| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
On mass shootings... an answer
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 16:12:46 -0400, "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. Would the Massachusetts laws stop you if you decided to go off the deep end and shoot a bunch of school kids? No. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On mass shootings... an answer
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. If the books hit, he will be dodging. Just going to stand there and wait to be shot? |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On mass shootings... an answer
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 16:12:46 -0400, "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 is better than just standing there. You also start changing the subject. The targets of majority of these shootings are adults or damn close to it. The idea is just to disorient the guy and gain the edge that could allow you to take him down. If he really is there with a box fed SA and plenty of ammo, taking him down is the only way this will stop. Maybe you could learn something from fire ants. It is no problem to stomp on hundreds of them, but once they decide to attack you, a couple dozen can make you forget why you are there. |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On mass shootings... an answer
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:58:36 -0400, "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. Weren't we talking about mass shootings where gunmen were in a room full of people and there was no chance that you could just cooperate and get away. How many times would he have been shot if he stood still and waited his turn. 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. Fine but what happens when the bad guy comes in that room and turns the light back on? Maybe you can't get to a secure area, you are all in the break room with no door on it and light coming in from outside. Most modern LEED buildings have plenty of natural light. If everyone immediately started throwing **** at the gunman, he would have to start thinking about ducking because the incoming might just be a coffee cup or it might be a lap top charger "slung" from a 3' cord. A pound or so, coming in at a few hundred feet per second is going to leave a mark. These guys are not specially trained SWAT guys, they are just insecure losers for the most part and losing control of the situation, even for a few seconds might be all it takes to stop them. As I said, what would you have to lose? It isn't a robbery, he is there to kill you. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| USA! USA! USA! Leaders by far in mass shootings! | General | |||
| Canadian shootings | General | |||
| Are you ready for some shootings??? | General | |||
| My take on the Arizona shootings | General | |||
| More on shootings by Army sergeant | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
