BoatBanter.com - On mass shootings...

On 10/4/15 5:27 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:10:47 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 10/4/15 4:31 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 16:16:40 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 10/4/15 4:12 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2015 3:42 PM, Califbill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2015 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:17:29 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

It's the Fretwell-Herring-W'hine-FlaTrash response, immortalized by
the
Onion. "We can't do nuttin' about this, honey!"

I put my opinion about this and it was lost in the noise.

We should be teaching everyone to FIGHT BACK.
If everyone in that room scattered and immediately started throwing
everything they could pick up, at the shooter, he would be too busy
ducking to shoot and they could take him down.

There is no down side. The ONLY way he can kill them all is if they
stand there patiently and wait their turn.

One unarmed guy tried to "fight back" in the latest shootings and he got
shot 7 times. Fortunately he survived.

I think more lives are saved by following protocol ... meaning
people move into a secure area, lock the door, shut off the lights and
stay quiet.

Example?

Airline hijacking. We have not really had one since the passengers
figured out they can fight back. If they had have acted sooner, they
would have saved the plane in Pennsylvania
The leaky TSA process really has little to do with it. (97% failure
rate on their own test)
The fact that the hijacker will be beat to a bloody pulp does.
These days if someone just gets a little frisky, passengers take him
down.

The reason is the same, this is not a robbery where giving up some
money will save you. You have to understand the guy is there to kill
you and the only chance you have is to be a hard target.

And most of the nine killed, were asked their religion and then shot.
Might be better off fighting back. If you get shot, you are more
likely to
survive, as he can not aim as well.

Yup. All those little kids at Sandy Hook shuda just thrown their copies
of "Dick, Jane and Sally" at the gunman.

This conversation is getting funny. A bunch of unarmed people are going
to ward off a guy with a large magazine, semi-automatic
by throwing books at him.

Boy, that will put terror in the heart of the next nutcase with a gun
who decides to make himself famous.

It would be even worse if they were armed...imagine the carnage as they
miss the "perp" and start shooting each other and kids in the next
classroom...

If the perp knew there may be armed teachers and/or students in the classroom, he
just may have stayed off school property.

Most of those kids are probably a much better shot than you are. And they probably
don't lie about their abilities either.
--

Uh-huh. More likely, he would have considered it a challenge.

John, you have no idea of how good a "shot" I am. I practice quite a bit
and unlike you, I don't have a body plagued by by a long list of
surgeries and a head full of bad eyes.

Whoops. You told us last week of your eye problems.

I don't brag about my shooting abilities, and certainly have no reason to lie.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

No, Johnnymop, I don't have "eye problems. I see perfectly at a
distance. But I do use one lens reading glasses when shooting with "iron
sights" to rein in my right eye so I can clearly see the front and rear
sights, and the lensless left eye then focuses on the target. Took me a
while to get used to it, but it works very well for me. With a red dot
or a scope, I don't use any glasses. I also don't have all the various
physical problems you seem to have, what with your endless surgeries.