to Rubio?
I'm more concerned about the ability to fire off 30-100 rounds in a hurry with great accuracy than a high powered hunting rifle with a 5 round mag.
If you’re so concerned about the speed at which a bullet travels, you’re going to have to start by banning certain calibers, because a .223 round doesn’t care if it’s fired from a black gun with a plastic stock or one with a wood stock.
There are also pistol rounds in the 2500fps range
Sure, works for me!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to _Q_ For This Useful Post:
I'm more concerned about the ability to fire off 30-100 rounds in a hurry with great accuracy than a high powered hunting rifle with a 5 round mag.
Your post that I quoted dealt directly with muzzle velocity and your concern that "assault style weapons" had a high muzzle velocity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Right, but it seems like the majority of handguns out there are firing at, what, 500fps or so? Whereas most semi-automatic rifles get up in that 2000+ range? Because that muzzle velocity thing is a difference worth considering.
Is there any legitimate reason for wanting high-velocity rounds? It seems like it'd make very little difference at the range (and if it did the rounds could simply be allowed on ranges and not elsewhere). Given what it does to the internals, I don't know why you'd necessarily want to hunt with them; seems like they'd destroy your meat.
9mm rounds can go into the 1,350fps range for +P loads. 9mm FMJ rounds are about 1,000fps. If you move into the .454 Casull rounds, its closer to 2,000fps. FN Five-Seven pistols are about 2,800fps at the muzzle
Internal damage is more tied to round type than muzzle velocity. FMJ rounds create small wound channels and are not typically legal to hunt with (furbearers are the exception I believe). They will bounce around more if they hit bone though. Usually you hunt with soft point/frangible rounds so you don't get over-penetration and nothing to bounce around and ruin meat.
Last edited by llwhiteoutll; 02-27-2018 at 06:13 PM.
Your post that I quoted dealt directly with muzzle velocity and your concern that "assault style weapons" had a high muzzle velocity.
But you also chimed in with the familiar GOP crap by saying Replace “assault style weapons” with “any rifle” . Since the Orlando shootings you would know the number one thing people have problems with and not only the power of these weapons but how fast they can shoot many many rounds without reloading and how easy they are to use.
I can go to Cabelas tomorrow and buy an AR-15 but I wouldn't want to get caught with anything more than a 5 shot mag in it. Price and that 5 shot max is the main reason they're really not all that popular up here.
Last edited by Snuffleupagus; 02-27-2018 at 08:05 PM.
Not that I don't believe you but I don't see those stats in your link, When I say not all that popular I'm just going by what a friend tells me who sells firearms in Ontario.
In the end I guess popular would be the 8.5 million units that are floating around the USA, a number I think everyone would agree would be substantially smaller if it only had 5 round magazines.
I mean, by all accounts then I should be able to purchase anything until I become non-law abiding. Personally, I think it would be need to have just a wee bit of uranium to make a little power source and free myself from the grid. I don't see why I can't have that. I'd keep it safe.
Sure, let everyone buy one...but people with pre-existing conditions should have to pay more.
