>Bouncer let guy in with a gun
>Guy shoots 100+ people
>Blame leftists and their gun laws
>People blaming islam
>People blaming non-white, non-American terrorists
>Trump has a chance at being president
Are we entering the last few years of America's life? I don't see Americans getting dumber than this.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>last few years
>few years
>years
Lol good one OP
I wonder if the bouncer saw the gun and let him through to get out of being shot.
Either way, the bouncer wasn't doing his fucking job. But nahhhh nah it's the lack of gun's fault.
>Bouncers with guns
>Mass murderer with guns
>Club faggots with guns
Best way to deal with panic and chaos is to have more guns in a dark, enclosed space full of people
Fucking lol, no bouncer would ever carry a gun.
The fucking club owner would rather risk getting his club shot up than having to deal with the economic nightmare of having one of his employees shoot someone.
This is what baffles me most about gun owner logic.
The answer to every single problem is always more guns.
Would you willingly go start shit in a place where you'd get maybe 5 shots off before 30 people pulled their guns too and started shooting back?
/r/equesting the pic saying obama made it so the fags could hide in both bathrooms
Forget who said what..
en.wikipedia.org
Instead of Countries and Nukes, think People and Guns.
>before 30 people pulled their guns too and started shooting back?
Yeah, shooting in every possible direction while loud music plays and bright lights flash.
If you try to explain otherwise using examples like Australia before and after, they go full autist and swing insults or retarded examples.
Will you willingly go start shit in a place where you'd maybe get 0 shots off before people pound you to a pulp because no one has guns? Casualties : The person starting shit
Your casualties : 6+
Think, you retard. Raised a good fucking point and you proved it to a fucking T.
And 50 people would've died anyways because of collateral damage, you dumb fuck
Why isn't it "mutually" assured destruction?
> foreignfag here
Please
You probably also believe in social darwinism because it's just applied evolution.
It's not as dark as you'd think in a place like that. Not to mention that it would be pretty fucking clear where the guy shooting at people running away and screaming was.
Either would work I think. I guess mutually implies past tense and since destruction is an ongoing thing and isn't agreed upon between both parties, it's mutual.
Just like what happened in real life?
Bringing this old argument back up, criminals will always be able to get guns regardless of what your shitty little laws say. Now all those people who would be beating you to death are now running from you and your gun in fear because they can't fight you at all.
Semantics in English.
No. I'm for deterrence by way of equal force.
You're fucking hilarious.
Your example works in MY favor. Today, almost all countries agree to decrease their nuclear arsenal because one single fuck-up could mean the destruction of the human race.
In the same way, it's more sensible to have less guns on all sides instead of more.
I'd rather 1 in a million lunatics acquire a gun than have 1 million in 1 million lunatics acquire a gun. That's one thing American's don't seem to understand. "People can still get them". People can still always get everything. When they're not as easy to get, they're not as big a danger. "Well yeah building a nuke is illegal but people can still do it." What's the difference between that and what you said other than the size of the threat?
>Are we entering the last few years of America's life? I don't see Americans getting dumber than this.
Eurofag here.
Although the usa still pretends to be a super power, when i read the news and watch tv, i seriously cant help but think, the usa has already collapsed.
Only most of the us people have yet refused to acknowledge.
>I'm for deterrence by way of equal force.
So why not simply lower that force instead of increasing it, while still maintaining a balance? That's actually what's happening right now in the age of nuclear non-proliferation.
I actually agree with that principle, but you are taking it in the wrong direction.
At some point, you simply spiral out of control instead of having an equilibrium.
Funnily enough, decreasing the amount of nukes actually edges them closer and closer to being used, because it disarms MAD.
The less there are, the less damage they cause. The less damage they cause, the more likely they are to be used more liberally.
If shooting a nuke at Russia would result in being fucking obliterated, nobody would do it.
If it resulted in having maybe one city destroyed, it's now worth it in order to starve them of whatever resource was in that city.
Get it?
>People running and screaming
>Alcohol consumed
>Flashing lights
>Mass murderer on the loose, Muslim sand nigger
>Faggots pulling out their guns from their open carry holster
>Starts shooting
>Starts shooting everyone who's brown in the club
>Every faggot thinks they're a hero, firing their p226 and glocks
>Celebrate freedom in 'Murica
This is clearly the solution guys.
See I feel really bad that America's such a shithole because my closest friends are American and refuse to move because of family and stuff. Wages/salaries, lack of gun laws, Trump, etc.
Hmm, so once we're destroyed it would be mutually assured destruction?
I guessed as much, but which?
Yeah that's right.
Still better than 80% of Europe. You forget that the US is huge. Each region deals with their own problems separately, which is why the country as a whole will probably never agree on anything ever
>almost all countries
no, only the pussy countries
do you think the US will ever give up nukes?
fuck no
So why is America the capital of mass murder shootings? Why isn't this commonplace everywhere?
You have no fucking idea.
Today, nuking the enemies top 10-20 major cities would result in the complete collapse of that nations society and political leadership.
That is all the damage you need to do in order to win a war.
There is no reason to have tens of thousands of nukes. It's completely overkill.
And even that aside, no country would ever risk having their vapital hit by a nuke. Nothing would be worth that. And that is why we have non-proliferation.
Nuclear war was much more likely during the cold war when all sides had way more nukes than now. Your little theory doesn't even hold by your own standards
it isn't
do some fucking research
it just gets more news
Once again, MAD. If there is an absolute guarantee that you will not be able to accomplish your objective because of the response to your attempt, you won't do it at all. This could apply to any scale, be it billions of people or two men with pistols.
see Would definitely fucking deter the next muslim if the result was getting every muslim in the crowd shot to death.
We already dismantled most of them...
FBI stats don't lie. An active shooter killed by cops averages 11 kills. One killed by concealed carry permit citizen averages 2 kills. You're a dumb hippy, now go recycle your sandals and shut the fuck up.
just because we made better ones
Give me 3 recent mass shootings in EU and Asia. Can you hamburgers do it?
The point was BECAUSE it is complete overkill, you simpleton. You won't use them because you CAN'T use them, since doing so ensures that you both die.
>terrorist gets gun
>nra has been fighting for every one to get a gun
>even terrorists
>goes and kills a lot of people
> like a small pistol a bouncer had would have made a difference m8
no, because it doesn't get news coverage
Explain yourself
Your ridiculous MAD analogy has already been disproven multiple times here, but even that aside:
What even makes you think that MAD applies to individual human beings?
Humans are not countries. You have some drugged up idiot with an assault rifle? He doesn't give a shit about MAD.
I think the real reason to have nukes (and guns) is for when those fucking aliens arrive
the more we have, the better
GO TEAM EARTH!
Isn't guns legal in USA, the bouncer can't take the guys freedom from him
>inb4 burger completely dodges the question
I pulled the picture browsing through #wow while waiting for Blizzard to finish updating Starcraft 2. Just something to prove how low Americans have fallen
Don't say you can't see Uh-mericans getting stupider than this.
You have no idea what we're capable of. We can get SO much stupider.
so relaxing the door policy and let cub goers attend armed is you answer? I can smell your autism from here.
>disproven
you're stupid
>drugged up idiot with an assault rifle
he won't be able to hit much
quit being so MAD about not understanding MAD
You can't be this retarded and still capable of working a computer
Life is not a video game, the bad guys don't have red names above their heads. You hear shots, whip out your gun, see another guy with a gun and take him down...Well done, you've just blown away a civilian, another wannabe hero, and unfortunately a third civilian saw you do it and he's thinking "I'm going to be a hero" and takes aim at your head
This is ultimately the problem with Americans - guns give you an unwarranted sense of confidence and ability which you do not have. You have watched too many films, played too many games, and have convinced yourself that you could totally do that too.
Are you fucking serious? A guy got beat in Australia and it made the fucking news. Either do the fucking research or kill yourself.
You are the fucking simpleton.
There is a point where an even larger nuclear arsenal does not add any more to the threat of being hit by it.
You think it matters whether you are hit by 1000 or 10.000 nukes? Or 100.000?
If you're hit by 100 nukes, your country ceases to exist. There is no point in having an arsenal beyond that, both for intimidation and actual practicality.
It doesn't matter that they ignore it, what matters is that they will die immediately as a result of their actions, stopping the rampage then and there.
It also deters all of the NOT drugged up boozehounds, since they actually understand what happens when someone does draw a gun.
HURR DURR
MY TRIBE
YOUR TRIBE
it must be easy living in your retarded little world, i envy you OP
I see you are out of arguments.
Thanks for giving up while you still could.
lol America will always be better than any of your european shit tier countries. How's the cultural destruction over there going for you.
I didn't hear about it
and I have no reason to do the research
not the guy you were talking to
I just think you're stupid
Hmm yes I see your point has been proven and I can find 0 flaws. Can you just tell me what your point was?
Why wouldn't the bouncer be able to have a gun from a legal standpoint? This meme is retarded
So why should ? Why should anyone do research? All that does is prove you wrong, right? So why request user do research when you refuse to? Fuck me, every time an American talks, it only makes them look fucking worse. Do the research so you don't look like a retard.
Because Americans refusing to give up guns. They'll be willing to make up bullshit to prove that lack of guns would be "Bad" and then you have people eating that shit up.
>mfw America is as great as it's always been
>mfw the whole world scolds us for letting a handful of fags die
>mfw we still couldn't care less about your europinions
>Implying that it's meant for only a single country
MAD was meant to stop EVERYONE ON THE PLANET WHO OWNS NUKES from using them. If a single country shot one off, they, and all of their friends, and everyone else, gets blown to hell. Nobody wants that short of doomsday cults, which is why it works.
NRA has been preventing any anti gun legislation even if it was targeted to Only terrorists or Criminals, and the Bouncer would probably have a 9mm or .45 handgun and not a proper rifle like the terrorists had during the shooting, and that hand gun probably would have not made a difference in the out come of 49 fags dead.
Meant to reply to
...
Oh, idk, maybe if everyone had a gun, those 100+ people that were shot can fuck up the terrorist a lot worse than you think?
trips of truth
>A hand gun will make no difference
Would have killed him with a few shots to the head... Or disarmed him with several shots to the arm
Chill Mohammed
MAD only applies if there is a fear of retaliation
In this scenario, such fear was obviously not present, he didn't try to escape, he didn't surrender, he knew exactly what the outcome would be *and did it anyway*
how long does it take you to unholster your weapon, target acquire, aim and fire in the middle of nightclub full of 100+ people? Probably more time than it would take for them to unload their entire goddamn magazine into the crowd.
The solution isn't throwing more guns at the problem, you fucking idiot. It's perhaps not having such blatant disregard for what level of weaponry a civilian should be able to just fucking buy on a whim.
>77% White
Nigguh Argentina is White than the USA. How's it feel to be the mutant offspring of Mexico and Africa?
>inb4 "Taken over by Muslims"
Muslims make up 5% of people here.
So you are saying a pistol couldnt stop one guy because rifle trumps pistol? Was he wearing body armor? I dont understand your reasoning behind that. Also yeah the nra stops that legislation, its their job.
"mutually" assured destruction would be "destruction assured by both parties"
"mutual" assured destruction is "assured destruction of both parties"
not semantics at all, but most white English speakers are approaching the same level of retardation as our spic and nigger brethren, so don't be surprised when like 40 people tell me I'm wrong
I didn't request user do research
Life isn't a video game
so all those one hundred people start shooting at the terrorist, and then hit other people and the whole situation goes haywire and possibly more deaths then the terrorist had, because you have to remember that these woulb be trigger happy fags shooting wildly.
are bouncers supposed to cavity search people?
Gun free zones exist in the united states, dumbshit.
This
but the bouncer whould have been to focused on people trying to get in and then the terrorist just walks up shooting him with him not noticing him and then the terriorist walks in to the bar.
it's not a fucking card game, retard
the weapon your opponent has doesn't affect the effectiveness of your weapon
>the bouncer would focus on not letting people with guns into the bar than the several hundred gun shots going off inside the bar
No...
Seriously? People take classes to learn how to use a weapon in this scenario.
As a bouncer, I don't want bouncers to have guns. Half of us are retards whose list of skills consists entirely of being fat.
Trump was always going to win.
See >do some fucking research
only ur mom
top kek. this basically.
it's not they're redcoat faggots from the 1700's who play turn based warfare irl.
And how, pray tell, are any of the mass shootings directly related to Obama?
>inb4 racist remark
>inb4 answer that doesn't make sense
>inb4 answer that doesn't answer the question
he wouldn't have fear of death, but probably fear of failing
he would have only killed a few, instead of 100
I can unholster and hit center mass at 15 yards in about the same time I could get 5 targets down with an AR-15
so saving 95 people
This only works if all the players care about surviving more than killing. The scary part of, say, N. Korea getting a nuke is that they might actually use it, consequences be dammed.
On the whole, a large government probably isn't suicidal; how much easier to find a single person who wanted to kill more than they want to live? Those are the people that shoot up a public place.
wtf kinda barbaric shit is that?
You wont like the answer
>MK Ultra
People often act contrary to their long term interests, due to short term temptations. The only reason this has any chance of working is ideal actors and distribution of responsibility.
When you have an executive leader with a team of advisors (ideally, ones chosen from among the population for their good sense), each one raises the chance that your country will behave in it's long term best interest. That's because any one of them can notice their making a bad choice and raise a concern. Just the act of verbalizing a decision creates a moment of reflection that can prevent a hasty mistake. Add to that the various levels of soldier responsible for mechanically executing an action to fire, who can refuse an order that seems absurd or suicidal. This is why Mutually Assured Destruction can be an effective deterrent on a global stage.
Assuming the same factors would prevail in the general population is frighteningly naive. There's no filtering process to prevent people with poor judgement from getting guns. There's no need for a moment of deliberation before an armed individual makes the choice to fire. There's no possibility for intervention by an outsider noticing poor reasoning before the action is carried out. And that's just talking about irrationally aggressive gun use.
Mutually Assured Destruction is an incredibly dangerous prevention strategy. It's wagering the fate of humanity on a cross between chicken and a starring contest. If you as an individual gun owner in a public space believe someone else is going to open fire, you're immediately confronted with the incentive to draw. Right or wrong, other gun owners seeing you draw (but not necessarily seeing the threat you saw) now must make the same decision. Now rather than one reasonable individual in a group preventing an unwise choice in the case of missile attacks; in an armed crowd it only takes a single unwise individual to trigger a gun battle.
ameirca is the only country that rationalises that gun violence epidemic should be treated with more guns.
you know profits for gun companies go vertical after these mass murders, with 43,000 gun deaths a year profits are skyrocketing im sure.
also enjoy gradually eating yourselves to death, drinking poisonous water and going to private prisons you loudmouth shithole joke of a country
that wasn't me, that was user
There's a difference between gun control and banning guns. Obviously bouncer should be allowed guns, but this guy was on a watch list and still allowed to buy guns freely. Islam isn't innocent either. A religion about a warmongering child rapist has huge problems that pc fucktards won't debate.