| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
On mass shootings...
....the satirical on-line pub, The Onion, runs the following piece in its
entirety, changing only the dateline and the number of killed and injured, because the story is always the same: ROSEBURG, OR—In the hours following a violent rampage in (southwestern Oregon) in which a lone attacker killed (nine individuals and seriously injured seven others), citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Thursday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said Ohio resident Lindsay Bennett, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past six years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.” - - - It's the Fretwell-Herring-W'hine-FlaTrash response, immortalized by the Onion. "We can't do nuttin' about this, honey!" |
On mass shootings...
On 10/4/2015 9:17 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
....the satirical on-line pub, The Onion, runs the following piece in its entirety, changing only the dateline and the number of killed and injured, because the story is always the same: ROSEBURG, OR—In the hours following a violent rampage in (southwestern Oregon) in which a lone attacker killed (nine individuals and seriously injured seven others), citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Thursday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said Ohio resident Lindsay Bennett, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past six years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.” - - - It's the Fretwell-Herring-W'hine-FlaTrash response, immortalized by the Onion. "We can't do nuttin' about this, honey!" The Onion, Huffington Post, You sure have a crazy reading list. |
On mass shootings...
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:17:29 -0400, Keyser Sze wrote:
...the satirical on-line pub, The Onion, runs the following piece in its entirety, changing only the dateline and the number of killed and injured, because the story is always the same: ROSEBURG, ORIn the hours following a violent rampage in (southwestern Oregon) in which a lone attacker killed (nine individuals and seriously injured seven others), citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Thursday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and theres nothing anyone can do to stop them, said Ohio resident Lindsay Bennett, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the worlds deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. Its a shame, but what can we do? There really wasnt anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if thats what he really wanted. At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past six years were referring to themselves and their situation as helpless. - - - It's the Fretwell-Herring-W'hine-FlaTrash response, immortalized by the Onion. "We can't do nuttin' about this, honey!" Very stupid. Everyone knows that the passage of a lot more laws would stop the problem. Just look at Chicago! Very stringent laws have almost completely stopped the shooting deaths there. Remarkable. What we need is one law that says, "It is unlawful for any individual in the United States to possess a personal firearm." Require all firearms be turned in to the government. Do you think that would reduce the killings in this country? -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
On mass shootings...
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:17:29 -0400, Keyser Sze wrote:
...the satirical on-line pub, The Onion, runs the following piece in its entirety, changing only the dateline and the number of killed and injured, because the story is always the same: ROSEBURG, ORIn the hours following a violent rampage in (southwestern Oregon) in which a lone attacker killed (nine individuals and seriously injured seven others), citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Thursday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and theres nothing anyone can do to stop them, said Ohio resident Lindsay Bennett, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the worlds deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. Its a shame, but what can we do? There really wasnt anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if thats what he really wanted. At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past six years were referring to themselves and their situation as helpless. - - - It's the Fretwell-Herring-W'hine-FlaTrash response, immortalized by the Onion. "We can't do nuttin' about this, honey!" And...what would you do, sweetheart? -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
On mass shootings...
On 10/4/2015 10:31 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:17:29 -0400, Keyser Sze wrote: ...the satirical on-line pub, The Onion, runs the following piece in its entirety, changing only the dateline and the number of killed and injured, because the story is always the same: ROSEBURG, ORIn the hours following a violent rampage in (southwestern Oregon) in which a lone attacker killed (nine individuals and seriously injured seven others), citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Thursday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and theres nothing anyone can do to stop them, said Ohio resident Lindsay Bennett, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the worlds deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. Its a shame, but what can we do? There really wasnt anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if thats what he really wanted. At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past six years were referring to themselves and their situation as helpless. - - - It's the Fretwell-Herring-W'hine-FlaTrash response, immortalized by the Onion. "We can't do nuttin' about this, honey!" Very stupid. Everyone knows that the passage of a lot more laws would stop the problem. Just look at Chicago! Very stringent laws have almost completely stopped the shooting deaths there. Remarkable. What we need is one law that says, "It is unlawful for any individual in the United States to possess a personal firearm." Require all firearms be turned in to the government. Do you think that would reduce the killings in this country? Yup... .... and that's where we are heading unless the hard core 2nd Ammendment clingers don't open their eyes and minds and become willing to discuss and consider gun control laws that fit contemporary times. To continue to say "nothing will work" and be satisfied with the status quo is eventually going to force the issue. |
On mass shootings...
On 10/4/15 10:31 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:17:29 -0400, Keyser Sze wrote: ...the satirical on-line pub, The Onion, runs the following piece in its entirety, changing only the dateline and the number of killed and injured, because the story is always the same: ROSEBURG, ORIn the hours following a violent rampage in (southwestern Oregon) in which a lone attacker killed (nine individuals and seriously injured seven others), citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Thursday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and theres nothing anyone can do to stop them, said Ohio resident Lindsay Bennett, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the worlds deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. Its a shame, but what can we do? There really wasnt anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if thats what he really wanted. At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past six years were referring to themselves and their situation as helpless. - - - It's the Fretwell-Herring-W'hine-FlaTrash response, immortalized by the Onion. "We can't do nuttin' about this, honey!" Very stupid. Everyone knows that the passage of a lot more laws would stop the problem. Just look at Chicago! Very stringent laws have almost completely stopped the shooting deaths there. Remarkable. What we need is one law that says, "It is unlawful for any individual in the United States to possess a personal firearm." Require all firearms be turned in to the government. Do you think that would reduce the killings in this country? -- It sure as hell would, and also the number of massacres. Maybe we need to rename "Gun Control" Massacre Control. |
On mass shootings...
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:59:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/4/2015 10:31 AM, John H. wrote: On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:17:29 -0400, Keyser Sze wrote: ...the satirical on-line pub, The Onion, runs the following piece in its entirety, changing only the dateline and the number of killed and injured, because the story is always the same: ROSEBURG, ORIn the hours following a violent rampage in (southwestern Oregon) in which a lone attacker killed (nine individuals and seriously injured seven others), citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Thursday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and theres nothing anyone can do to stop them, said Ohio resident Lindsay Bennett, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the worlds deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. Its a shame, but what can we do? There really wasnt anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if thats what he really wanted. At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past six years were referring to themselves and their situation as helpless. - - - It's the Fretwell-Herring-W'hine-FlaTrash response, immortalized by the Onion. "We can't do nuttin' about this, honey!" Very stupid. Everyone knows that the passage of a lot more laws would stop the problem. Just look at Chicago! Very stringent laws have almost completely stopped the shooting deaths there. Remarkable. What we need is one law that says, "It is unlawful for any individual in the United States to possess a personal firearm." Require all firearms be turned in to the government. Do you think that would reduce the killings in this country? Yup... ... and that's where we are heading unless the hard core 2nd Ammendment clingers don't open their eyes and minds and become willing to discuss and consider gun control laws that fit contemporary times. To continue to say "nothing will work" and be satisfied with the status quo is eventually going to force the issue. The lawbreakers would keep their guns, and commit violent acts with them just as they do now. Again, the laws passed have no effect unless enforced. No one here has said, "Nothing will work." You and Harry are the ones making that spin. I'm surprised you don't push for more enforcement...especially of federal laws. Would a requirement for permits and/or licenses reduce the gun violence in downtown Chicago? Oh, wait...they're already required. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
On mass shootings...
|
On mass shootings...
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:59:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Require all firearms be turned in to the government. Do you think that would reduce the killings in this country? Yup... ... and that's where we are heading unless the hard core 2nd Ammendment clingers don't open their eyes and minds and become willing to discuss and consider gun control laws that fit contemporary times. To continue to say "nothing will work" and be satisfied with the status quo is eventually going to force the issue. === A classic case of the cure being worse than the disease. Once more, I don't believe you can solve a social problem with the legal system. It didn't work with prohibition, and it's not working with the war on drugs. I won't go into detail here but there are lots of other ways to commit mass mayhem without using guns at all. Look no further than the Boston Marathon. |
On mass shootings... an answer
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. 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. |
On mass shootings...
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:59:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/4/2015 10:31 AM, John H. wrote: On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:17:29 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: ...the satirical on-line pub, The Onion, runs the following piece in its entirety, changing only the dateline and the number of killed and injured, because the story is always the same: ROSEBURG, OR—In the hours following a violent rampage in (southwestern Oregon) in which a lone attacker killed (nine individuals and seriously injured seven others), citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Thursday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said Ohio resident Lindsay Bennett, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past six years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.” - - - It's the Fretwell-Herring-W'hine-FlaTrash response, immortalized by the Onion. "We can't do nuttin' about this, honey!" Very stupid. Everyone knows that the passage of a lot more laws would stop the problem. Just look at Chicago! Very stringent laws have almost completely stopped the shooting deaths there. Remarkable. What we need is one law that says, "It is unlawful for any individual in the United States to possess a personal firearm." Require all firearms be turned in to the government. Do you think that would reduce the killings in this country? Yup... ... and that's where we are heading unless the hard core 2nd Ammendment clingers don't open their eyes and minds and become willing to discuss and consider gun control laws that fit contemporary times. To continue to say "nothing will work" and be satisfied with the status quo is eventually going to force the issue. Yup, we would just need to trim 4 or 5 amendments off of the Bill of Rights. Wasn't that one reason why we had the 2d amendment in the first place? |
On mass shootings...
|
On mass shootings...
|
On mass shootings... an answer
|
On mass shootings... an answer
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. |
On mass shootings...
|
On mass shootings... an answer
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. |
On mass shootings... an answer
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... |
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 Sze 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! |
On mass shootings... an answer
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 16:16:40 -0400, Keyser Sze 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 Sze 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. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
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? |
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 Sze 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 Sze 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. |
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 Sze 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. |
On mass shootings... an answer
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:10:47 -0400, Keyser Sze wrote:
On 10/4/15 4:31 PM, John H. wrote: On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 16:16:40 -0400, Keyser Sze 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 Sze 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! |
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 Sze 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 mass shootings... an answer
On 10/4/15 5:27 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:10:47 -0400, Keyser Sze wrote: On 10/4/15 4:31 PM, John H. wrote: On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 16:16:40 -0400, Keyser Sze 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 Sze 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. |
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 |
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 Sze 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! |
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 Sze 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? |
On mass shootings... an answer
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:31:50 -0400, Keyser Sze wrote:
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. === Too bad about your distemper however, should have gotten those shots when you were a puppy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_distemper |
On mass shootings... an answer
On 10/4/2015 4:38 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 Sze 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! I think I know who you are referring to. |
On mass shootings... an answer
On 10/4/2015 4:41 PM, Keyser Sze wrote:
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 Sze 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? You don't know who the reference is to? Seriously? |
On mass shootings... an answer
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 mass shootings... an answer
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:17:43 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 10/4/2015 4:41 PM, Keyser Sze wrote: 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 Sze 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? You don't know who the reference is to? Seriously? YKW! -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
On mass shootings...
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:51:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/4/2015 12:38 PM, wrote: On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:59:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Require all firearms be turned in to the government. Do you think that would reduce the killings in this country? Yup... ... and that's where we are heading unless the hard core 2nd Ammendment clingers don't open their eyes and minds and become willing to discuss and consider gun control laws that fit contemporary times. To continue to say "nothing will work" and be satisfied with the status quo is eventually going to force the issue. === A classic case of the cure being worse than the disease. Once more, I don't believe you can solve a social problem with the legal system. It didn't work with prohibition, and it's not working with the war on drugs. I won't go into detail here but there are lots of other ways to commit mass mayhem without using guns at all. Look no further than the Boston Marathon. Understood but horrific as it was, there are far fewer Boston Marathons when compared to mass shootings using guns. Americans are lazy but they can be resourceful if they need to be. |
On mass shootings...
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 15:50:13 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
... and that's where we are heading unless the hard core 2nd Ammendment clingers don't open their eyes and minds and become willing to discuss and consider gun control laws that fit contemporary times. To continue to say "nothing will work" and be satisfied with the status quo is eventually going to force the issue. Yup, we would just need to trim 4 or 5 amendments off of the Bill of Rights. Wasn't that one reason why we had the 2d amendment in the first place? No. I guess you never read some of the comments from the people who wrote it and considered that they had just won a bloody revolution against the most powerful country in the world. The real point is that gun confiscation would have to violate the 2d, 4th, 5th, 6th and perhaps the 10th amendment. I doubt they would get half in any kind of buy back, even at a generous market price. Then you get down to forcible "takings", black markets and millions of instant criminals. How many prisons are you going to build? |
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. |
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. |
On mass shootings... an answer
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:20 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com