Fight bullets with rocks?
 

On 3/25/18 8:40 AM, The Last Boater on USENET wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 13:07:02 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 12:42:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 09:06:55 -0400, The Last Boater on USENET
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 01:31:49 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 21:45:07 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

What could possibly go wrong, right?

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/...e-these-rocks/

It is not the worst idea in the world. If 30 people were throwing
baseball sized rocks at the shooter, it would certainly disrupt his
concentration and if 4 or 5 of them charged him in the confusion and
started bashing his head in with the rocks it would spoil his day.
This is certainly the last ditch effort to save yourself but it is a
credible effort if the victims had the violence of action to actually
do it. Combine that with a decent defensive action plan and the bad
guy is going to lose that fight.
My problem with "ALICE" is "Counter" should be the last choice but is
screws up the acronym.
In that TV spot they did on the school that really has a defensive
plan, the easiest and perhaps most effective part is every classroom
has a defensive zone marked in the floor where you can't be seen or
hit from the hall. If your prime defenders were along that wall near
the door. the shooter doesn't see them until they see him and they
have surprise on their side. Better be wearing heavy gloves if you are
trying a "disarm" tho. That barrel will be smoking.
Of course it is best if the door is locked and the shooter is out in
the hall (another part of that school's plan).

Throwing rocks.

No different than "bringing a knife to a gun fight" and up until now
that has been used to illustrate a really bad idea. Now, we embrace
it!

If nothing else, when they should be seeking cover, they will be
foolishly emboldened to stand their ground, making themselves better
targets.

Gotta go with Tim....
-Gene

If you get to pick the fight and the weapons, I agree but we are
talking about a situation where you have what is available. In a fair
fight, a handgun is no match for an AK or an AR either but even the
most radical element does not suggest we arm teachers with an AR.
The object here is to use the tactics that allow you to survive an
unfair fight.
Throwing rocks and attacking is far better than just standing there
waiting for your turn to be shot.

Hiding in your 'no see' zones with the teacher holding a handgun is a better idea. The mad scramble
for the rocks may cause the shooter to laugh himself to death.

And.... hardening the schools is a step in the right direction, too.

FWIW, this is a global problem and isn't (or shouldn't be)
specifically about "guns." It is about soft targets and angry/crazy
people. Globally, school children have been attacked with everything
from axes to zhanmadaos, because they are a soft target with an
advertised lack of defenses.

If we aren't going to get serious about mental health, let's get
serious about protection.
-Gene


I don't see where continual buying into the NRA bull**** that the only
way to fight violence is with more guns makes any sense. What we have to
do is find ways to de-escalate the violence.

The NRA exists to help its main contributors - the gun industry - sell
more guns.

The Second Amendment is obsolete, but in this country there is no
reasonable, rational way to change it within any acceptable period of
time. So the best way to move forward is through legislation, by
removing from political office politicians who have an A or B or C NRA
ratings, and replacing them with new politicians who are not beholden to
the NRA and have no better than a D rating if any rating at all.

We also have to make magazines that hold more than 10 rounds illegal,
with serious $$$ penalties for having any, and the same with firearms
whose primary purpose is not hunting or target shooting or part of an
historical colletion. I don't think prison is the answer for firearm
possession for guns not used in crimes. We already have too many prisons
and too many people in them, and I would not be surprised to learn the
private prison industry also contributes to the NRA.

I have a couple of firearms that should be made illegal, and I wouldn't
object to legislation that made them that way. I'd be more than happy to
have only my .22LR target pistol and rifle and a shotgun. My hunting
buddies, and I have a few of them, don't hunt with semi-auto or
assault-style rifles...they use bolt-action rifles and shotguns.

The NRA should be solely concerned with providing training to help
ensure firearms safety, and with helping to preserve game species and
hunting areas. Pimping for the manufacturers of firearms shouldn't be
allowed.

Fight bullets with rocks?
 

On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 08:40:41 -0400, The Last Boater on USENET wrote:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 13:07:02 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 12:42:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 09:06:55 -0400, The Last Boater on USENET
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 01:31:49 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 21:45:07 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

What could possibly go wrong, right?

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/...e-these-rocks/

It is not the worst idea in the world. If 30 people were throwing
baseball sized rocks at the shooter, it would certainly disrupt his
concentration and if 4 or 5 of them charged him in the confusion and
started bashing his head in with the rocks it would spoil his day.
This is certainly the last ditch effort to save yourself but it is a
credible effort if the victims had the violence of action to actually
do it. Combine that with a decent defensive action plan and the bad
guy is going to lose that fight.
My problem with "ALICE" is "Counter" should be the last choice but is
screws up the acronym.
In that TV spot they did on the school that really has a defensive
plan, the easiest and perhaps most effective part is every classroom
has a defensive zone marked in the floor where you can't be seen or
hit from the hall. If your prime defenders were along that wall near
the door. the shooter doesn't see them until they see him and they
have surprise on their side. Better be wearing heavy gloves if you are
trying a "disarm" tho. That barrel will be smoking.
Of course it is best if the door is locked and the shooter is out in
the hall (another part of that school's plan).

Throwing rocks.

No different than "bringing a knife to a gun fight" and up until now
that has been used to illustrate a really bad idea. Now, we embrace
it!

If nothing else, when they should be seeking cover, they will be
foolishly emboldened to stand their ground, making themselves better
targets.

Gotta go with Tim....
-Gene

If you get to pick the fight and the weapons, I agree but we are
talking about a situation where you have what is available. In a fair
fight, a handgun is no match for an AK or an AR either but even the
most radical element does not suggest we arm teachers with an AR.
The object here is to use the tactics that allow you to survive an
unfair fight.
Throwing rocks and attacking is far better than just standing there
waiting for your turn to be shot.

Hiding in your 'no see' zones with the teacher holding a handgun is a better idea. The mad scramble
for the rocks may cause the shooter to laugh himself to death.

And.... hardening the schools is a step in the right direction, too.

FWIW, this is a global problem and isn't (or shouldn't be)
specifically about "guns." It is about soft targets and angry/crazy
people. Globally, school children have been attacked with everything
from axes to zhanmadaos, because they are a soft target with an
advertised lack of defenses.

If we aren't going to get serious about mental health, let's get
serious about protection.
-Gene


Twenty years from now you will be more disppointed
by the things that you didn't do than by the ones
you did do.

So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.
- Mark Twain


1987 23' Grady-White Gulfstream
2004 17' G3 CC 1756

Out of Shallotte, NC

I find it hard to believe that many schools do not lock all but one observed door once the bell
rings.

Fight bullets with rocks?
 

On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 09:06:06 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 3/25/18 8:40 AM, The Last Boater on USENET wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 13:07:02 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 12:42:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 09:06:55 -0400, The Last Boater on USENET
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 01:31:49 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 21:45:07 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

What could possibly go wrong, right?

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/...e-these-rocks/

It is not the worst idea in the world. If 30 people were throwing
baseball sized rocks at the shooter, it would certainly disrupt his
concentration and if 4 or 5 of them charged him in the confusion and
started bashing his head in with the rocks it would spoil his day.
This is certainly the last ditch effort to save yourself but it is a
credible effort if the victims had the violence of action to actually
do it. Combine that with a decent defensive action plan and the bad
guy is going to lose that fight.
My problem with "ALICE" is "Counter" should be the last choice but is
screws up the acronym.
In that TV spot they did on the school that really has a defensive
plan, the easiest and perhaps most effective part is every classroom
has a defensive zone marked in the floor where you can't be seen or
hit from the hall. If your prime defenders were along that wall near
the door. the shooter doesn't see them until they see him and they
have surprise on their side. Better be wearing heavy gloves if you are
trying a "disarm" tho. That barrel will be smoking.
Of course it is best if the door is locked and the shooter is out in
the hall (another part of that school's plan).

Throwing rocks.

No different than "bringing a knife to a gun fight" and up until now
that has been used to illustrate a really bad idea. Now, we embrace
it!

If nothing else, when they should be seeking cover, they will be
foolishly emboldened to stand their ground, making themselves better
targets.

Gotta go with Tim....
-Gene

If you get to pick the fight and the weapons, I agree but we are
talking about a situation where you have what is available. In a fair
fight, a handgun is no match for an AK or an AR either but even the
most radical element does not suggest we arm teachers with an AR.
The object here is to use the tactics that allow you to survive an
unfair fight.
Throwing rocks and attacking is far better than just standing there
waiting for your turn to be shot.

Hiding in your 'no see' zones with the teacher holding a handgun is a better idea. The mad scramble
for the rocks may cause the shooter to laugh himself to death.

And.... hardening the schools is a step in the right direction, too.

FWIW, this is a global problem and isn't (or shouldn't be)
specifically about "guns." It is about soft targets and angry/crazy
people. Globally, school children have been attacked with everything
from axes to zhanmadaos, because they are a soft target with an
advertised lack of defenses.

If we aren't going to get serious about mental health, let's get
serious about protection.
-Gene


I don't see where continual buying into the NRA bull**** that the only
way to fight violence is with more guns makes any sense. What we have to
do is find ways to de-escalate the violence.

The NRA exists to help its main contributors - the gun industry - sell
more guns.

The Second Amendment is obsolete, but in this country there is no
reasonable, rational way to change it within any acceptable period of
time. So the best way to move forward is through legislation, by
removing from political office politicians who have an A or B or C NRA
ratings, and replacing them with new politicians who are not beholden to
the NRA and have no better than a D rating if any rating at all.

We also have to make magazines that hold more than 10 rounds illegal,
with serious $$$ penalties for having any, and the same with firearms
whose primary purpose is not hunting or target shooting or part of an
historical colletion. I don't think prison is the answer for firearm
possession for guns not used in crimes. We already have too many prisons
and too many people in them, and I would not be surprised to learn the
private prison industry also contributes to the NRA.

I have a couple of firearms that should be made illegal, and I wouldn't
object to legislation that made them that way. I'd be more than happy to
have only my .22LR target pistol and rifle and a shotgun. My hunting
buddies, and I have a few of them, don't hunt with semi-auto or
assault-style rifles...they use bolt-action rifles and shotguns.

The NRA should be solely concerned with providing training to help
ensure firearms safety, and with helping to preserve game species and
hunting areas. Pimping for the manufacturers of firearms shouldn't be
allowed.

Does accepting advertisements from an arms manufacturer make one a pimp? Is the Washington Post
'pimping' for all the companies that advertise in the newspaper? Yeah, the "American Rifleman" is a
magazine mostly about guns and also about attacks on the rights granted under the 2d Amendment. No
where in the magazine is any 'urging' for members to break the law.

You've called the NRA a 'terrorist' organization, with not one specific to back up your statement.
Your bias is political, why not accept that?"

Fight bullets with rocks?
 

On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 09:06:06 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 3/25/18 8:40 AM, The Last Boater on USENET wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 13:07:02 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 12:42:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 09:06:55 -0400, The Last Boater on USENET
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 01:31:49 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 21:45:07 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

What could possibly go wrong, right?

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/...e-these-rocks/

It is not the worst idea in the world. If 30 people were throwing
baseball sized rocks at the shooter, it would certainly disrupt his
concentration and if 4 or 5 of them charged him in the confusion and
started bashing his head in with the rocks it would spoil his day.
This is certainly the last ditch effort to save yourself but it is a
credible effort if the victims had the violence of action to actually
do it. Combine that with a decent defensive action plan and the bad
guy is going to lose that fight.
My problem with "ALICE" is "Counter" should be the last choice but is
screws up the acronym.
In that TV spot they did on the school that really has a defensive
plan, the easiest and perhaps most effective part is every classroom
has a defensive zone marked in the floor where you can't be seen or
hit from the hall. If your prime defenders were along that wall near
the door. the shooter doesn't see them until they see him and they
have surprise on their side. Better be wearing heavy gloves if you are
trying a "disarm" tho. That barrel will be smoking.
Of course it is best if the door is locked and the shooter is out in
the hall (another part of that school's plan).

Throwing rocks.

No different than "bringing a knife to a gun fight" and up until now
that has been used to illustrate a really bad idea. Now, we embrace
it!

If nothing else, when they should be seeking cover, they will be
foolishly emboldened to stand their ground, making themselves better
targets.

Gotta go with Tim....
-Gene

If you get to pick the fight and the weapons, I agree but we are
talking about a situation where you have what is available. In a fair
fight, a handgun is no match for an AK or an AR either but even the
most radical element does not suggest we arm teachers with an AR.
The object here is to use the tactics that allow you to survive an
unfair fight.
Throwing rocks and attacking is far better than just standing there
waiting for your turn to be shot.

Hiding in your 'no see' zones with the teacher holding a handgun is a better idea. The mad scramble
for the rocks may cause the shooter to laugh himself to death.

And.... hardening the schools is a step in the right direction, too.

FWIW, this is a global problem and isn't (or shouldn't be)
specifically about "guns." It is about soft targets and angry/crazy
people. Globally, school children have been attacked with everything
from axes to zhanmadaos, because they are a soft target with an
advertised lack of defenses.

If we aren't going to get serious about mental health, let's get
serious about protection.
-Gene


I don't see where continual buying into the NRA bull**** that the only
way to fight violence is with more guns makes any sense. What we have to
do is find ways to de-escalate the violence.

The NRA exists to help its main contributors - the gun industry - sell
more guns.

The Second Amendment is obsolete, but in this country there is no
reasonable, rational way to change it within any acceptable period of
time. So the best way to move forward is through legislation, by
removing from political office politicians who have an A or B or C NRA
ratings, and replacing them with new politicians who are not beholden to
the NRA and have no better than a D rating if any rating at all.

We also have to make magazines that hold more than 10 rounds illegal,
with serious $$$ penalties for having any, and the same with firearms
whose primary purpose is not hunting or target shooting or part of an
historical colletion. I don't think prison is the answer for firearm
possession for guns not used in crimes. We already have too many prisons
and too many people in them, and I would not be surprised to learn the
private prison industry also contributes to the NRA.

I have a couple of firearms that should be made illegal, and I wouldn't
object to legislation that made them that way. I'd be more than happy to
have only my .22LR target pistol and rifle and a shotgun. My hunting
buddies, and I have a few of them, don't hunt with semi-auto or
assault-style rifles...they use bolt-action rifles and shotguns.

The NRA should be solely concerned with providing training to help
ensure firearms safety, and with helping to preserve game species and
hunting areas. Pimping for the manufacturers of firearms shouldn't be
allowed.

Spoken by a guy who does see the need for an assault type rifle and
high cap magazines.
You sought every loophole you could find in an otherwise pretty strict
state law to acquire them.
The hypocrisy drips from every word you write.

Fight bullets with rocks?
 

wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 09:06:06 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 3/25/18 8:40 AM, The Last Boater on USENET wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 13:07:02 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 12:42:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 09:06:55 -0400, The Last Boater on USENET
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 01:31:49 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 21:45:07 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

What could possibly go wrong, right?

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/...e-these-rocks/

It is not the worst idea in the world. If 30 people were throwing
baseball sized rocks at the shooter, it would certainly disrupt his
concentration and if 4 or 5 of them charged him in the confusion and
started bashing his head in with the rocks it would spoil his day.
This is certainly the last ditch effort to save yourself but it is a
credible effort if the victims had the violence of action to actually
do it. Combine that with a decent defensive action plan and the bad
guy is going to lose that fight.
My problem with "ALICE" is "Counter" should be the last choice but is
screws up the acronym.
In that TV spot they did on the school that really has a defensive
plan, the easiest and perhaps most effective part is every classroom
has a defensive zone marked in the floor where you can't be seen or
hit from the hall. If your prime defenders were along that wall near
the door. the shooter doesn't see them until they see him and they
have surprise on their side. Better be wearing heavy gloves if you are
trying a "disarm" tho. That barrel will be smoking.
Of course it is best if the door is locked and the shooter is out in
the hall (another part of that school's plan).

Throwing rocks.

No different than "bringing a knife to a gun fight" and up until now
that has been used to illustrate a really bad idea. Now, we embrace
it!

If nothing else, when they should be seeking cover, they will be
foolishly emboldened to stand their ground, making themselves better
targets.

Gotta go with Tim....
-Gene

If you get to pick the fight and the weapons, I agree but we are
talking about a situation where you have what is available. In a fair
fight, a handgun is no match for an AK or an AR either but even the
most radical element does not suggest we arm teachers with an AR.
The object here is to use the tactics that allow you to survive an
unfair fight.
Throwing rocks and attacking is far better than just standing there
waiting for your turn to be shot.

Hiding in your 'no see' zones with the teacher holding a handgun is a
better idea. The mad scramble
for the rocks may cause the shooter to laugh himself to death.

And.... hardening the schools is a step in the right direction, too.

FWIW, this is a global problem and isn't (or shouldn't be)
specifically about "guns." It is about soft targets and angry/crazy
people. Globally, school children have been attacked with everything
from axes to zhanmadaos, because they are a soft target with an
advertised lack of defenses.

If we aren't going to get serious about mental health, let's get
serious about protection.
-Gene


I don't see where continual buying into the NRA bull**** that the only
way to fight violence is with more guns makes any sense. What we have to
do is find ways to de-escalate the violence.

The NRA exists to help its main contributors - the gun industry - sell
more guns.

The Second Amendment is obsolete, but in this country there is no
reasonable, rational way to change it within any acceptable period of
time. So the best way to move forward is through legislation, by
removing from political office politicians who have an A or B or C NRA
ratings, and replacing them with new politicians who are not beholden to
the NRA and have no better than a D rating if any rating at all.

We also have to make magazines that hold more than 10 rounds illegal,
with serious $$$ penalties for having any, and the same with firearms
whose primary purpose is not hunting or target shooting or part of an
historical colletion. I don't think prison is the answer for firearm
possession for guns not used in crimes. We already have too many prisons
and too many people in them, and I would not be surprised to learn the
private prison industry also contributes to the NRA.

I have a couple of firearms that should be made illegal, and I wouldn't
object to legislation that made them that way. I'd be more than happy to
have only my .22LR target pistol and rifle and a shotgun. My hunting
buddies, and I have a few of them, don't hunt with semi-auto or
assault-style rifles...they use bolt-action rifles and shotguns.

The NRA should be solely concerned with providing training to help
ensure firearms safety, and with helping to preserve game species and
hunting areas. Pimping for the manufacturers of firearms shouldn't be
allowed.

Spoken by a guy who does see the need for an assault type rifle and
high cap magazines.
You sought every loophole you could find in an otherwise pretty strict
state law to acquire them.
The hypocrisy drips from every word you write.


And why is the 2nd amendment obsolete. Maybe more relevant today than 100
years ago. Which country bragged that they were the first to have complete
gun control? And what happened?