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?

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.

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

Mr. Luddite wrote:
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



Well, they seem to ignore the Constitution anyways.

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:33:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



http://mic.com/articles/123049/19-years-after-passing-strict-gun-control-laws-here-s-what-happened-in-australia

The thing they avoid saying is it only caused a momentary blip in the
murder rate but the overall slope did not change much.
People just found other ways to kill their fellow man.
Murders were going down and the slope pretty much remained the same
when viewed year to year.
They are going down here too, in spite of what CNN would have us
believe.

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:08:56 -0700, Califbill billnews wrote:



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?

If you look around the normal office or classroom, there will be lots
of stuff you can throw.
Eventually someone will man up and go get the guy if he gets
distracted enough

The other part of the drill should be to scatter. Create a situation
where he is always surrounded, Once you clump up, it is easy to shoot
a lot of people without having to really look around,

John probably has the army term for that.

I have no problem with the idea of turning off the light and hoping
you get passed by but that is not going to work for everyone.

I know when Charlie Mann shot up the IBM rust bucket in DC (actually
Maryland) the guys in the computer room spread out and armed
themselves with whatever they could find. They never got to test my
theory because the guy didn't go there but they were not going to be
willing victims. It might have helped that most were veterans with
military training.

BTW that may have been the first "workplace" shooting that we ever
heard about. It was before the post office people started making it
famous.

On Sun, 04 Oct 2015 23:53:46 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:08:56 -0700, Califbill billnews wrote:



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?

If you look around the normal office or classroom, there will be lots
of stuff you can throw.
Eventually someone will man up and go get the guy if he gets
distracted enough

The other part of the drill should be to scatter. Create a situation
where he is always surrounded, Once you clump up, it is easy to shoot
a lot of people without having to really look around,

John probably has the army term for that.

'Mobile Defense' - the plan for holding back the Soviets when they attempted to come
through the Fulda Gap.


--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 08:03:57 -0400, John H.
wrote:

The other part of the drill should be to scatter. Create a situation
where he is always surrounded, Once you clump up, it is easy to shoot
a lot of people without having to really look around,

John probably has the army term for that.

'Mobile Defense' - the plan for holding back the Soviets when they attempted to come
through the Fulda Gap.

I was referring more to the infantry principle of not bunching up so
that one grenade or mortar round would get everyone.

On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 13:56:53 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 08:03:57 -0400, John H.
wrote:

The other part of the drill should be to scatter. Create a situation
where he is always surrounded, Once you clump up, it is easy to shoot
a lot of people without having to really look around,

John probably has the army term for that.

'Mobile Defense' - the plan for holding back the Soviets when they attempted to come
through the Fulda Gap.

I was referring more to the infantry principle of not bunching up so
that one grenade or mortar round would get everyone.

"One round'll getcha all."

Heard that a bunch of times!
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

The Johnny spews..

"One round'll getcha all."

Heard that a bunch of times!"


Really...did you ever learn your lessons?