| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#22
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? |
|
#23
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On mass shootings... an answer
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. |
|
#24
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On mass shootings... an answer
On 10/4/2015 4:28 PM, John H. wrote:
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. Nope, they wouldn't. |
|
#25
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On mass shootings... an answer
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! |
|
#26
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On mass shootings... an answer
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:08:56 -0700, Califbill billnews wrote:
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? === Anything you can do to move and create a diversion is all to the good. Standing still and presenting a good target, not so much. |
|
#27
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On mass shootings... an answer
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. |
|
#28
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On mass shootings... an answer
On 10/4/2015 5:08 PM, Califbill wrote:
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? Guess you are right. The obvious solution is just around the corner. I think that in the near future a liberal Democratic president and a Democratic Congress is going to make gun owner's worst fears come true, NRA be damned. It has happened elsewhe http://mic.com/articles/123049/19-years-after-passing-strict-gun-control-laws-here-s-what-happened-in-australia |
|
#29
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On mass shootings... an answer
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:22:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/4/2015 4:28 PM, John H. wrote: 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. Nope, they wouldn't. Well, for the record, I'm not worried about you. I'd be more worried about someone with lots of guns, who feels the need to brag about his abilities, exhibits some pretty anti-social tendencies, knows he's not well liked, uses lies to support narcissistic traits, and spends most of his time sitting in a basement. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
|
#30
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
On mass shootings... an answer
On 10/4/15 5:38 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:22:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/4/2015 4:28 PM, John H. wrote: 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. Nope, they wouldn't. Well, for the record, I'm not worried about you. I'd be more worried about someone with lots of guns, who feels the need to brag about his abilities, exhibits some pretty anti-social tendencies, knows he's not well liked, uses lies to support narcissistic traits, and spends most of his time sitting in a basement. -- Ban idiots, not guns! Looking in the mirror again, Johnnymop? |
| 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 | |||
![John H.[_5_] is offline](https://www.boatbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
