Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   After careful analysis of mass shootings, police advise that members of the public who find themselves in the midst of one should "run away, hide, or fight back." This report was delivered by police spokesmen Capt. Obvious and Detective N.S. Sherlock   (nytimes.com) divider line 231
    More: Obvious, mass shooting, Texas State University, Houston Police Department, Columbine High School, Holocaust survivors, Virginia Tech, Seung-Hui Cho  
•       •       •

2181 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Apr 2013 at 7:53 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



231 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-06 04:30:54 PM  
No praying? According to Facebook this shiat wouldn't happen if we prayed more.
 
2013-04-06 04:34:25 PM  
I thought hiding then fighting back was murder 1 with malice aforethought.
 
2013-04-06 04:35:58 PM  

Krymson Tyde: No praying? According to Facebook this shiat wouldn't happen if we prayed more.


Also armed everyone.
 
2013-04-06 05:09:13 PM  

Fano: I thought hiding then fighting back was murder 1 with malice aforethought.


I don't think it's murder if the attacker is still shooting, regardless of whether or not you hid first.  Maybe he discovered your hiding spot?  Then what?
 
2013-04-06 05:16:05 PM  

RedPhoenix122: Krymson Tyde: No praying? According to Facebook this shiat wouldn't happen if we prayed more.

Also armed everyone.


Yeah, that too. Then we'd be living in a good, honest God-fearing utopia.
 
2013-04-06 05:49:50 PM  

RedPhoenix122: Krymson Tyde: No praying? According to Facebook this shiat wouldn't happen if we prayed more.

Also armed everyone.


Kind of implied with the "fight back" part.

Bringing a knife to a gunfight is ill advised but considered an epic win when it works
 
2013-04-06 05:56:45 PM  
I don't like any of those options.  I need more.
 
2013-04-06 06:18:59 PM  
What happens if the dude tries to shoot up a swimming pool inside of a gun free zone?  Can't fight back without your gun, running is strictly not allowed around the pool, and there's not really anywhere to hide at a pool
 
2013-04-06 06:38:43 PM  

serial_crusher: What happens if the dude tries to shoot up a swimming pool inside of a gun free zone?  Can't fight back without your gun, running is strictly not allowed around the pool, and there's not really anywhere to hide at a pool


Ever tried to shoot something that's under water? Don't hold your breath.
 
2013-04-06 06:49:08 PM  

Krymson Tyde: No praying? According to Facebook this shiat wouldn't happen if we prayed more.


Depends on who you pray to.

fc06.deviantart.net
 
2013-04-06 06:55:06 PM  

Krymson Tyde: RedPhoenix122: Krymson Tyde: No praying? According to Facebook this shiat wouldn't happen if we prayed more.

Also armed everyone.

Yeah, that too. Then we'd be living in a good, honest God-fearing utopia.


Add in racism and you have the South.
 
2013-04-06 06:56:43 PM  

Fano: I thought hiding then fighting back was murder 1 with malice aforethought.


I am no gun nut, but I was taught in the cop school that cover and concealment were the first rules of not being killed during a shootout.  So, if I were to find myself armed and in a mass shooting, first I would scream, cry, shiat myself, hide under a dead body and then maybe, if I had a clear shot, I would shoot at the rampaging gun nut with the semi-auto chugging rounds into the pre-school class.

I am nothing if not a realist.
 
2013-04-06 07:05:26 PM  
I guess that asking one of the dying people to sign a quit claim deed on their property would be a little crass, unless of course you promised to do the right thing with the proceeds. After he or she signs, if you have a gun blow the mfer away.
 
2013-04-06 07:10:22 PM  
I'd like to think I'd do something heroic in a situation like a mass shooting.  But I've never been in one and never want to test my hope.  Frankly, I hope neither I nor anyone I know, or anyone for that matter, are in one.

I also panic well.  I panic very well.
 
2013-04-06 07:15:51 PM  

RedPhoenix122: Krymson Tyde: RedPhoenix122: Krymson Tyde: No praying? According to Facebook this shiat wouldn't happen if we prayed more.

Also armed everyone.

Yeah, that too. Then we'd be living in a good, honest God-fearing utopia.

Add in racism and you have the South.


Yeah, but they're generally not open about it in Facebook. At least my friends aren't.

I do have a few birthers I keep around for comic relief.
 
2013-04-06 07:42:45 PM  

Fano: I thought hiding then fighting back was murder 1 with malice aforethought.


Only in England.
 
2013-04-06 07:56:59 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: I don't like any of those options.  I need more.


Masturbate furiously?
 
Ehh
2013-04-06 07:57:42 PM  
What about waving my arms around, screaming, and pissing myself?

/multitasker
 
2013-04-06 07:57:53 PM  
Nice to have some national media coverage on this. For far too long, what was missing was the emphasis on 'run the fark away'. It was hard to work against the 'lock-downs are the only legit technique we teach' to something more reasonable.

So you can have: Run Hide Fight
Or
Get Out, Hide Out, Take Out (my favourite)
Or
Some other variant.

/getting a kick, etc...
 
2013-04-06 07:58:27 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: I don't like any of those options.  I need more.


Call in a nuclear strike. That would be my option.
 
2013-04-06 08:03:32 PM  

Ehh: What about waving my arms around, screaming, and pissing myself?

/multitasker


Strip naked and run around in circles screaming the lyrics to "Walking on Sunshine" at the top of your lungs. You could piss yourself at the same if you are so inclined.
 
2013-04-06 08:03:47 PM  
And once we ban all guns, the government will issue you all special edition sporks, jab works better than slash.
 
2013-04-06 08:04:03 PM  
If I'm ever caught in a crossfire, I'm going to act like a rabbit.  Most people like rabbits.
 
2013-04-06 08:04:12 PM  
A look at part of the methodology leaves something to be desired:

Search StrategyLexis-Nexis was utilized to search news stories from 2000 to 2010 for active shooterevents in the United States using the following search terms: Active shooter, mass shooting, shooting spree, spree shooting, business shooting, mall shooting, and school shooting .
 
2013-04-06 08:04:57 PM  
I_Am_Weasel
I don't like any of those options. I need more.

Well, since fleeing, hiding and fighting were all covered in the headline, we're pretty much down to
"wait in plain sight for the shooter to pump you full of bullets, hoping to save the others by making the shooter run out of ammo"
 
2013-04-06 08:05:07 PM  
You guys could always poop and vomit on yourselves.  I hear that makes you a less attractive target.
 
2013-04-06 08:05:08 PM  
I've been informed by libs that cowering defenseless in a corner is the best action against someone shooting a gun at you.  Under no circumstances should you perform the action that has gotten all of the mass shooters to stop or commit suicide, arrive with a gun.

The more you know...
 
2013-04-06 08:06:11 PM  

Molavian: You guys could always poop and vomit on yourselves.  I hear that makes you a less attractive target.


I think that applies to rape,  not to shooting someone.
 
2013-04-06 08:08:47 PM  
The N S stands for "No shiat", so the whole phrase would read "No shiat, Sherlock!"  This is a common response of by-standers when an obvious fact is stated.
 
2013-04-06 08:08:56 PM  

Silly Jesus: Molavian: You guys could always poop and vomit on yourselves.  I hear that makes you a less attractive target.

I think that applies to rape,  not to shooting someone.


Damn, that usually costs extra.
 
2013-04-06 08:09:39 PM  

Silly Jesus: I've been informed by libs that cowering defenseless in a corner is the best action against someone shooting a gun at you.  Under no circumstances should you perform the action that has gotten all of the mass shooters to stop or commit suicide, arrive with a gun.

The more you know...


That lacks only the virtue of being true. I mean, listening to you talk is about as informative as listening to Diane Feinstein talk about guns. Well done.
 
2013-04-06 08:10:28 PM  

Silly Jesus: I've been informed by libs that cowering defenseless in a corner is the best action against someone shooting a gun at you.  Under no circumstances should you perform the action that has gotten all of the mass shooters to stop or commit suicide, arrive with a gun.

The more you know...


Because the surest way to limit the body count is to have people return fire.
Because it never goes wrong. Especially when the shooters have extensive training..


Oh wait

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds - caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com /2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds- caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But you know, us libs are just silly folks. You, trying to limit gunfire around kids.
 
2013-04-06 08:11:08 PM  
wow, fark mangled that hyperlink
 
2013-04-06 08:13:35 PM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: If I'm ever caught in a crossfire, I'm going to act like a rabbit.  Most people like rabbits.


OK, so you're going to hop around, twitch your nose, and stare wide-eyed at the gunman; or you're going to pull out a carrot, stick your finger in the end of the barrel, and say "Eh, who ya shootin' at, doc?"

Either would work, but one would be way funnier to watch.
 
2013-04-06 08:13:40 PM  

Ennuipoet: I am no gun nut, but I was taught in the cop school that cover and concealment were the first rules of not being killed during a shootout.


"Concealment", aka how not to be seen.
 
2013-04-06 08:15:08 PM  

vygramul: Silly Jesus: I've been informed by libs that cowering defenseless in a corner is the best action against someone shooting a gun at you.  Under no circumstances should you perform the action that has gotten all of the mass shooters to stop or commit suicide, arrive with a gun.

The more you know...

That lacks only the virtue of being true. I mean, listening to you talk is about as informative as listening to Diane Feinstein talk about guns. Well done.


You must not read many Fark gun threads.

OMG THERE WOULD BE CROSSFIRE!  WE CAN'T HAVE PEOPLE SHOOTING BACK AT AN ARMED ATTACKER!
 
2013-04-06 08:17:33 PM  

Publikwerks: Silly Jesus: I've been informed by libs that cowering defenseless in a corner is the best action against someone shooting a gun at you.  Under no circumstances should you perform the action that has gotten all of the mass shooters to stop or commit suicide, arrive with a gun.

The more you know...

Because the surest way to limit the body count is to have people return fire.
Because it never goes wrong. Especially when the shooters have extensive training..


Oh wait

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds - caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com /2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds- caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But you know, us libs are just silly folks. You, trying to limit gunfire around kids.


So the best defense against an active shooter is to cower?  These cowards either leave or commit suicide once they hear the sirens approaching.  If someone was returning fire they would be shot / flee / off themselves.  Even if someone returning fire hit an innocent person, the cessation of the original shooter would more than make up for it.  Either that or everyone could just cower in a corner like the Newtown kids until the cops show up several minutes later.
 
2013-04-06 08:22:01 PM  

serial_crusher: What happens if the dude tries to shoot up a swimming pool inside of a gun free zone?  Can't fight back without your gun, running is strictly not allowed around the pool, and there's not really anywhere to hide at a pool


That's why I only swim with fat kids.
 
2013-04-06 08:23:10 PM  
This has been part of the Active Shooter training I've received for at least 2 years.  Before then they've never encouraged you to fight back.  Now they do.
 
2013-04-06 08:24:10 PM  
I like how the lib advocating cowering (publicwerks) links to an article about cops shooting up bystanders- not armed citizens shooting bystanders.
So tell me again why we should limit gun ownership to the police only.
 
2013-04-06 08:25:52 PM  
I think standing still, frozen with fear, shiatting and pissing yourself, all while screaming an impossibly high screech is a vastly underrated strategy.
 
2013-04-06 08:26:07 PM  
I remember hearing something on NPR where they were talking to a guy who confronted a mass shooter in a mall. He didn't stop him, but they said after he disrupted the guy by confronting him the guy changed up his tactic and holed up in a store instead which effectively ended it. They said that now police are recommending that the most important you can do is disrupt the attacker's pattern, which is why instead of waiting for backup at school events and setting a perimeter they now just breach ASAP.
 
2013-04-06 08:26:16 PM  
Well, goddammit, apparently my 'break into a song and dance routine' plan isn't a good one then.
 
2013-04-06 08:26:50 PM  
If a lib was in a movie theater that was actively being shot up and laying on the floor next to a guy that said "damn, just my luck, the one day I didn't carry my gun", the lib would actually be thankful that he'd forgotten it.  I just can't understand that.

"I'm being shot at, good thing I and everyone around me is defenseless!"

Lib brains should be studied.
 
2013-04-06 08:26:51 PM  

BigLuca: serial_crusher: What happens if the dude tries to shoot up a swimming pool inside of a gun free zone?  Can't fight back without your gun, running is strictly not allowed around the pool, and there's not really anywhere to hide at a pool

That's why I only swim with fat kids.


Mythbusters tested this. Just go underwater a few feet and hope the shooter wastes his ammo before you come up. Bullets lose all their energy very rapidly in water. Any bullet, rifle or handgun.
 
2013-04-06 08:28:18 PM  

maxalt: I guess that asking one of the dying people to sign a quit claim deed on their property would be a little crass, unless of course you promised to do the right thing with the proceeds. After he or she signs, if you have a gun blow the mfer away.


I would think that going through their pockets for any cash therein, or relieving them of any conspicuously valuable watches or jewelry would be acceptable, though.
 
2013-04-06 08:29:53 PM  

toraque: Well, goddammit, apparently my 'break into a song and dance routine' plan isn't a good one then.


Yeah, that's why so many black guys got killed in 'Nam. The Sarge would yell "Get down!" - and they'd all jump up and start to dance.
 
2013-04-06 08:36:53 PM  

skozlaw: I remember hearing something on NPR where they were talking to a guy who confronted a mass shooter in a mall. He didn't stop him, but they said after he disrupted the guy by confronting him the guy changed up his tactic and holed up in a store instead which effectively ended it. They said that now police are recommending that the most important you can do is disrupt the attacker's pattern, which is why instead of waiting for backup at school events and setting a perimeter they now just breach ASAP.


There's been a few times, to my profit, that I've interrupted someone's plan with my own counter action.

Once some tough looking kids were clearly following me (whilst driving), and after I was sure of it, I stomped on the brakes and pulled onto the shoulder of a busy road. They pulled to the side as if following me through a turn- but there was no turn; and they pulled back onto the road and drove off without stopping.
The other time my wife's employer was obviously setting up to fire my pregnant wife after their busy season was done. So I wrote a letter to them (which my wife passed on as her writing) accusing her supervisor of unlawfully discriminating against a pregnant woman, and got us a $4k payoff to shut up and go away for good.
So yeah , good tactic. Mess up your opponents plan.
/CSB
 
2013-04-06 08:37:39 PM  

Publikwerks: Silly Jesus: I've been informed by libs that cowering defenseless in a corner is the best action against someone shooting a gun at you.  Under no circumstances should you perform the action that has gotten all of the mass shooters to stop or commit suicide, arrive with a gun.

The more you know...

Because the surest way to limit the body count is to have people return fire.
Because it never goes wrong. Especially when the shooters have extensive training..


Oh wait

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds - caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com /2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds- caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But you know, us libs are just silly folks. You, trying to limit gunfire around kids.


Which is exactly why you should leave the heroics to the police. They've trained for this sort of thing, you know.
 
2013-04-06 08:38:32 PM  

serial_crusher: What happens if the dude tries to shoot up a swimming pool inside of a gun free zone?  Can't fight back without your gun, running is strictly not allowed around the pool, and there's not really anywhere to hide at a pool


I would call a "time out," form a a commitee, and get a consensus, and only then proceed.
 
2013-04-06 08:41:42 PM  

Publikwerks: Silly Jesus: I've been informed by libs that cowering defenseless in a corner is the best action against someone shooting a gun at you.  Under no circumstances should you perform the action that has gotten all of the mass shooters to stop or commit suicide, arrive with a gun.

The more you know...

Because the surest way to limit the body count is to have people return fire.
Because it never goes wrong. Especially when the shooters have extensive training..


Oh wait

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds - caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com /2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds- caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But you know, us libs are just silly folks. You, trying to limit gunfire around kids.


But I thought the police were the only ones you wanted to have guns?
 
2013-04-06 08:42:34 PM  
How much taxpayer money was wasted so that high school dropouts could tell us things that we already figured out ourselves?

/atomic facepalm
 
2013-04-06 08:43:20 PM  

Silly Jesus: So the best defense against an active shooter is to cower?


Wow, I guess this is the idiot who needed it boiled down to "Run, Hide, then Fight", And he still doesn't get it.
 
2013-04-06 08:44:03 PM  
Brave, brave Sir Robin....
 
2013-04-06 08:46:34 PM  

dfenstrate: I like how the lib advocating cowering (publicwerks) links to an article about cops shooting up bystanders- not armed citizens shooting bystanders.
So tell me again why we should limit gun ownership to the police only.


Say there's one shooter and 30 potential targets. Which is better: for those 30 potential targets to scatter in 30 different directions, or for them to cluster and start fumbling around for their handguns?

I'm guessing you'll take option B, because hey...30:1 good guys to bad guys, right?

And in terms of sheer numbers, you're quite right.

The only problem with this scenario is that it's predicated on a number of assumptions:

1. That everyone is packing.
2. That they all know how to use those guns, and are prepared to do so.
3. That they will be able to put A, B, and C together in order to effectively and safely return fire.

IF all of those things happen, then of course it was a better idea to have everyone armed and standing their ground. They just prevented a massacre. 

The problem is, the data show that that rarely happens, even among trained personnel. People panic. People fumble. People freak out so much that they fire in any direction, regardless of who is doing the shooting. If soldiers do that in battle, there's just no way you'll convince me that it won't happen even more regularly in a room full of teachers, accountants, hairdressers, and middle management.

So now, instead of one guy with a gun chasing a rapidly scattering herd of potential targets, you have a whole room full of people with guns, and shooting going on every which way. Who do the police arrest? Who is to blame? How do you diffuse that situation?

If history has shown us one thing, it's that the more developed and advanced a society is, the more it disarms itself. The whole US was heavily armed once. It became increasingly less so over time, not because we became cowardly or weak, but because it made sense to do so. Your argument that everyone being armed is better works in the short term, under a specific set of assumptions, but over the long term it must inevitably lose out. How do I know this? Because it already did.
 
2013-04-06 08:48:03 PM  

Silly Jesus: If a lib was in a movie theater that was actively being shot up and laying on the floor next to a guy that said "damn, just my luck, the one day I didn't carry my gun", the lib would actually be thankful that he'd forgotten it.  I just can't understand that.

"I'm being shot at, good thing I and everyone around me is defenseless!"

Lib brains should be studied.


You're kind of an idiot, aren't you?
 
2013-04-06 08:48:44 PM  
I read nothing about pulling the lever and dropping the 16 ton weight.
 
2013-04-06 08:48:46 PM  

Publikwerks: Silly Jesus: I've been informed by libs that cowering defenseless in a corner is the best action against someone shooting a gun at you.  Under no circumstances should you perform the action that has gotten all of the mass shooters to stop or commit suicide, arrive with a gun.

The more you know...

Because the surest way to limit the body count is to have people return fire.
Because it never goes wrong. Especially when the shooters have extensive training..


Oh wait

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds - caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com /2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds- caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But you know, us libs are just silly folks. You, trying to limit gunfire around kids.


There's another conclusion to draw from that: that they were really, really shiatty police officers.
 
2013-04-06 08:51:53 PM  
Personally, I'd rather be able to shoot back. But, it's pretty scary to think that an anybody like me would be armed. Thus, I should probably just cower, shiat myself, and be glad my life insurance is up to date.  YMMV.
 
2013-04-06 08:51:56 PM  
Not long ago, I saw a video about a test to see how well (or if) college students could stop or survive an gunman's attack at a school. All the student participants were taken out to the range, taught how to use the handguns, etc. All felt confident that they could stop the attacker. But when the simulation went live, the students either panicked, froze or fumbled with the weapon and everybody in the scenario got shot.
 
2013-04-06 08:52:23 PM  

Surpheon: Silly Jesus: So the best defense against an active shooter is to cower?

Wow, I guess this is the idiot who needed it boiled down to "Run, Hide, then Fight", And he still doesn't get it.


Potato says what?
 
2013-04-06 08:53:52 PM  
I wonder if everyone carried a (legal) air horn and, upon seeing a shooter with a gun, everyone directed them all at the shooter at the same time. It may be unbearable to the point of having to drop the gun.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-06 08:55:37 PM  

Silly Jesus: Surpheon: Silly Jesus: So the best defense against an active shooter is to cower?

Wow, I guess this is the idiot who needed it boiled down to "Run, Hide, then Fight", And he still doesn't get it.

Potato says what?


If possible, yes. Soldiers do it all the time. They're called 'foxholes', and 'trenches'. 

It's simple: take cover, assess the situation, maneuver to disengage, retreat to await better-armed backup. It's standard small unit tactics when faced with superior firepower. Is that really all that difficult or cowardly to consider?
 
2013-04-06 08:56:14 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: I don't like any of those options.  I need more.


You could dance if you want to.
 
2013-04-06 08:56:35 PM  

One Bad Apple: RedPhoenix122: Krymson Tyde: No praying? According to Facebook this shiat wouldn't happen if we prayed more.

Also armed everyone.

Kind of implied with the "fight back" part.

Bringing a knife to a gunfight is ill advised but considered an epic win when it works



Outcomes determine values. Always.

Run a fake punt, punter gets creamed? Fire the special teams coach.
Punter runs for TD? Handjobs for everyone, including the ushers.
 
2013-04-06 08:56:42 PM  

Troy McClure: I_Am_Weasel: I don't like any of those options.  I need more.

You could dance if you want to.


And leave his friends behind?
 
2013-04-06 08:56:51 PM  

whistleridge: dfenstrate: I like how the lib advocating cowering (publicwerks) links to an article about cops shooting up bystanders- not armed citizens shooting bystanders.
So tell me again why we should limit gun ownership to the police only.

Say there's one shooter and 30 potential targets. Which is better: for those 30 potential targets to scatter in 30 different directions, or for them to cluster and start fumbling around for their handguns?

I'm guessing you'll take option B, because hey...30:1 good guys to bad guys, right?

And in terms of sheer numbers, you're quite right.

The only problem with this scenario is that it's predicated on a number of assumptions:

1. That everyone is packing.
2. That they all know how to use those guns, and are prepared to do so.
3. That they will be able to put A, B, and C together in order to effectively and safely return fire.

IF all of those things happen, then of course it was a better idea to have everyone armed and standing their ground. They just prevented a massacre. 

The problem is, the data show that that rarely happens, even among trained personnel. People panic. People fumble. People freak out so much that they fire in any direction, regardless of who is doing the shooting. If soldiers do that in battle, there's just no way you'll convince me that it won't happen even more regularly in a room full of teachers, accountants, hairdressers, and middle management.

So now, instead of one guy with a gun chasing a rapidly scattering herd of potential targets, you have a whole room full of people with guns, and shooting going on every which way. Who do the police arrest? Who is to blame? How do you diffuse that situation?

If history has shown us one thing, it's that the more developed and advanced a society is, the more it disarms itself. The whole US was heavily armed once. It became increasingly less so over time, not because we became cowardly or weak, but because it made sense to do so. Your argument that everyone being armed is ...


Your scenario works in an open field, sort of, but in reality these people aren't scattering.  They are sitting ducks in a theater, in classrooms, in an office.  If they were able to run in all directions then of course it would be stupid to stand in a circle and draw weapons.  But, since we are dealing with reality here, I don't see the downside to the teacher in Newtown laying on a pile of children having a gun when the guy came through the door.  What extra harm could that teacher have possibly done?  The kids were cornered, they had chalk and erasers, and you're preaching about advanced societies.  If my child had been in that room I'd have loved for the teacher to have had at least a chance of doing something with a gun.  Hell, if the teacher shot 5 kids and then the shooter things would have still been better overall.

Bring your analysis back to the reality of people being trapped in rooms in buildings and try again.
 
2013-04-06 08:57:25 PM  

Troy McClure: I_Am_Weasel: I don't like any of those options.  I need more.

You could dance if you want to.


What, and leave his friends behind?
 
2013-04-06 08:57:43 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Silly Jesus: If a lib was in a movie theater that was actively being shot up and laying on the floor next to a guy that said "damn, just my luck, the one day I didn't carry my gun", the lib would actually be thankful that he'd forgotten it.  I just can't understand that.

"I'm being shot at, good thing I and everyone around me is defenseless!"

Lib brains should be studied.

You're kind of an idiot, aren't you?


Awww, and I had you Farkied as "Smart."

What makes me an idiot?
 
2013-04-06 08:58:35 PM  
And in not one of the mass shootings over the past 30 years was it stopped by a bystander with a gun. Tackling after running out of ammo, yes. Police intervention, yes. Shooter kills self. Never by a person carrying.
 
2013-04-06 08:59:03 PM  

Lsherm: Publikwerks: Silly Jesus: I've been informed by libs that cowering defenseless in a corner is the best action against someone shooting a gun at you.  Under no circumstances should you perform the action that has gotten all of the mass shooters to stop or commit suicide, arrive with a gun.

The more you know...

Because the surest way to limit the body count is to have people return fire.
Because it never goes wrong. Especially when the shooters have extensive training..


Oh wait

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds - caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com /2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds- caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But you know, us libs are just silly folks. You, trying to limit gunfire around kids.

There's another conclusion to draw from that: that they were really, really shiatty police officers.


Either that or knowing something about firing in stressful situations and the fact that even someone shooting 100% at the range is only 40% accurate when in a real life scenario.  You know, either or.  Hurr durr.
 
2013-04-06 08:59:54 PM  

WordyGrrl: Not long ago, I saw a video about a test to see how well (or if) college students could stop or survive an gunman's attack at a school. All the student participants were taken out to the range, taught how to use the handguns, etc. All felt confident that they could stop the attacker. But when the simulation went live, the students either panicked, froze or fumbled with the weapon and everybody in the scenario got shot.


Umm, I saw something similar, without the everyone getting shot part.  Got a link to that?
 
2013-04-06 09:00:51 PM  
i474.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-06 09:01:18 PM  

whistleridge: Silly Jesus: Surpheon: Silly Jesus: So the best defense against an active shooter is to cower?

Wow, I guess this is the idiot who needed it boiled down to "Run, Hide, then Fight", And he still doesn't get it.

Potato says what?

If possible, yes. Soldiers do it all the time. They're called 'foxholes', and 'trenches'. 

It's simple: take cover, assess the situation, maneuver to disengage, retreat to await better-armed backup. It's standard small unit tactics when faced with superior firepower. Is that really all that difficult or cowardly to consider?


Apply that to the classroom full of kids in Newtown.  Durrrr.  Take cover behind the chalkboard?  Maneuver around the toy shelf to disengage?  Retreat to the corner to await better armed backup?

Wow.
 
2013-04-06 09:01:25 PM  
Wait, so "break into a choreographed dance routine" didn't make the list?
 
2013-04-06 09:02:41 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: And in not one of the mass shootings over the past 30 years was it stopped by a bystander with a gun. Tackling after running out of ammo, yes. Police intervention, yes. Shooter kills self. Never by a person carrying.


With the exception of two or three instances, all of the mass shootings over the past 30 years have been in places where guns were prohibited.

Think that could have something to do with your nifty little statistic?
 
2013-04-06 09:03:13 PM  

zvoidx: I wonder if everyone carried a (legal) air horn and, upon seeing a shooter with a gun, everyone directed them all at the shooter at the same time. It may be unbearable to the point of having to drop the gun.


While obviously skewed for humor, it does bring up the option of greater allowance of non-lethal weapons. 30 cans of bear spray on 1 guy with a gun is in reality likely to end with fewer dead bodies than a bunch of untrained civilians with guns - who basically have never stopped a mass shooting. I'm sure there's an exception out there, but typically it's an ex-policeman/solider if it stopped by a 'good guy with a gun' (or a hero who tackles the shooter during a reload).

As for home defense, if I felt I need it I'd take a can of bear spray (well, the human equivalent) over a gun any day, but I'm one of those over educated elites who actually cares about reality (statistically, guns are most useful for letting teens turn a short shiatty mood into an immediate successful suicide)(or as toys for gun fans - their actual most common use). And yes, if everyone relied on a fire extinguisher of pepper spray it would be ineffective, but as it stands pretty much only official SWAT wear protection when busting in a house.
 
2013-04-06 09:04:58 PM  

Publikwerks: Silly Jesus: I've been informed by libs that cowering defenseless in a corner is the best action against someone shooting a gun at you.  Under no circumstances should you perform the action that has gotten all of the mass shooters to stop or commit suicide, arrive with a gun.

The more you know...

Because the surest way to limit the body count is to have people return fire.
Because it never goes wrong. Especially when the shooters have extensive training..


Oh wait

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds - caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com /2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds- caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But you know, us libs are just silly folks. You, trying to limit gunfire around kids.


That was caused by the police.  Please link to a story where a citizen CCW holder exacerbated an incident by firing their weapon, hitting innocent bystanders.
 
2013-04-06 09:05:01 PM  
Fight back with what? Harsh language?
 
2013-04-06 09:07:00 PM  
Now is the time we need to disarm law-abiding citizens.
 
2013-04-06 09:09:13 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: And in not one of the mass shootings over the past 30 years was it stopped by a bystander with a gun. Tackling after running out of ammo, yes. Police intervention, yes. Shooter kills self. Never by a person carrying.


The Clackamas mall shooter offed himself after a CCW drew on him.  He was in the midst of monkeying around with the charging handle on his AR after one of those evil, scary drum mags failed like they usually do.

So yes, the reason CCW holders dont stop many spree shooters is because the spree shooter is usually stopped after 1 or 2 killed.
 
2013-04-06 09:09:23 PM  

DrExplosion: Troy McClure: I_Am_Weasel: I don't like any of those options.  I need more.

You could dance if you want to.

What, and leave his friends behind?


Well, his friends don't dance, so their no friends of mine.
 
2013-04-06 09:10:01 PM  

Lsherm: Fano: I thought hiding then fighting back was murder 1 with malice aforethought.

I don't think it's murder if the attacker is still shooting, regardless of whether or not you hid first.  Maybe he discovered your hiding spot?  Then what?


Then "he takes the gun from your hand and shoots you with it".
 
2013-04-06 09:12:20 PM  
Think what you want.
I don't want to get killed from lack of being able to shoot back.
 
2013-04-06 09:14:50 PM  

Silly Jesus: Your scenario works in an open field, sort of, but in reality these people aren't scattering.  They are sitting ducks in a theater, in classrooms, in an office.  If they were able to run in all directions then of course it would be stupid to stand in a circle and draw weapons.  But, since we are dealing with reality here, I don't see the downside to the teacher in Newtown laying on a pile of children having a gun when the guy came through the door.  What extra harm could that teacher have possibly done?  The kids were cornered, they had chalk and erasers, and you're preaching about advanced societies.  If my child had been in that room I'd have loved for the teacher to have had at least a chance of doing something with a gun.  Hell, if the teacher shot 5 kids and then the shooter things would have still been better overall.

Bring your analysis back to the reality of people being trapped in rooms in buildings and try again.


If you're trapped in a room, it doesn't matter if you're armed or not. If 30 armed people are sitting in a room and someone walks in and opens fire with a superior weapon, even if those 30 people could all give Wild Bill Hickock a run for his money, a few of them are still going to die. And I don't know about you, but I do NOT want to be in a room with 30+ people opening fire with a weapon. Friendly fire is inevitable, even if it's just ruptured eardrums. 

Ditto for Newtown. Maybe that teacher laying on the pile is the Olympic champion of Shooting Accurately While Lying In Terror On Top of A Pile Of Terrified Children, and she kills him. More likely, she still dies. She would have been outgunned either way, and at a distinct tactical disadvantage, at the very least; if she pulled it off, it would have been an upset. 

But on the other 109500 days of her 30 year career where there  isn'ta shooter in the school, she has to constantly worry about simultaneously keeping the thing cleaned, loaded, and ready, but not ever where a kid can accidentally get hold of it. Spend a little time in an elementary classroom, and you'll realize that the odds of ANYONE being that on the ball are slim to none. And if they are, their teaching must inevitably suffer.

And that brings up the huge and inherent flaw in the 'everyone armed, all the time' argument: the victims are necessarily all on the defense. I don't know about you, but when I'm in a theater, I'm watching the movie, not the crowd; if a potential shooter waits until a very tense moment, there's not a person in the room watching to see if they're going to be shot. If the shooter is at all competent, 10+ die, minimum. And in a classroom setting, if a teacher hears loud bangs, she's going to concerned with getting the kids under control, not with whipping out her Colt and going shoot at someone toting an assault rifle. 

Your scenario works just fine, if all teachers are trained soldiers or police officers, or have similar psych profiles. But the don't. And firearm accidents are a small but significant cause of death in the US: 600 at last count, or 25 times the death toll at Sandy Hook. If every teacher in every classroom in the country is packing, that number must inevitably rise. And barring a truly tragic shooting, it must surely exceed the potential number of lives 'saved' by the deterrence of those guns. 

So to sum up: in an Aurora-type situation, a bunch of people were going to die either way. In a Newtown-type situation, fewer might have died, they might not have, depending on who was the better shot. In a Columbine-type situation, it likely wouldn't have helped at all - if security guards couldn't stop it, there's no reason to think armed teachers would have done better.

Bottom line: if you CAN get away, you SHOULD. Armed or not. Civilians running  towardsthe gunfire is rarely if ever going to help the situation, and it's certainly going to put more targets in front of the shooter. And you don't arm and train people and then tell them to run away. Your plan puts more people in the line of fire, and that's a bad thing.
 
2013-04-06 09:15:10 PM  

Silly Jesus: Either that or knowing something about firing in stressful situations and the fact that even someone shooting 100% at the range is only 40% accurate when in a real life scenario.  You know, either or.  Hurr durr.


Of course.  A trained professional can only shoot 40%.  That is why a professional needs 15 rounds in his guns.

A homeowner needs no more than 5 rounds, because why would he ever need more than 5 rounds for anything.  A homeowner is one shot, one kill.
 
2013-04-06 09:17:02 PM  

o5iiawah: Please link to a story where a citizen CCW holder exacerbated an incident by firing their weapon, hitting innocent bystanders.


I'm more concerned about the gun nuts that flip out and murder innocent people ranging from an exchange student trick or treating to someone lost and turning around in the road outside or the "responsible gun owners" who are so sloppy securing their guns that they are easier to steal than a car radio. (Hit google if you don't recall those incidents.)
 
2013-04-06 09:17:56 PM  

Silly Jesus: whistleridge: Silly Jesus: Surpheon: Silly Jesus: So the best defense against an active shooter is to cower?

Wow, I guess this is the idiot who needed it boiled down to "Run, Hide, then Fight", And he still doesn't get it.

Potato says what?

If possible, yes. Soldiers do it all the time. They're called 'foxholes', and 'trenches'. 

It's simple: take cover, assess the situation, maneuver to disengage, retreat to await better-armed backup. It's standard small unit tactics when faced with superior firepower. Is that really all that difficult or cowardly to consider?

Apply that to the classroom full of kids in Newtown.  Durrrr.  Take cover behind the chalkboard?  Maneuver around the toy shelf to disengage?  Retreat to the corner to await better armed backup?

Wow.


Tell you what: we'll go to a local classroom. I'll shut you in it with a bunch of terrified kids, and give you a .38. Then I'm going to leave. At some point in the next 10 - 60 minutes - you do not know when - I'm going to jump in with a fully loaded assault rifle. 

Do you stay and take your chances? Or do you get the fark out of Dodge? Because historically and statistically speaking, you're faaaaar more likely to be a dead man if you stay, to say nothing of those kids.
 
2013-04-06 09:18:38 PM  

Ennuipoet: I am no gun nut, but I was taught in the cop school that cover and concealment were the first rules of not being killed during a shootout. So, if I were to find myself armed and in a mass shooting, first I would scream, cry, shiat myself, hide under a dead body and then maybe, if I had a clear shot, I would shoot at the rampaging gun nut with the semi-auto chugging rounds into the pre-school class.

I am nothing if not a realist.



THIS!

A mass shooter has a bulletproof vest, semi-automatic weapons etc and all you have is a dinky little concealable weapon. You send one bullet his way and he sends a dozen your way, focusing the fire on you.
 
2013-04-06 09:20:26 PM  

whistleridge: Silly Jesus: Your scenario works in an open field, sort of, but in reality these people aren't scattering.  They are sitting ducks in a theater, in classrooms, in an office.  If they were able to run in all directions then of course it would be stupid to stand in a circle and draw weapons.  But, since we are dealing with reality here, I don't see the downside to the teacher in Newtown laying on a pile of children having a gun when the guy came through the door.  What extra harm could that teacher have possibly done?  The kids were cornered, they had chalk and erasers, and you're preaching about advanced societies.  If my child had been in that room I'd have loved for the teacher to have had at least a chance of doing something with a gun.  Hell, if the teacher shot 5 kids and then the shooter things would have still been better overall.

Bring your analysis back to the reality of people being trapped in rooms in buildings and try again.

If you're trapped in a room, it doesn't matter if you're armed or not. If 30 armed people are sitting in a room and someone walks in and opens fire with a superior weapon, even if those 30 people could all give Wild Bill Hickock a run for his money, a few of them are still going to die. And I don't know about you, but I do NOT want to be in a room with 30+ people opening fire with a weapon. Friendly fire is inevitable, even if it's just ruptured eardrums. 

Ditto for Newtown. Maybe that teacher laying on the pile is the Olympic champion of Shooting Accurately While Lying In Terror On Top of A Pile Of Terrified Children, and she kills him. More likely, she still dies. She would have been outgunned either way, and at a distinct tactical disadvantage, at the very least; if she pulled it off, it would have been an upset. 

But on the other 109500 days of her 30 year career where there  isn'ta shooter in the school, she has to constantly worry about simultaneously keeping the thing cleaned, loaded, and ready, but not ever where a kid can ...


You're missing a huge part of this.  The shooters tend to be cowards.  In a mall shooting the shooter ran when an armed citizen engaged.  The shooters generally off themselves when they hear sirens in the distance.  It's not going to be a sustained shootout.  The shooter is going to most likely off himself or run away when met with any resistance.  He's not going to just stand there and engage.  For your analysis to make sense, you have to assume that he's just standing there taking fire.
 
2013-04-06 09:21:32 PM  
whistleridge:  The whole US was heavily armed once. It became increasingly less so over time, not because we became cowardly or weak, but because it made sense . .

huh?
 
2013-04-06 09:21:51 PM  
As a professional internet tough guy, I would stare the bastard down, make a smart-ass remark, and put a bullet through his forehead without raising my pulse.
 
2013-04-06 09:22:08 PM  

whistleridge: Silly Jesus: whistleridge: Silly Jesus: Surpheon: Silly Jesus: So the best defense against an active shooter is to cower?

Wow, I guess this is the idiot who needed it boiled down to "Run, Hide, then Fight", And he still doesn't get it.

Potato says what?

If possible, yes. Soldiers do it all the time. They're called 'foxholes', and 'trenches'. 

It's simple: take cover, assess the situation, maneuver to disengage, retreat to await better-armed backup. It's standard small unit tactics when faced with superior firepower. Is that really all that difficult or cowardly to consider?

Apply that to the classroom full of kids in Newtown.  Durrrr.  Take cover behind the chalkboard?  Maneuver around the toy shelf to disengage?  Retreat to the corner to await better armed backup?

Wow.

Tell you what: we'll go to a local classroom. I'll shut you in it with a bunch of terrified kids, and give you a .38. Then I'm going to leave. At some point in the next 10 - 60 minutes - you do not know when - I'm going to jump in with a fully loaded assault rifle. 

Do you stay and take your chances? Or do you get the fark out of Dodge? Because historically and statistically speaking, you're faaaaar more likely to be a dead man if you stay, to say nothing of those kids.


Let me get this straight.  You're suggesting I get the hell out of Dodge, how, exactly?  I'm in a classroom cowering in the corner with the kids and a guy with a gun is in the doorway and my options are what?  Teleport?
 
2013-04-06 09:23:11 PM  

mr0x: Ennuipoet: I am no gun nut, but I was taught in the cop school that cover and concealment were the first rules of not being killed during a shootout. So, if I were to find myself armed and in a mass shooting, first I would scream, cry, shiat myself, hide under a dead body and then maybe, if I had a clear shot, I would shoot at the rampaging gun nut with the semi-auto chugging rounds into the pre-school class.

I am nothing if not a realist.


THIS!

A mass shooter has a bulletproof vest, semi-automatic weapons etc and all you have is a dinky little concealable weapon. You send one bullet his way and he sends a dozen your way, focusing the fire on you.


Because sirens in the distance cause him to off himself but he would stand there and return fire if being directly engaged.  Riiiiiight.
 
2013-04-06 09:26:56 PM  

Deep Contact: Fight back with what? Harsh language?


Your body.

The best response is to interrupt the shooter by any means possible.  Hit him with anything you can throw, even throw yourself at him like a human wave. Rush him and claw, bite, or grab anything you can.  These guys plan to walk empty halls and shoot cowering victims, don't create an easy target.
This is likely bad for any one person's chances at survival, but in the grand scheme of things it can reduce a 20 victim bodycount to a 2 victim one.

/Because I believe that rushing or running is better than hiding, I've always had mixed views on the whole idea of lockdown.
/It works so long as the guy is locked out, but if he gets into a classroom you lose a dozen people.
/If everyone ran screaming past him, you'd probably half that number at the least.
 
2013-04-06 09:27:52 PM  

Silly Jesus: If a lib was in a movie theater that was actively being shot up


Already your premise is wrong. No self-respecting smug leftist would be caught dead (you should pardon the expression) in a suburban theatre showing mass-appeal pap. That's for the sheeple. Libs only go to them fancy independent thee-atres with the subtitles and the French and the lesbians with hairy armpits and Michael Moore.
 
2013-04-06 09:29:04 PM  

Surpheon: zvoidx: I wonder if everyone carried a (legal) air horn and, upon seeing a shooter with a gun, everyone directed them all at the shooter at the same time. It may be unbearable to the point of having to drop the gun.

While obviously skewed for humor, it does bring up the option of greater allowance of non-lethal weapons. 30 cans of bear spray on 1 guy with a gun is in reality likely to end with fewer dead bodies than a bunch of untrained civilians with guns - who basically have never stopped a mass shooting. I'm sure there's an exception out there, but typically it's an ex-policeman/solider if it stopped by a 'good guy with a gun' (or a hero who tackles the shooter during a reload).

As for home defense, if I felt I need it I'd take a can of bear spray (well, the human equivalent) over a gun any day, but I'm one of those over educated elites who actually cares about reality (statistically, guns are most useful for letting teens turn a short shiatty mood into an immediate successful suicide)(or as toys for gun fans - their actual most common use). And yes, if everyone relied on a fire extinguisher of pepper spray it would be ineffective, but as it stands pretty much only official SWAT wear protection when busting in a house.


First, I would like to argue against your "reality" of home defense.Pepper spray is an unreliable method of subduing an attacker, particularly the sort of junkies who think breaking into an occupied residence is a good idea. The most reliable way to stop someone is to make them dead, and guns do a fantastic job of allowing the physically inferior to do so without training obsessively.

Now, I actually rather like the idea of the mass bear mace counterattack, if only for the visual. And to be fair, it probably would be more effective in the hands of untrained civilians than giving them guns. A mass shooter is also unlikely to be on drugs, so a torrent of pepper spray heading in his direction would probably shut things down pretty quickly. A few asthmatics in the area might have to be hospitalized, but it's better than the alternative.

There's the fact that you'd never get everyone to carry pepper spray, and the possibility that increased availability of nonlethal weaponry may increase the likelihood of assaults (no statistics to back this up, but I believe police departments encounter this issue with tasers and the like) because of the perception that it is "harmless," but this situation is never going to be anything but hypothetical anyway. So I'll just enjoy the thought of a classroom opening up on the next Cho with a torrent of bear mace.
 
2013-04-06 09:30:03 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: Lsherm: Fano: I thought hiding then fighting back was murder 1 with malice aforethought.

I don't think it's murder if the attacker is still shooting, regardless of whether or not you hid first.  Maybe he discovered your hiding spot?  Then what?

Then "he takes the gun from your hand and shoots you with it".


I always get a kick out of that argument.
Maybe he takes a weapon out of my hands, but it is empty, and he is full of holes and weighted down with lead.
 
2013-04-06 09:32:25 PM  

Silly Jesus: You're missing a huge part of this.  The shooters tend to be cowards.  In a mall shooting the shooter ran when an armed citizen engaged.  The shooters generally off themselves when they hear sirens in the distance.  It's not going to be a sustained shootout.  The shooter is going to most likely off himself or run away when met with any resistance.  He's not going to just stand there and engage.  For your analysis to make sense, you have to assume that he's just standing there taking fire.


You mean like these guys? Or these? Or this guy (he shot up a police station...very cowardly)? These two yellow bellies? This guy?

You're making the HUGE assumption that a certain profile will always apply, even though there are literally centuries of evidence proving otherwise. And worse, you're wanting the legislature to mandate that other people stake their life on that assumption. 

The truth is, if you're unstable enough to grab a small arsenal and wade into a crowd of civilians with the intent of taking out as many as you can, you're probably on a death ride and you know it. But maybe not. Maybe you think you can get away. Either way, what you're certainly NOT is stable. Both oars are not in the water, if you catch my drift. 

Maybe the guy that shoots up your church tomorrow IS a coward, and he offs himself at the first sign of resistance. Or maybe, you pulling a gun makes him think 'fark it...if I'm going to hell anyway, I may as well take as many with me as I can', and he starts emptying into the little kids and old ladies that he previously hadn't been shooting at. You have no way of knowing.

Your statement above only stands in hindsight. Yes, you maybe could have done something at Newtown, because Lanza was kind of a wimpy kid. But if you and 5 or 6 other civilians had applied the same logic at the North Hollywood shootout, you and 5 or 6 other folks would now be dead. Unless you ran away at the first chance you got. Or hid.
 
2013-04-06 09:33:33 PM  
So using my mobile phone to get video to post to YouTube is right out then?
 
2013-04-06 09:34:25 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: As a professional internet tough guy, I would stare the bastard down, make a smart-ass remark, and put a bullet through his forehead without raising my pulse.


If you were a real internet tough guy, your intelligence and moral superiority by themselves would be enough to overpower the shooter. All you would have to do is point out to him that the second amendment to the Constitution was the illegitimate creation of a bunch of white male slaveowners and that you and he were in a "gun free zone" -- and the gunman would instantly drop his weapon in shame and flee the building.
 
2013-04-06 09:35:26 PM  

Silly Jesus: Let me get this straight.  You're suggesting I get the hell out of Dodge, how, exactly?  I'm in a classroom cowering in the corner with the kids and a guy with a gun is in the doorway and my options are what?  Teleport?


If policy is 'when you hear gunshots and there's an exit away from them, TAKE IT', you live. If not, you die. Maybe you die with a gun in your hand, maybe you die empty-handed, but odds are you die either way. That's why you're called a 'victim'. 

You can NEVER prevent someone from being victimized. It's impossible. You will never be totally safe. Accept it. 

And then look at the odds: if every teacher in this country has a gun in the classroom, more kids will die by accident from those guns than will ever be saved by them, by a factor of ten. It's a statistical inevitability.
 
2013-04-06 09:37:25 PM  

Silly Jesus: Let me get this straight.  You're suggesting I get the hell out of Dodge, how, exactly?  I'm in a classroom cowering in the corner with the kids and a guy with a gun is in the doorway and my options are what?  Teleport?


Reading the article,

Hiding turns out to be the WORST option.  Two classrooms tried that, nearly all died.

A teacher who was also a holocaust survivor advised that the students go out the windows while he held the door shot.  Result:  He died, but "many of the students survived", only 3 hurt by gunfire.

Another classroom they barricaded the door with a heavy desk, ALL survived there.

One thing about carrying - I'm not going to suggest 100% carry rate.  Let's say it's 10% or so - 3 people armed in a 30 person classroom.  While some spree killers have worn armor, none have worn head armor that I know of.  Even with armor, being shot HURTS.

The moment a defender deploys his or her firearm in defense, it has transformed from a shooting gallery - accuracy near 100%, into a firefight - accuracy around 15%, 40% for highly trained individuals.  That ALONE will save lives.  You're also depending on the spree killer being able to accurately spot and engage those 3 people out of 30.

He's still likely to shoot a few people, but it's generally going to cut down on the bodies quite a bit.
 
2013-04-06 09:38:35 PM  

DrExplosion: The most reliable way to stop someone is to make them dead, and guns do a fantastic job of allowing the physically inferior to do so without training obsessively


No.
 
2013-04-06 09:40:26 PM  

Gulper Eel: Libs only go to them fancy independent thee-atres with the subtitles and the French and the lesbians with hairy armpits and Michael Moore.


lel lh3.ggpht.com
 
2013-04-06 09:40:48 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: whistleridge:  The whole US was heavily armed once. It became increasingly less so over time, not because we became cowardly or weak, but because it made sense . .

huh?


It's not that hard a concept. Consider:

200 years ago, probably every non-black adult male in the United States owned at least one gun. 100 years ago, it was probably 60 or 70%. Today, it's just over 30%. And those 30% are very disproportionately skewed towards whites and towards certain geographic regions of the country. And if the tendency wasn't towards the few remaining gun owners to have veritable arsenals, the overall number would be way down too. 

In short: as we have pacified and tamed our land, gun have become less and less necessary, and people no longer have them because they no longer need them - the damn things are expensive, dangerous, a pain in the ass to maintain, and for 95% of the population, utterly unnecessary. In short, it made sense to disarm.
 
2013-04-06 09:40:53 PM  

mr0x: Ennuipoet: I am no gun nut, but I was taught in the cop school that cover and concealment were the first rules of not being killed during a shootout. So, if I were to find myself armed and in a mass shooting, first I would scream, cry, shiat myself, hide under a dead body and then maybe, if I had a clear shot, I would shoot at the rampaging gun nut with the semi-auto chugging rounds into the pre-school class.

I am nothing if not a realist.


THIS!

A mass shooter has a bulletproof vest, semi-automatic weapons etc and all you have is a dinky little concealable weapon. You send one bullet his way and he sends a dozen your way, focusing the fire on you.


I know you're trying to seem smart by throwing around buzzwords like "semi-automatic" and "concealable," but you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. If you did, you'd realize that the majority of modern handguns are also semi-automatic, and that even a century-old double-action revolver has the same effective rate of fire - keep pulling the trigger and exactly one bullet will come out each time until there are no more bullets.

"Bulletproof" vests are also incredibly rare even in mass shootings. I put the word "bulletproof" in quotes because the soft body armor worn by police can only stop (most) pistol rounds. Even the least-powerful of rifle cartridges (such as the 5.56 round fired by the terrifying AR-15) can easily penetrate this armor. Only ballistic plates can reliably stop rifle rounds, and those are both heavy and extremely expensive.

In the event that the shooter does have decent body armor, yes. A concealed handgun is unlikely to kill him by hitting him in the torso. But bullets can still cause blunt trauma, and hoping for a headshot is still better than hoping he runs out of ammo before he gets to you.
 
2013-04-06 09:40:59 PM  

DrExplosion: First, I would like to argue against your "reality" of home defense.Pepper spray is an unreliable method of subduing an attacker


Actually, the junkies are the ones I'd expect it to work best against. Gang bangers planning to do a real home invasion may bull through, but a junkie or high school delinquent would get the fark out of dodge and find a better target.

But my reality was more on the fact that a gun in my house is more likely to be used by one of my kids to commit suicide than to ever scare off an attacker (far more likely in the low-crime neighborhood I live in). And that's ignoring the second-tier statistic that it'd be used to accidentally kill a family member mistaken for a home invader.

I would like to see other non-leathal weapons legalized too. I'm pissed that in NYC I can't carry a taser. I'm baffled as to why they're illegal. Hell, as options go I'd rather be mugged by a guy with a taser than a knife.
 
2013-04-06 09:41:53 PM  

o5iiawah: Princess Ryans Knickers: And in not one of the mass shootings over the past 30 years was it stopped by a bystander with a gun. Tackling after running out of ammo, yes. Police intervention, yes. Shooter kills self. Never by a person carrying.

The Clackamas mall shooter offed himself after a CCW drew on him.  He was in the midst of monkeying around with the charging handle on his AR after one of those evil, scary drum mags failed like they usually do.

So yes, the reason CCW holders dont stop many spree shooters is because the spree shooter is usually stopped after 1 or 2 killed.


Yeah, I remember him.  His name was Nick Meli, and the only person who could verify the story was... Nick Meli.  Confirmation bias really farks with your critical thinking skills, doesn't it?  Retard.
 
2013-04-06 09:43:09 PM  

Lsherm: Fano: I thought hiding then fighting back was murder 1 with malice aforethought.

I don't think it's murder if the attacker is still shooting, regardless of whether or not you hid first.  Maybe he discovered your hiding spot?  Then what?


Well then, you get what you deserve. God hates campers.
 
2013-04-06 09:44:07 PM  

Firethorn: One thing about carrying - I'm not going to suggest 100% carry rate.  Let's say it's 10% or so - 3 people armed in a 30 person classroom.


What do you expect the annual accidental body count to be from that level of carrying? Bearing in mind that wall-to-wall coverage aside, school shooting are vanishingly rare, I really don't see how you could suggest with a straight face that accidental shootings wouldn't be an order of magnitude worse if you're putting a million guns in classrooms.
 
2013-04-06 09:44:57 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: Lsherm: Fano: I thought hiding then fighting back was murder 1 with malice aforethought.

I don't think it's murder if the attacker is still shooting, regardless of whether or not you hid first.  Maybe he discovered your hiding spot?  Then what?

Then "he takes the gun from your hand and shoots you with it".


That's why I don't fark with the jesus
 
2013-04-06 09:45:22 PM  

Surpheon: DrExplosion: First, I would like to argue against your "reality" of home defense.Pepper spray is an unreliable method of subduing an attacker

Actually, the junkies are the ones I'd expect it to work best against. Gang bangers planning to do a real home invasion may bull through, but a junkie or high school delinquent would get the fark out of dodge and find a better target.

But my reality was more on the fact that a gun in my house is more likely to be used by one of my kids to commit suicide than to ever scare off an attacker (far more likely in the low-crime neighborhood I live in). And that's ignoring the second-tier statistic that it'd be used to accidentally kill a family member mistaken for a home invader.

I would like to see other non-leathal weapons legalized too. I'm pissed that in NYC I can't carry a taser. I'm baffled as to why they're illegal. Hell, as options go I'd rather be mugged by a guy with a taser than a knife.


Hell, if you just give up your valuables to the first person who demands them, it wouldn't matter if they had a knife, taser or a flame thrower.
 
2013-04-06 09:46:33 PM  
Is it just me or does Silly Jesus basically just run around shiatting in every thread just to be a total dickhole?
 
2013-04-06 09:46:37 PM  

whistleridge: And then look at the odds: if every teacher in this country has a gun in the classroom, more kids will die by accident from those guns than will ever be saved by them, by a factor of ten. It's a statistical inevitability.


I certainly wouldn't arm every teacher.  I'd make it a bit like armed airline pilots.  Even a 1% carry rate will affect the decisions of a mass shooter.  I'd certainly encourage them to be trained.
 
2013-04-06 09:48:10 PM  
mr0x:A mass shooter has a bulletproof vest, semi-automatic weapons etc and all you have is a dinky little concealable weapon. You send one bullet his way and he sends a dozen your way,

I don't think you are talking out of your ass, but it sure sounds that way.  There are some serious CCWs around.
 
2013-04-06 09:48:30 PM  
Spirit Hammer:
Hell, if you just give up your valuables to the first person who demands them, it wouldn't matter if they had a knife, taser or a flame thrower.

Valuables? Of course I'd give up my valuable if I was mugged by someone making a credible threat of severe bodily injury. By credible, I mean more than some tough guy in a relatively busy parking lot threatening to fark me up if I don't give him $20. But if a knife is pulled or something, I never carry any mere valuable worth the time off work even a minor stab wound would require.
 
2013-04-06 09:49:11 PM  
if you have legs and can run then you are never blocking an emergency exit
 
2013-04-06 09:53:55 PM  

whistleridge: In short: as we have pacified and tamed our land, gun have become less and less necessary, and people no longer have them because they no longer need them - the damn things are expensive, dangerous, a pain in the ass to maintain, and for 95% of the population, utterly unnecessary. In short, it made sense to disarm.


You're forgetting that there are at least three legitimate functions of firearms: target shooting, hunting, and self- defence. At long as any of these functions are an ongoing consideration, it makes sense to own a firearm (and no, they aren't particularly difficult to maintain).
 
2013-04-06 09:56:11 PM  

Firethorn: whistleridge: And then look at the odds: if every teacher in this country has a gun in the classroom, more kids will die by accident from those guns than will ever be saved by them, by a factor of ten. It's a statistical inevitability.

I certainly wouldn't arm every teacher.  I'd make it a bit like armed airline pilots.  Even a 1% carry rate will affect the decisions of a mass shooter.  I'd certainly encourage them to be trained.


If there were a practical means, I would encourage it. But there isn't. 

Think about it: kids are curious above all other things, and the ONE THING they would be most curious about in a classroom would be the teacher's gun. It doesn't matter how many lessons and safety talks you give on it, some kid is ALWAYS going to try and get to it. It's human nature. 

So instead of just freely diving into the classroom and trying to focus on things like teaching verbs and keeping Jenny Closton from eating paste again, that teacher has to do one of two things: always pack, and always keep an eye on the gun, or lock it up and never ever ever take it out. 

If she's always packing, it's heavy, it can get oil on clothes, it's annoying, and it's generally not worth it. If there are about 5 million teachers in the US, in the past 10 years maybe 10 of them have had any demonstrable need for a gun. In that same time frame, how many accidents and problems do you think would arise from having call it 100,000 extra guns in our classrooms? Also: who would pay for these guns? The ammo? The training? Schools can barely afford photocopier paper, and teachers already use a huge chunk of their too-meager salaries to buy supplies. That's a BIG expense that neither can really afford.

And let's be honest: teachers tend to be sweet kid-loving types, not hard-nosed gun toting types. That gun would get locked up, never tended to, and eventually taken home and left there because they needed that storage space for extra textbooks or something. 

At the end of the day, the safest thing is to do what is already being done: have specially trained security guards, and let the teachers teach.
 
2013-04-06 09:59:19 PM  

skozlaw: Is it just me or does Silly Jesus basically just run around shiatting in every thread just to be a total dickhole?


This. I found myself agreeing with him in one thread and suddenly he was just screaming abuse and worshipping his own cleverness. I was glad I didn't get myself into that mess.
 
2013-04-06 10:01:00 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: I don't like any of those options.  I need more.


Well, there is also "DIE".
 
2013-04-06 10:01:09 PM  

Ennuipoet: Fano: I thought hiding then fighting back was murder 1 with malice aforethought.

I am no gun nut, but I was taught in the cop school that cover and concealment were the first rules of not being killed during a shootout.  So, if I were to find myself armed and in a mass shooting, first I would scream, cry, shiat myself, hide under a dead body and then maybe, if I had a clear shot, I would shoot at the rampaging gun nut with the semi-auto chugging rounds into the pre-school class.

I am nothing if not a realist.


You should ditch the gun, because the unarmed are unstoppable nerves-of-steel mag-swap interruption machines.
 
2013-04-06 10:01:13 PM  

Surpheon: DrExplosion: First, I would like to argue against your "reality" of home defense.Pepper spray is an unreliable method of subduing an attacker

Actually, the junkies are the ones I'd expect it to work best against. Gang bangers planning to do a real home invasion may bull through, but a junkie or high school delinquent would get the fark out of dodge and find a better target.


Eh, I've heard too many horror stories from my cop friends and family members about drunks and junkies shrugging off pepper spray or joint locks to trust my life to the stuff, especially when I've personally had a 100% success rate with firearms. Most criminals are going to wait until the house is empty before they break in, but junkies are less likely to think that rationally and more likely to be under the influence of something allowing them to ignore pain.

But my reality was more on the fact that a gun in my house is more likely to be used by one of my kids to commit suicide than to ever scare off an attacker (far more likely in the low-crime neighborhood I live in). And that's ignoring the second-tier statistic that it'd be used to accidentally kill a family member mistaken for a home invader.

Fair enough. I may disagree with the conclusion you've reached with those statistics, but I'm certainly not going to try to force you to get a gun.

I would like to see other non-leathal weapons legalized too. I'm pissed that in NYC I can't carry a taser. I'm baffled as to why they're illegal. Hell, as options go I'd rather be mugged by a guy with a taser than a knife.

I agree completely. NYC is a farking police state. I wouldn't be able to tolerate living in an area where the cops mentioned upthread were trusted with my protection but I was not.
 
2013-04-06 10:01:43 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: You're forgetting that there are at least three legitimate functions of firearms: target shooting, hunting, and self- defence. At long as any of these functions are an ongoing consideration, it makes sense to own a firearm (and no, they aren't particularly difficult to maintain).


Horseshiat. There is only one valid reason to own a gun: you enjoy shooting, and it is your Constitutionally-protected right to do so. What you listed are three  rationalizations

And sorry, but you're not being very realistic: guns require some degree of maintenance, therefore, by modern standards, they are difficult to maintain. It's easy for you, but you should not assume that means it will be easy for others. At least not in my experience.

How many people do you know who can't be bothered to get their oil changed, or take their computer to Best Buy for the Geek Squad because upgrading their OS is just too much work? Do you  reallywant that person firing something that, if not properly maintained, could take off a hand? Do you  reallywant them doing that around your kid?
 
2013-04-06 10:02:43 PM  

prollynot: if you have legs and can run then you are never blocking an emergency exit


Hi Mitch!
 
2013-04-06 10:05:30 PM  

whistleridge: So instead of just freely diving into the classroom and trying to focus on things like teaching verbs and keeping Jenny Closton from eating paste again, that teacher has to do one of two things: always pack, and always keep an eye on the gun, or lock it up and never ever ever take it out.


Good point, students would shoot themselves left and right.

And let's be honest: teachers tend to be sweet kid-loving types, not hard-nosed gun toting types.

Uh, not always...
 
2013-04-06 10:06:34 PM  

FARK rebel soldier: skozlaw: Is it just me or does Silly Jesus basically just run around shiatting in every thread just to be a total dickhole?

This. I found myself agreeing with him in one thread and suddenly he was just screaming abuse and worshipping his own cleverness. I was glad I didn't get myself into that mess.


The ignore function exists for a reason. And it's him.
 
2013-04-06 10:07:31 PM  

dfenstrate: BigLuca: serial_crusher: What happens if the dude tries to shoot up a swimming pool inside of a gun free zone?  Can't fight back without your gun, running is strictly not allowed around the pool, and there's not really anywhere to hide at a pool

That's why I only swim with fat kids.

Mythbusters tested this. Just go underwater a few feet and hope the shooter wastes his ammo before you come up. Bullets lose all their energy very rapidly in water. Any bullet, rifle or handgun.


Rifle bullets disintegrate almost immediately, iirc.
 
2013-04-06 10:08:46 PM  

FARK rebel soldier: DrExplosion: The most reliable way to stop someone is to make them dead, and guns do a fantastic job of allowing the physically inferior to do so without training obsessively

No.


I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't think there are better ways for someone to kill a physically superior attacker. I will also assume that your issue is with me saying that firearms don't require obsessive training to use effectively in self-defense. If this is the case, I will go on to assume that we simply have different definitions of "obsessive" or that you are a lousy shot.
 
2013-04-06 10:10:41 PM  

FARK rebel soldier: whistleridge: So instead of just freely diving into the classroom and trying to focus on things like teaching verbs and keeping Jenny Closton from eating paste again, that teacher has to do one of two things: always pack, and always keep an eye on the gun, or lock it up and never ever ever take it out.

Good point, students would shoot themselves left and right.


Not left and right, but statistically, probably at least 1 or 2 accidents per year would be inevitable. And you just know the first time there was a fatal accident, the administrators in that district would come under huge and immediate pressure to reform/do away with the program, and it would be locked down to the point of being useless AND it would cost more money. 

And let's be honest: teachers tend to be sweet kid-loving types, not hard-nosed gun toting types.

Uh, not always...


Hence 'tend'. I was a teacher for a few years, and I have a number of friends who still are. No, anecdote isn't evidence, but I did notice a generally tendency between nicer/sweeter people and younger grades. The hardasses tended to teach high school. :p
 
2013-04-06 10:19:13 PM  

RedPhoenix122: Krymson Tyde: RedPhoenix122: Krymson Tyde: No praying? According to Facebook this shiat wouldn't happen if we prayed more.

Also armed everyone.

Yeah, that too. Then we'd be living in a good, honest God-fearing utopia.

Add in racism and you have the South.


Hmm.

All K-12 shootings in the US this millennium with two or more dead victims (that is, not counting shooter suicide):
Connecticut (26 dead), Minnesota (8 dead), Pennsylvania (5 dead), Ohio (3 dead), California (2 dead), and Minnesota (2 dead).

Not a single southern state in the bunch.  Maybe you should try more prayer, more guns, and more racism?
 
2013-04-06 10:19:28 PM  

fusillade762: FARK rebel soldier: skozlaw: Is it just me or does Silly Jesus basically just run around shiatting in every thread just to be a total dickhole?

This. I found myself agreeing with him in one thread and suddenly he was just screaming abuse and worshipping his own cleverness. I was glad I didn't get myself into that mess.

The ignore function exists for a reason. And it's him.


I prefer to favorite in many different colors. It makes the threads much more interesting looking. Sorry colorblind people.
 
2013-04-06 10:20:57 PM  

stealthd: Nice to have some national media coverage on this. For far too long, what was missing was the emphasis on 'run the fark away'. It was hard to work against the 'lock-downs are the only legit technique we teach' to something more reasonable.

So you can have: Run Hide Fight
Or
Get Out, Hide Out, Take Out (my favourite)
Or
Some other variant.

/getting a kick, etc...


"Lock Downs", Zero Tolerance" and "All Violence Is Bad (unless it is the government doing it to you)" are the transnational progressive version of "Abstinence Only" sex education. They know it is bullshiat and doesn't work but it is the "approved" position so they will preach it religiously and pretend to believe it.
 
2013-04-06 10:22:13 PM  

whistleridge: Horseshiat. There is only one valid reason to own a gun: you enjoy shooting, and it is your Constitutionally-protected right to do so. What you listed are three  rationalizations.


What you're saying would be totally accurate if applied to another American, but I don't live in the US. My country doesn't have an equivalent to the Second Amendment, so our right to gun ownership rests on a more philosophical basis, which is that rights are not granted by governments to the people but vice- versa; free people delegate to their rulers certain powers in order that the latter may act on their behalf, and one of those powers is the right to use violent means in order to protect the citizenry. Now in the event that the State cannot or will not protect the citizenry with its force of arms (which unfortunately for logistical reasons is most of the time), it is clearly the right of the citizenry to use those same means to defend itself.

And sorry, but you're not being very realistic: guns require some degree of maintenance, therefore, by modern standards, they are difficult to maintain. It's easy for you, but you should not assume that means it will be easy for others. At least not in my experience.

I'm a relative newbie to firearms, but I haven't found their upkeep to be exceptionally challenging. It's much easier to clean a gun than to fix a computer or perform maintenance on your car (to use the examples you provided).

Do you  reallywant that person firing something that, if not properly maintained, could take off a hand? Do you  reallywant them doing that around your kid?

Guns can't fire anything unless a round is in the chamber -- which to any gun owner should be pretty goddamn obvious -- so if the most basic precautions are observed, cleaning a gun won't pose the slightest danger to anyone, at least not anymore than changing your car's windshield washer fluid will pose the threat of having your kids run over in the driveway.
 
2013-04-06 10:22:51 PM  
I intend to finish the game.
 
2013-04-06 10:22:56 PM  
We need laws... laws... laws. Laws are the only way to stop a crook.
 
2013-04-06 10:23:52 PM  

Deep Contact: Fight back with what? Harsh language?


Well, it sure would be nice if we had some GRENADES.
 
2013-04-06 10:24:40 PM  
Alien:Resurrection had the same cast as Firefly; discuss.
 
2013-04-06 10:26:45 PM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: o5iiawah: Princess Ryans Knickers: And in not one of the mass shootings over the past 30 years was it stopped by a bystander with a gun. Tackling after running out of ammo, yes. Police intervention, yes. Shooter kills self. Never by a person carrying.

The Clackamas mall shooter offed himself after a CCW drew on him.  He was in the midst of monkeying around with the charging handle on his AR after one of those evil, scary drum mags failed like they usually do.

So yes, the reason CCW holders dont stop many spree shooters is because the spree shooter is usually stopped after 1 or 2 killed.

Yeah, I remember him.  His name was Nick Meli, and the only person who could verify the story was... Nick Meli.  Confirmation bias really farks with your critical thinking skills, doesn't it?  Retard.


http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2012/12/security _g uard_said_he_had_rob.html

Authorities confirmed Monday that Meli was seen during the incident, gun drawn, near the entrance to Macy's inside the mall.

Seems the people who say he was there with his gun drawn was him, and bystanders, who corroberated his story to the police, who were satisfied with the testimony and included it in their report.

Like a cat chasing a laser pen...you think you're the smartest person in the room.
 
2013-04-06 10:38:14 PM  
CSB:
My dad served two years in the army during Vietnam, and later during the early 70's he worked for USPS.  One day he was in a Saginaw HS dropping off some mail when a suspended kid showed up outside and started shooting into the office.  My dad dropped down behind a perfectly good metal desk while the staff poured into the hall.  One of them yelled for him to follow, and he replied "No thanks, I am just fine right here."

No one was hit, but if the gunman came around inside my dad would still have a route out.  Maybe having real training would make more sense than just general statements.
 
2013-04-06 10:42:12 PM  

Surpheon: Firethorn: One thing about carrying - I'm not going to suggest 100% carry rate.  Let's say it's 10% or so - 3 people armed in a 30 person classroom.

What do you expect the annual accidental body count to be from that level of carrying? Bearing in mind that wall-to-wall coverage aside, school shooting are vanishingly rare, I really don't see how you could suggest with a straight face that accidental shootings wouldn't be an order of magnitude worse if you're putting a million guns in classrooms.


Gah, statistics are hard to come by.  I was trying to find how many accidental shootings police officers have each year; just to give us a ballpark estimate.  I can't find it.  I did find that the rate right now was 10 deaths per 100k in 2004 using a CDC source, but that's from everything.  That's roughly 30k/year, and about 50% lower than vehicle deaths.
 Meanwhile there's about a million police officers and they kill ~600 people a year, not all of them with firearms, and about 400 of them justified(even if I don't justify as many as they do).


So you're looking at ~200 people dead from negligent shootings by about a million guns, whereas spree killings seem to be about 30 a year.

In order to determine that you'd get fewer deaths, more deaths, an OOM more deaths, etc...  Would depend on the training.  While police would presumably be better trained than our non-professional CCW people, said CCW people are also not pulling SWAT style raids where people tend to get shot by police the most.

I think we're going to have to wait until some more studies have happened.  I only found 3 stories of negligent injuries on the part of CCW holders, for example.
 
2013-04-06 10:42:39 PM  

whistleridge: guns require some degree of maintenance, therefore, by modern standards, they are difficult to maintain.


a gun that sits in a safe, so long as it was put away cleaned and oiled, should be oiled once or twice a year.  The gun I shoot the most, my Mosin-Nagant takes about 15 mins to clean.  There's youtube videos of guys burying glocks in mud, digging them up a year later, hosing them off with a garden hose and emptying 2x 20-rd mags with no failures.  I think you're humping something that isn't really a problem.
 
2013-04-06 10:48:16 PM  

zvoidx: I wonder if everyone carried a (legal) air horn and, upon seeing a shooter with a gun, everyone directed them all at the shooter at the same time. It may be unbearable to the point of having to drop the gun football.


Try an NFL game in the "special fans" section.  I believe they think they are going to cause a fumble if they unite their trumpets of His holy will.

/maybe vuvululuzases or what the fluck ever hosepipe + funnel
 
2013-04-06 10:52:03 PM  
Mass shootings are so common these days, I tell ya.

I have personally lived through seven mass shootings in the past year alone, and they're scary.

Worse than driving in snow.
 
2013-04-06 10:52:22 PM  
August, 1999. I was not even 21 yet, and had only one rifle to my name, a Bushmaster AR15 clone (XM15). About 8pm, heard lots of yelling downstairs (I was in my upstairs studio). Then, shots. I loaded and turned off the tv. Went outside to the top of the stairs leading to my apt and its two adjacent ones. Wanted to make sure I could control who was coming up. Mostly hid at the top, behind the railing alongside the stairs. I heard about another 2 shots, and then nothing more. Police sirens about 2-3 minutes later.  Found out much later that someone had fired shots at a nearby apartment building. Nobody was hit (I think).

Did I stop the shooter? No.
Did I save anyone's life? No.
Did I even use my rifle to defend myself? No.

But I'll tell you one thing. I sure as hell felt a lot safer. So did my neighbor, who saw me sitting there. He got his baseball bat and hung out with me there until cops had the whole 4x4 blocks locked down with chopper overhead and all.

I'd like to think that I have what it takes to stop a murderer if it comes to it. But if nothing else, I am responsible for my own safety - and I did so without depending on the vagaries of others.
 
2013-04-06 10:52:44 PM  

o5iiawah: whistleridge: guns require some degree of maintenance, therefore, by modern standards, they are difficult to maintain.

a gun that sits in a safe, so long as it was put away cleaned and oiled, should be oiled once or twice a year.  The gun I shoot the most, my Mosin-Nagant takes about 15 mins to clean.  There's youtube videos of guys burying glocks in mud, digging them up a year later, hosing them off with a garden hose and emptying 2x 20-rd mags with no failures.  I think you're humping something that isn't really a problem.


Yeah, but Glocks don't rust because they are made of plastic and cost more than you make in a month.

/don't worry, this is snark.
 
2013-04-06 10:52:48 PM  
There's a recognition in these 'active shooter' situations that there may be a need for citizens to act in a way that perhaps they haven't been trained for or equipped to deal with."

That's the "no shiat" part.  If the "obvious" tag was meant to imply that everyone already has a strategically ordered, multi-step plan in place for this type of events then I'd have to invite you to come to planet Earth from where ever you are and experience a day of reality with our fellow species.  Because your ivory tower has achieved orbit and beyond.
 
2013-04-06 10:57:18 PM  
I'll have to update my list.

1. Run away
2. Hide
3. Make a cake
4. Fight back
 
2013-04-06 10:57:42 PM  

whistleridge: Think about it: kids are curious above all other things, and the ONE THING they would be most curious about in a classroom would be the teacher's gun. It doesn't matter how many lessons and safety talks you give on it, some kid is ALWAYS going to try and get to it. It's human nature.


This depends on the level of school, elementary through college.  In my 3 person example, I should probably make clear that I was considering a COLLEGE classroom at that time, though 1% teacher carry rate could carry down.  It shouldn't be an issue middle school and on.

For elementary school, even above it, it's called a 'retention holster'.  A kid should not be able to draw the weapon before the teacher can stop the attempt.

how many accidents and problems do you think would arise from having call it 100,000 extra guns in our classrooms? Also: who would pay for these guns? The ammo? The training? Schools can barely afford photocopier paper, and teachers already use a huge chunk of their too-meager salaries to buy supplies. That's a BIG expense that neither can really afford.


About 1 accident going by CCW stats.
Payment - I'd have the teacher obtain the gun.  Part of only having the 'most interested' 1% carry is that they probably already own a suitable firearm.  Ammo - ditto.  Training - I'm picturing a 50/50 split.  At 1% arm rate you could almost confine it only to former military members, though I wouldn't do that.  Make the program only open to those that have or obtain CCW permits on their own; follow up with a school specific training that shouldn't be too expensive.  One expense you didn't mention was safe storage - if a teacher needs to disarm, I'd have a discrete gun safe installed at school expense in a area not normally accessed by students.  Call that about $10k for professional installation.  You can also use it to store confiscated weapons and such until the police arrive.

It's not as expensive as you might think given that many schools are already hiring armed 'security officers' who would need the above(and more) anyways, we're just including the interested teachers as well.  Some schools are even hiring actual police.  IE they pay the officer's salary to have him or her permanently assigned to the school system, but the police department still provides the authority, training, equipment, etc...
 
2013-04-06 10:58:38 PM  
I hope I'm never in such a scenario, but should I ever find myself in one I think I'd try to find a small place and hide. If it's a crowded, confined space such as a movie theatre, people like me are liable to get trampled if we try to make a run for it with everyone else.

A few years ago I was at a concert and someone set off some firecrackers nearby. At first it sounded like gunshots and as the crowd surged away from the sounds I was literally carried off my feet by the mass of people. It only lasted a few seconds, but I was honestly scared to death. It was like being washed away by a raging river of humanity.
 
2013-04-06 11:00:11 PM  

o5iiawah: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: o5iiawah: Princess Ryans Knickers: And in not one of the mass shootings over the past 30 years was it stopped by a bystander with a gun. Tackling after running out of ammo, yes. Police intervention, yes. Shooter kills self. Never by a person carrying.

The Clackamas mall shooter offed himself after a CCW drew on him.  He was in the midst of monkeying around with the charging handle on his AR after one of those evil, scary drum mags failed like they usually do.

So yes, the reason CCW holders dont stop many spree shooters is because the spree shooter is usually stopped after 1 or 2 killed.

Yeah, I remember him.  His name was Nick Meli, and the only person who could verify the story was... Nick Meli.  Confirmation bias really farks with your critical thinking skills, doesn't it?  Retard.

http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2012/12/security _g uard_said_he_had_rob.html

Authorities confirmed Monday that Meli was seen during the incident, gun drawn, near the entrance to Macy's inside the mall.

Seems the people who say he was there with his gun drawn was him, and bystanders, who corroberated his story to the police, who were satisfied with the testimony and included it in their report.

Like a cat chasing a laser pen...you think you're the smartest person in the room.


Yeah, one local paper citing "authorities."  Show me somebody with a title putting their name next to his claims.  That's why no major media outlets reported this nonsense, that's why Wikipedia only goes as far to say "Meli asserts that Roberts saw him, and that this may have contributed to Roberts' decision to commit suicide."  Also, your article said nothing about the nameless authorities attributing the end of the shooting to Meli, just that he was there with a gun. I don't think I'm the smartest person in the room, but I certainly think I'm smarter than the person I'm talking shiat to.
 
2013-04-06 11:00:16 PM  
trappedspirit:  If the "obvious" tag was meant to imply that everyone already has a strategically ordered, multi-step plan in place for this type of events then I'd have to invite you to come to planet Earth from where ever you are and experience a day of reality with our fellow species.  Because your ivory tower has achieved orbit and beyond.

My personal plan is to soil myself and then come up with a plan.

Really, though, the first thing they teach you is that the best confrontation is the one you don't get into in the first place, therefore run away.  Barring that, hide.  Last resort, defend yourself.
 
2013-04-06 11:01:25 PM  

Silly Jesus: WordyGrrl: Not long ago, I saw a video about a test to see how well (or if) college students could stop or survive an gunman's attack at a school. All the student participants were taken out to the range, taught how to use the handguns, etc. All felt confident that they could stop the attacker. But when the simulation went live, the students either panicked, froze or fumbled with the weapon and everybody in the scenario got shot.

Umm, I saw something similar, without the everyone getting shot part.  Got a link to that?


Oh, of course not. I Googled to heck and back and couldn't find it again. It was some news program-type thingie. In any case, it did get the message across that no matter how well you think you're prepared, when the real thing goes down it will not conform to your perfect pre-planned mentally-thought-out scenario.
 
2013-04-06 11:01:54 PM  

Mister Peejay: trappedspirit:  If the "obvious" tag was meant to imply that everyone already has a strategically ordered, multi-step plan in place for this type of events then I'd have to invite you to come to planet Earth from where ever you are and experience a day of reality with our fellow species.  Because your ivory tower has achieved orbit and beyond.

My personal plan is to soil myself and then come up with a plan.

Really, though, the first thing they teach you is that the best confrontation is the one you don't get into in the first place, therefore run away.  Barring that, hide.  Last resort, defend yourself.


The difficulty in that is deciding when that last resort line is. By the time you finally think it's the last resort, you may have already lost your only chance at fighting back and making it out alive.
 
2013-04-06 11:02:11 PM  
Didn't read the whole thread (who has time?) but...

Did anyone else suspect that TFA is nothing more than a structured propaganda piece designed - not to educate the public - but to scare the shiat out of them, making them beLIEve that these events are every day occurrences so that we'll swallow the stupid and pointless gun laws that Feinstein, Obey and their ilk are pushing?

/my office is under a flight path
//I live in fear of having a plan crash into me
///All day - EVERY DAY


/Ban planes
 
2013-04-06 11:04:12 PM  

duenor: August, 1999. I was not even 21 yet, and had only one rifle to my name, a Bushmaster AR15 clone (XM15). About 8pm, heard lots of yelling downstairs (I was in my upstairs studio). Then, shots. I loaded and turned off the tv. Went outside to the top of the stairs leading to my apt and its two adjacent ones. Wanted to make sure I could control who was coming up. Mostly hid at the top, behind the railing alongside the stairs. I heard about another 2 shots, and then nothing more. Police sirens about 2-3 minutes later.  Found out much later that someone had fired shots at a nearby apartment building. Nobody was hit (I think).

Did I stop the shooter? No.
Did I save anyone's life? No.
Did I even use my rifle to defend myself? No.

But I'll tell you one thing. I sure as hell felt a lot safer. So did my neighbor, who saw me sitting there. He got his baseball bat and hung out with me there until cops had the whole 4x4 blocks locked down with chopper overhead and all.

I'd like to think that I have what it takes to stop a murderer if it comes to it. But if nothing else, I am responsible for my own safety - and I did so without depending on the vagaries of others.


CSB I wonder what you (or anyone else) would have done if someone would have suddenly charged up the stairs screaming wild obscenities?
Not trying to bust on you in any way, just wondering.
 
2013-04-06 11:05:09 PM  

DrExplosion: and hoping for a headshot is still better than hoping he runs out of ammo before he gets to you.



Hoping for headshot? This isn't like a video game.


Unless you have extensive training and skill with your weapon, you aren't getting a headshot. Attempting to shoot will direct the attacker's focus on you. He has bigger guns, protection, bigger bullets and more bullets and a lot less to lose than you.

The chances that you are significantly more trained than the shooter is very unlikely.
 
2013-04-06 11:08:22 PM  

Publikwerks: Silly Jesus: I've been informed by libs that cowering defenseless in a corner is the best action against someone shooting a gun at you.  Under no circumstances should you perform the action that has gotten all of the mass shooters to stop or commit suicide, arrive with a gun.

The more you know...

Because the surest way to limit the body count is to have people return fire.
Because it never goes wrong. Especially when the shooters have extensive training..


Oh wait

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds - caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com /2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds- caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But you know, us libs are just silly folks. You, trying to limit gunfire around kids.


Wait... Are you trying to say that cops have "extensive training"?

Most LEO's couldn't hit water if they fell out of a farking boat.  Just trying to get 98% of your officers to actually show up to the range and burn they're training allotment of ammunition is a pain in the ass.  Depending on the jurisdiction, probably 5 out of 100 officers will actually be "shooters" and those are your real bump and rumble troops.  Other than that, you've got a lot of public servants with badges and guns out there.
 
2013-04-06 11:08:29 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: I don't think you are talking out of your ass, but it sure sounds that way. There are some serious CCWs around.


You think you can be better armed than a guy who is doing a mass shooting?
 
2013-04-06 11:09:18 PM  
duenor:
The difficulty in that is deciding when that last resort line is. By the time you finally think it's the last resort, you may have already lost your only chance at fighting back and making it out alive.

Indeed.  There are of course other factors, and every situation is different anyway.

Nice post earlier, by the way.  Your actions made logical sense, but I've a feeling you were probably just a little bit on edge while it was happening, or immediately after the situation defused.

/can handle emergency situations but get the shakes BAD after everything cools down
 
2013-04-06 11:11:21 PM  

Silly Jesus: Because sirens in the distance cause him to off himself but he would stand there and return fire if being directly engaged. Riiiiiight.


Not the batman movie shooter though.
 
2013-04-06 11:13:23 PM  

Amos Quito: Mass shootings are so common these days, I tell ya.

I have personally lived through seven mass shootings in the past year alone, and they're scary.

Worse than driving in snow.


I recall several years ago Farkers telling us that terrorist attacks were statistically so unlikely that we needn't worry about them, much less pass new laws to prevent them... and yet these are the same people who are nowadays running about like chickens with their heads cut off about school shootings.
 
2013-04-06 11:26:45 PM  

mr0x: DrExplosion: and hoping for a headshot is still better than hoping he runs out of ammo before he gets to you.


Hoping for headshot? This isn't like a video game.


Unless you have extensive training and skill with your weapon, you aren't getting a headshot. Attempting to shoot will direct the attacker's focus on you. He has bigger guns, protection, bigger bullets and more bullets and a lot less to lose than you.

The chances that you are significantly more trained than the shooter is very unlikely.


No... Actually it's not.  Most people involved in these mass shootings actually have very little in the way of training at all, which is one of the reasons they tend to pick areas where they're virtually guaranteed people won't be shooting back (V-Tech, Newtown, etc.).  About the only recent shooter with any real level of training could have been the Fort Hood dickhead, but even then he was an O-4 head-shrinker that most likely had very little live fire training (unless he trained on his own).  Even then, he also picked a "gun free zone" as a military base is one of the most unarmed places in the United States.

As far as better protected... No on that as well.  Despite what the movies say, body armor is extremely rare in these case with the only notable event I can think of being the North Hollywood shootout.

The average civilian hobbyist has a hell of a lot more range-time than the average "mass shooter".

Why do you think these jerkoffs pop themselves after anybody with a gun shows up?
 
2013-04-06 11:27:11 PM  
Its funny how fast the word "statistically" would be irrelevant when some nut starts shooting.
 
2013-04-06 11:29:18 PM  

thorthor: duenor: August, 1999. I was not even 21 yet, and had only one rifle to my name, a Bushmaster AR15 clone (XM15). About 8pm, heard lots of yelling downstairs (I was in my upstairs studio). Then, shots. I loaded and turned off the tv. Went outside to the top of the stairs leading to my apt and its two adjacent ones. Wanted to make sure I could control who was coming up. Mostly hid at the top, behind the railing alongside the stairs. I heard about another 2 shots, and then nothing more. Police sirens about 2-3 minutes later.  Found out much later that someone had fired shots at a nearby apartment building. Nobody was hit (I think).

Did I stop the shooter? No.
Did I save anyone's life? No.
Did I even use my rifle to defend myself? No.

But I'll tell you one thing. I sure as hell felt a lot safer. So did my neighbor, who saw me sitting there. He got his baseball bat and hung out with me there until cops had the whole 4x4 blocks locked down with chopper overhead and all.

I'd like to think that I have what it takes to stop a murderer if it comes to it. But if nothing else, I am responsible for my own safety - and I did so without depending on the vagaries of others.

CSB I wonder what you (or anyone else) would have done if someone would have suddenly charged up the stairs screaming wild obscenities?
Not trying to bust on you in any way, just wondering.


CSB indeed, and no proof of all, but that's how these things tend to go. no sane gun owner is about to go advertising to the cops and to any local crackheads what he's got at home.
What would I have done? Did he look like a threat? Carrying a gun? Really big? et al. Cases like that, it's a judgment call, and a tough one. That's what training is for but in the end it's what you believe in, and willing to risk.

I'd like to think that I'd make myself known and order him to stop or else I'd feel like I'm threatened. If he stops, end of story and either he turns around or he stays put and cops come get him. If he keeps coming at me, I'd probably shoot him.

It's why I have plenty of respect for those that eschew guns. Their life, their choice. But I ought to have my own.
 
2013-04-06 11:30:08 PM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: That's why no major media outlets reported this nonsense,


Well surely if it didn't appear as a frontline story on Nancy Grace it didn't actually happen.

That is your argument.

Listen to how dumb you sound.

WordyGrrl: Oh, of course not. I Googled to heck and back and couldn't find it again. It was some news program-type thingie. In any case, it did get the message across that no matter how well you think you're prepared, when the real thing goes down it will not conform to your perfect pre-planned mentally-thought-out scenario.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

first scenario: armed intruder knows the layout of the room and who is shooting. The CCW defense shooter is wearing a t-shirt 2 sizes too big and gets the gun snagged inside it.

second scenario: She engages the shooter while others scram for safety

third scenario: defense shooter instantly takes cover and is then ambushed by the shooters who know where he is.  Funny how each of the students were in the same seat each time.

In other news, ABC took a police marksman instructor and put him against a novice shooter and a couple of complete newbies. Not surprisingly, the cops win. Conclusion: CCW holders are delusional.

Of course, there was another instance where a shooter busted into a room and nobody had a CCW.  That would be called Sandy Hook.
 
2013-04-06 11:34:48 PM  

mr0x: Zeb Hesselgresser: I don't think you are talking out of your ass, but it sure sounds that way. There are some serious CCWs around.

You think you can be better armed than a guy who is doing a mass shooting?


That's one strong argument against magazine-size limits.  Reloading takes very little time at all, but if you are merely carrying and not planning on starting something, you're probably not going to be carrying more than the one magazine.  So someone who is armed for self-defense only has five or ten or whatever but someone who is interested in causing a ruckus will still be fairly unlimited in what they will have.

/one argument "for" was "clips are expensive so people will only have one anyway"
/they're, what, $30 or so?  that's like how much three 9mm rounds cost nowadays
 
2013-04-06 11:34:56 PM  

Silly Jesus: CruiserTwelve: Silly Jesus: If a lib was in a movie theater that was actively being shot up and laying on the floor next to a guy that said "damn, just my luck, the one day I didn't carry my gun", the lib would actually be thankful that he'd forgotten it.  I just can't understand that.

"I'm being shot at, good thing I and everyone around me is defenseless!"

Lib brains should be studied.

You're kind of an idiot, aren't you?

Awww, and I had you Farkied as "Smart."

What makes me an idiot?


Your mom and dad being brother and sister, I'm guessing.
 
2013-04-06 11:37:38 PM  
Mister Peejay:Nice post earlier, by the way.  Your actions made logical sense, but I've a feeling you were probably just a little bit on edge while it was happening, or immediately after the situation defused.

/can handle emergency situations but get the shakes BAD after everything cools down


I didn't have shakes that time, most likely because nothing actually came up the stairs. But venturing out of my house with a loaded gun in my hand made me feel VERY uncomfortable, because I was afraid that my neighbors would see it and think differently of me (or maybe call the cops on me). Where I'm from guns are like your porn collection - you never talk about it and never show it to anyone (unless you know them well). I would take apart my gun and cover it up when taking it to my car and back. I still make every effort to keep what I have a secret.

I do know what you are referring to, though. The worst for me is feeling my legs wobbly, like my calf muscles aren't working right.
 
2013-04-06 11:38:31 PM  

Ontos: The average civilian hobbyist has a hell of a lot more range-time than the average "mass shooter".



Really? A guy who decides to do a mass shooting has less experience with firearms than an average person?
 
2013-04-06 11:42:13 PM  

mr0x: Ontos: The average civilian hobbyist has a hell of a lot more range-time than the average "mass shooter".


Really? A guy who decides to do a mass shooting has less experience with firearms than an average person?


Buying a gun and deciding to go out and shoot up a mall or a schoolyard does not mean someone has any training.  By and large, the idiots that do shiat like this have very little in the way of training.  You don't get that from just buying shiat.

I didn't say the average person, I said the average shooter.
 
2013-04-06 11:42:13 PM  

mr0x: Ontos: The average civilian hobbyist has a hell of a lot more range-time than the average "mass shooter".


Really? A guy who decides to do a mass shooting has less experience with firearms than an average person?


He didn't say average person, he said average civilian hobbyist. To be fair, however, I'm not sure that's even relevant. Most mass shootings tend to take place at close to very close range, with the targets basically staying in one place, cowering, begging for their lives. Then again, if there was someone shooting back there might be a chance for those who are unarmed to get away. I don't know.
 
2013-04-06 11:44:42 PM  

duenor: thorthor: duenor: August, 1999. I was not even 21 yet, and had only one rifle to my name, a Bushmaster AR15 clone (XM15). About 8pm, heard lots of yelling downstairs (I was in my upstairs studio). Then, shots. I loaded and turned off the tv. Went outside to the top of the stairs leading to my apt and its two adjacent ones. Wanted to make sure I could control who was coming up. Mostly hid at the top, behind the railing alongside the stairs. I heard about another 2 shots, and then nothing more. Police sirens about 2-3 minutes later.  Found out much later that someone had fired shots at a nearby apartment building. Nobody was hit (I think).

Did I stop the shooter? No.
Did I save anyone's life? No.
Did I even use my rifle to defend myself? No.

But I'll tell you one thing. I sure as hell felt a lot safer. So did my neighbor, who saw me sitting there. He got his baseball bat and hung out with me there until cops had the whole 4x4 blocks locked down with chopper overhead and all.

I'd like to think that I have what it takes to stop a murderer if it comes to it. But if nothing else, I am responsible for my own safety - and I did so without depending on the vagaries of others.

CSB I wonder what you (or anyone else) would have done if someone would have suddenly charged up the stairs screaming wild obscenities?
Not trying to bust on you in any way, just wondering.

CSB indeed, and no proof of all, but that's how these things tend to go. no sane gun owner is about to go advertising to the cops and to any local crackheads what he's got at home.
What would I have done? Did he look like a threat? Carrying a gun? Really big? et al. Cases like that, it's a judgment call, and a tough one. That's what training is for but in the end it's what you believe in, and willing to risk.

I'd like to think that I'd make myself known and order him to stop or else I'd feel like I'm threatened. If he stops, end of story and either he turns around or he stays put and cops come get him. If he keeps coming at me, I'd probably shoot him.

It's why I have plenty of respect for those that eschew guns. Their life, their choice. But I ought to have my own.


Totally agree. Just terrifies me that I might shoot the innocent party and spend the rest of my short, butt stretched life in prison. Complicated issue. No black/white answers no matter how much back and forth goes on in these discussions.
 
2013-04-06 11:46:05 PM  

duenor: mr0x: Ontos: The average civilian hobbyist has a hell of a lot more range-time than the average "mass shooter".


Really? A guy who decides to do a mass shooting has less experience with firearms than an average person?

He didn't say average person, he said average civilian hobbyist. To be fair, however, I'm not sure that's even relevant. Most mass shootings tend to take place at close to very close range, with the targets basically staying in one place, cowering, begging for their lives. Then again, if there was someone shooting back there might be a chance for those who are unarmed to get away. I don't know.


Or, if there was a chance someone was armed, in all likelyhood the would be spree shooter would simply pick a softer target, one which provided easy targets, little resistance and victims for which the public would be more sympathetic.

There's a reason you dont hear of any mass-shootings at Bass Pro shops in Georgia.
 
2013-04-06 11:47:09 PM  

ExtremeFajita: Lsherm: Fano: I thought hiding then fighting back was murder 1 with malice aforethought.

I don't think it's murder if the attacker is still shooting, regardless of whether or not you hid first.  Maybe he discovered your hiding spot?  Then what?

Well then, you get what you deserve. God hates campers.


I used to routinely get booted of original Half Life deathmatch servers before I learned how to move around with the mouse.  I would just find a secure spot and snipe people from a distance.
 
Rat [TotalFark]
2013-04-06 11:49:17 PM  
All those years in the Army shooting things, I'm pretty sure I was always hiding behind something.  If I didn't have a clear shot, one would assume that I was just 'hiding'.

I still enjoy shooting things, but now I don't have to hide (unless camo during deer season counts).  I hope I never have to again, but by the grace of the great state of Texas, I'm ready.

©
 
2013-04-06 11:50:06 PM  
I wanted the desk nearest the front door at our office. I told the boss I was trained to rush a shooter in the unlikely event of an "incident" and told him a shooter would be just past my cube if it happened.
I got the spot.

/yes. that's is my training.
//yes. I would take a bullet(s) for my coworkers.
///Ain't gonna happen. We have more security as a private concern than the local DHS office.
 
2013-04-06 11:52:57 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: I recall several years ago Farkers telling us that terrorist attacks were statistically so unlikely that we needn't worry about them, much less pass new laws to prevent them... and yet these are the same people who are nowadays running about like chickens with their heads cut off about school shootings.


[citationneeded.jpg]
 
2013-04-06 11:54:10 PM  

mr0x: DrExplosion: and hoping for a headshot is still better than hoping he runs out of ammo before he gets to you.


Hoping for headshot? This isn't like a video game.


Unless you have extensive training and skill with your weapon, you aren't getting a headshot. Attempting to shoot will direct the attacker's focus on you. He has bigger guns, protection, bigger bullets and more bullets and a lot less to lose than you.

The chances that you are significantly more trained than the shooter is very unlikely.



When you put it that way, maybe the cops should either run or hide as well?

I mean, chances are, a first-responding cop will only be carrying his sidearm, and while he may be wearing a vest, he's likely VERY a lousy shot.

latimesblogs.latimes.com

How many cops fired how many rounds?

And they hit their "target" - the driver - NOT EVEN ONCE.

Not that it matters. This whole "mass shootings" panic is just propaganda by pumped out by pernicious politicians and amplified the salivating  media.
 
2013-04-06 11:55:13 PM  
vudukungfu

I wanted the desk nearest the front door at our office. I told the boss I was trained to rush a shooter in the unlikely event of an "incident" and told him a shooter would be just past my cube if it happened. I got the spot.

/yes. that's is my training. //yes. I would take a bullet(s) for my coworkers.

I'm betting most farkers would also be ok with you "taking a bullet".
 
2013-04-06 11:56:54 PM  
Im missing the option :

Blow up your suicide west
 
2013-04-06 11:57:16 PM  

Ontos: Even then, he also picked a "gun free zone" as a military base is one of the most unarmed places in the United States.


I was a contractor on a naval air station. The Marines were definitely armed. They used to train there.
 
2013-04-06 11:57:41 PM  

Nick Nostril: Brave, brave Sir Robin....


That one only works if you're followed by your favorite minstrels.
 
2013-04-06 11:59:11 PM  

mr0x: Silly Jesus: Because sirens in the distance cause him to off himself but he would stand there and return fire if being directly engaged. Riiiiiight.

Not the batman movie shooter though.


Nor Klebold and Harris, who got into a gun fight.

But Silly Jesus likes chickens, so we're stuck with his ignorance.
 
2013-04-07 12:09:43 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: I don't like any of those options.  I need more.


How about standing motionless, paralyzed with fear?

Beacuse that's probably what most people would do.
 
2013-04-07 12:10:26 AM  

duenor: mr0x: Ontos: The average civilian hobbyist has a hell of a lot more range-time than the average "mass shooter".


Really? A guy who decides to do a mass shooting has less experience with firearms than an average person?

He didn't say average person, he said average civilian hobbyist. To be fair, however, I'm not sure that's even relevant. Most mass shootings tend to take place at close to very close range, with the targets basically staying in one place, cowering, begging for their lives. Then again, if there was someone shooting back there might be a chance for those who are unarmed to get away. I don't know.


Exactly, and this is why people die.  Most people will simply freeze up if confronted by a situation like that, or are in a position where they're being funneled into close quarters, panic and can't get out.  You don't need a lot of training to walk into a room full of people, start shooting and hit something.

Again, look at how most mass shootings play out.., when they're confronted by something that challenges they're preconceived notion of how things will play out, or people start fighting back, they off themselves.

I'm never going to tell someone that doesn't feel comfortable carrying a gun to carry one.  That's an individual choice that everyone needs to make on they're own, and it's not for everyone.  For the average unarmed civilian, the best thing you can do to stay alive is simply have a modicum of situational awareness.  If you're in a public place, think about where the exits are, where are people going to be funneled in an emergency, what are you going to do, what are your personal reactions to stress, why is that guy that just walked in wearing a long jacket and why does he seem nervous, etc.....  Interviews with survivors from mass shooting events have shown these are generally common threads.

Myself, I have the training and aptitude to carry a firearm and I do every day.  Is it a magical panacea that will save everybody in all situations?  No.   After the Aurora shooting (which also took place in a gun free zone), we ran an informal outbriefing at work talking about active shooter scenarios and how that one could have played out differently.  It's a tough call... I carry everyday, shoot competitively where I shoot in the "Master" IPDA class, train extensively and typically burn through about 1,000 rounds per month at the range.  That being said, I don't think I could have made much of a difference if I was there and armed just due to the low lighting, close quarters and mass panic.  However, there are plenty of other situations where being armed does (or could have) make the difference.

My personal choice is that I'll take my chances, and I carry everyday wherever it is legal to do so.
 
2013-04-07 12:15:39 AM  
A "mass shooting" is just when an ordinary day in the 'hood or the barrio happens to honkies.
We need more of them.
 
2013-04-07 12:16:25 AM  

dfenstrate: skozlaw: I remember hearing something on NPR where they were talking to a guy who confronted a mass shooter in a mall. He didn't stop him, but they said after he disrupted the guy by confronting him the guy changed up his tactic and holed up in a store instead which effectively ended it. They said that now police are recommending that the most important you can do is disrupt the attacker's pattern, which is why instead of waiting for backup at school events and setting a perimeter they now just breach ASAP.

There's been a few times, to my profit, that I've interrupted someone's plan with my own counter action.

Once some tough looking kids were clearly following me (whilst driving), and after I was sure of it, I stomped on the brakes and pulled onto the shoulder of a busy road. They pulled to the side as if following me through a turn- but there was no turn; and they pulled back onto the road and drove off without stopping.
The other time my wife's employer was obviously setting up to fire my pregnant wife after their busy season was done. So I wrote a letter to them (which my wife passed on as her writing) accusing her supervisor of unlawfully discriminating against a pregnant woman, and got us a $4k payoff to shut up and go away for good.
So yeah , good tactic. Mess up your opponents plan.
/CSB


So you got your wife fired?  Nice.
 
2013-04-07 12:18:12 AM  

thorthor: I'm betting most farkers would also be ok with you "taking a bullet".


gee. thanks.
I guess.
 
2013-04-07 12:45:05 AM  

RedPhoenix122: Krymson Tyde: RedPhoenix122: Krymson Tyde: No praying? According to Facebook this shiat wouldn't happen if we prayed more.

Also armed everyone.

Yeah, that too. Then we'd be living in a good, honest God-fearing utopia.

Add in racism and you have the South.


You, Farker ... outside right now. You need to be taught some manners with a baseball bat ...
 
2013-04-07 12:50:24 AM  

vudukungfu: thorthor: I'm betting most farkers would also be ok with you "taking a bullet".

gee. thanks.
I guess.


No no, it's a good thing. Please, feel free to step in front of a bullet to save me any time.
 
2013-04-07 01:08:01 AM  

whistleridge: Silly Jesus: You're missing a huge part of this.  The shooters tend to be cowards.  In a mall shooting the shooter ran when an armed citizen engaged.  The shooters generally off themselves when they hear sirens in the distance.  It's not going to be a sustained shootout.  The shooter is going to most likely off himself or run away when met with any resistance.  He's not going to just stand there and engage.  For your analysis to make sense, you have to assume that he's just standing there taking fire.

You mean like these guys? Or these? Or this guy (he shot up a police station...very cowardly)? These two yellow bellies? This guy?

You're making the HUGE assumption that a certain profile will always apply, even though there are literally centuries of evidence proving otherwise. And worse, you're wanting the legislature to mandate that other people stake their life on that assumption.

The truth is, if you're unstable enough to grab a small arsenal and wade into a crowd of civilians with the intent of taking out as many as you can, you're probably on a death ride and you know it. But maybe not. Maybe you think you can get away. Either way, what you're certainly NOT is stable. Both oars are not in the water, if you catch my drift.

Maybe the guy that shoots up your church tomorrow IS a coward, and he offs himself at the first sign of resistance. Or maybe, you pulling a gun makes him think 'fark it...if I'm going to hell anyway, I may as well take as many with me as I can', and he starts emptying into the little kids and old ladies that he previously hadn't been shooting at. You have no way of knowing.

Your statement above only stands in hindsight. Yes, you maybe could have done something at Newtown, because Lanza was kind of a wimpy kid. But if you and 5 or 6 other civilians had applied the same logic at the North Hollywood shootout, you and 5 or 6 other folks would now be dead. Unless you ran away at the first chance you got. Or hid.


Nobody was killed at the North Hollywood shootout, aside from the robbers, because those guys were trying to get away, not to kill people.

As for your list, you failed to list a single mass-killing incident.  It looks like you posted a couple of gang hits, and some shootouts with police after a crime (bank robbery and murder, specifically).  None of these follow the pattern of somebody entering a large mass of defenseless people and killing as many as they can.  These links are mostly shootouts rooted in gang violence or other crimes, attempts to get away, not shooting sprees for their own sake.  And thus they are not really relevant to this discussion.

IIRC, it has been shown that most mass killers are having a power fantasy, some kind of god trip, which gets shattered as soon as they meet resistance.  Even if they don't meet that profile - which I'm sure not all do - the situation changes completely when they go from strolling around thrill-killing at their leisure to suddenly being in combat.  Most mass killers can't handle it, they showed up for a free spree of unopposed killing, which is why the body count when anyone resisted before police arrived is so (comparatively) low.

I don't know why folks in this argument tend to assign superhuman qualities to criminals.  They'll always take your gun and use it against you.  They'll always get a steely glint in their eye and focus-fire on the person who draws their CCW, standing fast and shooting true despite taking fire. They'll have body armor even though that almost never happens.  That body armor is the Immovable Force that will completely absorb all kinetic energy from a bullet, rendering useless any attempts to resist.  Etc, etc.

Anyway: http://www.thevrwc.org/JohnLott.pdf
 
2013-04-07 01:12:06 AM  

Gyrfalcon: feel free to step in front of a bullet to save me any time


for yu
can du
 
2013-04-07 01:19:40 AM  

ArmagedDan: whistleridge: Silly Jesus: You're missing a huge part of this.  The shooters tend to be cowards.  In a mall shooting the shooter ran when an armed citizen engaged.  The shooters generally off themselves when they hear sirens in the distance.  It's not going to be a sustained shootout.  The shooter is going to most likely off himself or run away when met with any resistance.  He's not going to just stand there and engage.  For your analysis to make sense, you have to assume that he's just standing there taking fire.

You mean like these guys? Or these? Or this guy (he shot up a police station...very cowardly)? These two yellow bellies? This guy?

You're making the HUGE assumption that a certain profile will always apply, even though there are literally centuries of evidence proving otherwise. And worse, you're wanting the legislature to mandate that other people stake their life on that assumption.

The truth is, if you're unstable enough to grab a small arsenal and wade into a crowd of civilians with the intent of taking out as many as you can, you're probably on a death ride and you know it. But maybe not. Maybe you think you can get away. Either way, what you're certainly NOT is stable. Both oars are not in the water, if you catch my drift.

Maybe the guy that shoots up your church tomorrow IS a coward, and he offs himself at the first sign of resistance. Or maybe, you pulling a gun makes him think 'fark it...if I'm going to hell anyway, I may as well take as many with me as I can', and he starts emptying into the little kids and old ladies that he previously hadn't been shooting at. You have no way of knowing.

Your statement above only stands in hindsight. Yes, you maybe could have done something at Newtown, because Lanza was kind of a wimpy kid. But if you and 5 or 6 other civilians had applied the same logic at the North Hollywood shootout, you and 5 or 6 other folks would now be dead. Unless you ran away at the first chance you got. Or hid.

Nobody was killed ...


Well said all the way around.
 
2013-04-07 01:27:36 AM  

Ontos: You have no way of knowing


So. Rush him.
 
2013-04-07 01:29:19 AM  

vudukungfu: Ontos: You have no way of knowing

So. Rush him.


Enough Oxycontin will stop an elephant.
 
2013-04-07 01:29:21 AM  

WordyGrrl: Not long ago, I saw a video about a test to see how well (or if) college students could stop or survive an gunman's attack at a school. All the student participants were taken out to the range, taught how to use the handguns, etc. All felt confident that they could stop the attacker. But when the simulation went live, the students either panicked, froze or fumbled with the weapon and everybody in the scenario got shot.


Well, sure.  But that's college students.  The human badassery that is populating this thread are all capable of instantly and accurately detecting who is a friendly shooter and who is the enemy shooter in a theater full of strangers.  Also they see to think that "friendly fire off" is a toggle switch in real life.
 
2013-04-07 01:35:20 AM  

WordyGrrl: Not long ago, I saw a video about a test to see how well (or if) college students could stop or survive an gunman's attack at a school. All the student participants were taken out to the range, taught how to use the handguns, etc. All felt confident that they could stop the attacker. But when the simulation went live, the students either panicked, froze or fumbled with the weapon and everybody in the scenario got shot.


One trip to the range is not "training", that's barely "familiarization", and honestly it's a pretty idiotic way to attempt to draw any sort of informed conclusion.

I would have been shocked if they didn't react that way.
 
2013-04-07 01:37:00 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: I don't like any of those options.  I need more.


I seldom hear about mass shooting in my mothers basement.

Ennuipoet: I am no gun nut, but I was taught in the cop school that cover and concealment were the first rules of not being killed during a shootout. So, if I were to find myself armed and in a mass shooting, first I would scream, cry, shiat myself, hide under a dead body and then maybe, if I had a clear shot, I would shoot at the rampaging gun nut with the semi-auto chugging rounds into the pre-school class.


I figure if you can put fifty yards between you and a shooter you're home free.  Also my experience plinking says, almost any cover is better than none.  Also never shoot at an old brake drum.
 
2013-04-07 02:49:09 AM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: And in not one of the mass shootings over the past 30 years was it stopped by a bystander with a gun. Tackling after running out of ammo, yes. Police intervention, yes. Shooter kills self. Never by a person carrying.


I know of two in Colorado that were on the nightly news. Another one in Salt Lake City, 2 more in TX, and even one in CA just off the top of my head. And those are what I saw on the news in the past 5 or so years. If you look hard you could probably find dozens since the 80s.

You never hear about them like you do the successful shooters however, apparently dead kids is far better news than a dead fruitcake.
 
2013-04-07 03:10:58 AM  
Random thought:

Folks like showing the video of the concealed carry guy in the classroom failing to take down the attacker, fumbling with the weapon, etc.  This is realistic only for the -first classroom targeted-, additional classrooms would have warning.

/endrandomthought
 
2013-04-07 03:17:19 AM  

evaned: Ennuipoet: I am no gun nut, but I was taught in the cop school that cover and concealment were the first rules of not being killed during a shootout.

"Concealment", aka how not to be seen.


I approve of this method. (Chose my screen name based on this very sketch.)
 
2013-04-07 03:24:58 AM  
Troll thread, with troll headlines, with trolls in it. The advertisers on the right should be proud.
 
2013-04-07 03:26:04 AM  

WordyGrrl: Not long ago, I saw a video about a test to see how well (or if) college students could stop or survive an gunman's attack at a school. All the student participants were taken out to the range, taught how to use the handguns, etc. All felt confident that they could stop the attacker. But when the simulation went live, the students either panicked, froze or fumbled with the weapon and everybody in the scenario got shot.


I saw that video too. It was a complete failure of a test. The whole thing was heavily debunked as soon as it came out.
They "shooter" walked into the room, shot the teacher, then immediately tried to shoot the only "armed" student in the room. Apparently all active shooters are psychics and know instantly who is armed and who isn't. So instead of having the option of hiding for a second, then drawing, then popping up while the shooter was shooting the other kids who were running for the doors, as you KNOW he would be doing, they kids just got shot immediately while everyone else was ignored.
The armed students were forced to wear excessively long shirts which made drawing their gun way harder than it would be in real life.
The armed students were forced to wear bulky gloves which made drawing their guns way harder than it would be in real life.
A couple hours training with no real prior experience is almost entirely worthless anyway.
I am sure I am missing/forgetting some other important aspects of the "test" that were completely unrealistic, as it has been a while since I watched it.
 
2013-04-07 03:36:19 AM  

Silly Jesus: Princess Ryans Knickers: And in not one of the mass shootings over the past 30 years was it stopped by a bystander with a gun. Tackling after running out of ammo, yes. Police intervention, yes. Shooter kills self. Never by a person carrying.

With the exception of two or three instances, all of the mass shootings over the past 30 years have been in places where guns were prohibited.

Think that could have something to do with your nifty little statistic?


Actually only 1 mass shooting in the last 30 years was in a non-Gun Free Zone or posted "No Guns Allowed" area, the Gabby Gifford one. The next closest was Aurora, but even that was the only theater of the seven within 10 miles of the guys house that had "No Guns Allowed" signs.

The libs pass these gun free zone laws, the laws fail miserably, and we are supposed to trust them to make up even more laws to try and stop this? How anyone trusts these people, people who by their own statements know almost nothing at all about guns, people who have failed repeatedly already on this subject, to do anything about gun violence in this country is beyond me.
 
2013-04-07 03:52:18 AM  

Ontos: WordyGrrl: Not long ago, I saw a video about a test to see how well (or if) college students could stop or survive an gunman's attack at a school. All the student participants were taken out to the range, taught how to use the handguns, etc. All felt confident that they could stop the attacker. But when the simulation went live, the students either panicked, froze or fumbled with the weapon and everybody in the scenario got shot.

One trip to the range is not "training", that's barely "familiarization", and honestly it's a pretty idiotic way to attempt to draw any sort of informed conclusion.

I would have been shocked if they didn't react that way.


Indeed - I laughed when I read that. That's the "reality show" kind of "training" - give them an hour with some instructor with a moustache and some kind of law enforcement background, then call it a day.
Training isn't that at all. I've been shooting since I was 12, and I don't have any delusions that I'm an expert gun fighter. what I can hope for is that I'll instinctively aim, instinctively deal with stoppages, and keep moving while being shot at/shooting.

however, I find it incredulous that an entire room of college students armed with handguns can't manage to land a shot on an active shooter standing in the same room, and proceed to all get shot one by one. something doesn't add up there - or that's the biggest collection of limp-wristed daisies in america.
 
2013-04-07 04:39:58 AM  
I think I would strip naked and try and rub one last one out quick.
 
2013-04-07 04:58:50 AM  

iq_in_binary: Princess Ryans Knickers: And in not one of the mass shootings over the past 30 years was it stopped by a bystander with a gun. Tackling after running out of ammo, yes. Police intervention, yes. Shooter kills self. Never by a person carrying.

I know of two in Colorado that were on the nightly news. Another one in Salt Lake City, 2 more in TX, and even one in CA just off the top of my head. And those are what I saw on the news in the past 5 or so years. If you look hard you could probably find dozens since the 80s.

You never hear about them like you do the successful shooters however, apparently dead kids is far better news than a dead fruitcake.


Well, you never hear about a mass shooting that was successfully stopped....because it never became a mass shooting, now, did it? (duh) "Guy doesn't kill lots of people, fails to kill self" isn't a headline you'll be seeing the next day. Even the ones iq is thinking of were shootings that got started and then were INTERRUPTED by someone who was carrying--because they were on the news, hence, someone got going with his Glock AR-47 tactical assault bazooka and got stopped. However, just as often, if they're the same ones I'm thinking of, the "bystander" was as often as not an off-duty cop with his personal weapon and not Joe Gunshop showing off his CCW permit. The one in SLC, I know, was an off-duty state trooper.

Which means nothing in any case. Unless everyone in any given situation is locked&loaded 24/7 AND PREPPED for a shooter to walk through the door at any moment, then all the concealed weapons and preparedness and bullshiat gunghoedness is irrelevant. Anyone who's been under live fire will tell you there is a split second of shock as the mind tries to figure out "WTF? Is that someone shooting at me? What should I do now?" If you're highly trained and highly skilled, then the next thing you do is weigh your options, which might or might not be to return fire. But IF NOT, then flight or concealment should always be your backup plan.

A gun is a defensive weapon; and like any other defensive weapon, is only useful if it's in your hand the moment you need it; as that DA down in Texas and that prison warden in Colorado discovered too late. An arsenal in the basement or a Concealed Carry permit does you no good at all if some thug with a cheap handgun gets the drop on you. Likewise, if you're wanting to be the Hero of the Shopping Mall when Psycho McCrazy opens fire, whipping out your .45 and blasting away will not win you accolades when you kill four bystanders because you failed to check your backstop, or when you catch someone else's round in the back of your head because you stood up into crossfire. Better a live dog than a dead lion, as they say.
 
2013-04-07 06:41:52 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Better a live dog than a dead lion, as they say.


Not true for dinner.
 
2013-04-07 07:06:49 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Better a live dog than a dead lion, as they say.


They used to say "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."

We know the consequences for not stopping a gunman.
The purpose of CCW isn't to make everyone into a rambo, Its to give the community a fighting chance by leveling the playing field. It eliminates the temptation of targeting crowds by increasing the chance of the shooter being interrupted, even if the person doing the interruption isn't very good at it.
Maybe the guy has body armor (so far, none of them have) and maybe he is a hard core trained killer (the opposite is more often true). But simple acts of resistance are going to complicate and maybe stop his plan.

Its not the best thing for your safety or legal standing, but if we're gambling on how to keep a shooting from becoming a mass shooting then interrupting the shooter is key. While the lizard portion of my brain objects to being caught in the crossfire between you and the gunman, the rational part would understand that its better for everyone if the gunman goes downimmediately.
Its my one life VS twenty or more if you do not take the shot.
Better to have a complicated trial than a media spectacle that gives the mad gunman his day in the sun.


/At present in the US they use guns, in other nations they use suicide vests.
/Similar problem, but the only way to mitigate the damage is for someone to shove the attacker away from the crowd.
/This has happened, but the media never gives the Hero the press coverage he deserves.
 
2013-04-07 07:43:13 AM  

dk47: dfenstrate: skozlaw: I remember hearing something on NPR where they were talking to a guy who confronted a mass shooter in a mall. He didn't stop him, but they said after he disrupted the guy by confronting him the guy changed up his tactic and holed up in a store instead which effectively ended it. They said that now police are recommending that the most important you can do is disrupt the attacker's pattern, which is why instead of waiting for backup at school events and setting a perimeter they now just breach ASAP.

There's been a few times, to my profit, that I've interrupted someone's plan with my own counter action.

Once some tough looking kids were clearly following me (whilst driving), and after I was sure of it, I stomped on the brakes and pulled onto the shoulder of a busy road. They pulled to the side as if following me through a turn- but there was no turn; and they pulled back onto the road and drove off without stopping.
The other time my wife's employer was obviously setting up to fire my pregnant wife after their busy season was done. So I wrote a letter to them (which my wife passed on as her writing) accusing her supervisor of unlawfully discriminating against a pregnant woman, and got us a $4k payoff to shut up and go away for good.
So yeah , good tactic. Mess up your opponents plan.
/CSB

So you got your wife fired?  Nice.


They were already going to fire her, and admitted the paperwork was already in. They were just waiting until the busy season was done. So I got us a $4k payout instead of her just being fired..

From a few company parties, I think they figured out I earned enough money that she wouldn't be coming back after she had the kid. They decided to just fire her when it was convenient for them, and save themselves any future expenses from someone who wasn't going to come back. Unfortunately, they decided to have a months-long 'improvement process' for a 'weak employee' that was a complete sham, in order to have some kind of HR-approved process, which basically meant they were f*cking with my wife.

I didn't take too kindly to that.
 
2013-04-07 08:02:07 AM  

way south: They used to say "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."


This.

If you see evil, stop it. Laws be damned.
 
2013-04-07 08:15:18 AM  

dfenstrate: From a few company parties, I think they figured out I earned enough money that she wouldn't be coming back after she had the kid. They decided to just fire her when it was convenient for them, and save themselves any future expenses from someone who wasn't going to come back.


They didn't want to give a paid maternity leave to someone who wouldn't return when it was over?

Shocking.
 
2013-04-07 08:28:01 AM  

WordyGrrl: Not long ago, I saw a video about a test to see how well (or if) college students could stop or survive an gunman's attack at a school. All the student participants were taken out to the range, taught how to use the handguns, etc. All felt confident that they could stop the attacker. But when the simulation went live, the students either panicked, froze or fumbled with the weapon and everybody in the scenario got shot.


But take away their gun and give the shooter a smaller magazine, and the kids all turn into John McLane and don't freeze, panic, or fumble anything.
 
2013-04-07 08:59:28 AM  

o5iiawah: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: That's why no major media outlets reported this nonsense,

Well surely if it didn't appear as a frontline story on Nancy Grace it didn't actually happen.

That is your argument.

Listen to how dumb you sound.


Yes, when the "confirmed" source is not named and only appears on OregonLive.com, and no other outlet picks up a story of a CCW hero (You're saying Fox News wouldn't have jumped all over this shiat if it could even be remotely verified), then it's probably bullshiat.  That's why I also brought up Wikipedia's language with the story because even with an aggregate of all submitted accounts, there isn't a single source with a name willing to back up Nick Meli's story other than Nick Meli.  So tell me again, who are the "authorities" from your article?  Why didn't said "authorities" leave a name or phone number?  Why did your article only claim that someone witnessed him being there with a gun, but not that the shooter actually saw him?
 
2013-04-07 09:22:06 AM  

heili skrimsli: dfenstrate: From a few company parties, I think they figured out I earned enough money that she wouldn't be coming back after she had the kid. They decided to just fire her when it was convenient for them, and save themselves any future expenses from someone who wasn't going to come back.

They didn't want to give a paid maternity leave to someone who wouldn't return when it was over?

Shocking.


Do you become illiterate after reading 400-odd characters?
 
2013-04-07 09:30:26 AM  

DrExplosion: I will go on to assume that we simply have different definitions of "obsessive" or that you are a lousy shot.


I'm not, but most people are, that's what I was getting at.
 
2013-04-07 10:24:39 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: If I'm ever caught in a crossfire, I'm going to act like a rabbit.  Most people like rabbits.

OK, so you're going to hop around, twitch your nose, and stare wide-eyed at the gunman; or you're going to pull out a carrot, stick your finger in the end of the barrel, and say "Eh, who ya shootin' at, doc?"

Either would work, but one would be way funnier to watch.


2.bp.blogspot.com

"Eat your vegetables."
 
2013-04-07 12:10:45 PM  

BSABSVR: WordyGrrl: Not long ago, I saw a video about a test to see how well (or if) college students could stop or survive an gunman's attack at a school. All the student participants were taken out to the range, taught how to use the handguns, etc. All felt confident that they could stop the attacker. But when the simulation went live, the students either panicked, froze or fumbled with the weapon and everybody in the scenario got shot.

Well, sure.  But that's college students.  The human badassery that is populating this thread are all capable of instantly and accurately detecting who is a friendly shooter and who is the enemy shooter in a theater full of strangers.  Also they see to think that "friendly fire off" is a toggle switch in real life.


Yep, and I'm sure many of those college students (and folks in this thread) are Xbox badasses with FPS games. The test in that video was flawed, indeed. But it did get across the point that no matter how well you think you're prepared, the scenario will NOT go down as perfectly as you've planned it in your 'I'm a badass" dreams. Just because you're a damn fine shot at the range doesn't mean you're 100% combat ready and instantly capable of downing a violent, unpredictable shooter.  Confidence does not necessarily equal competence.
 
2013-04-07 01:55:47 PM  

Gyrfalcon: I_Am_Weasel: I don't like any of those options.  I need more.

Call in a nuclear strike. That would be my option.


All you have to do is kill 25 gunmen in a row.
 
2013-04-07 02:00:04 PM  

PanicMan: This has been part of the Active Shooter training I've received for at least 2 years.  Before then they've never encouraged you to fight back.  Now they do.


Is there such thing as an Inactive Shooter? Like a guy wants to kill people, but he's a lazy fark, so he just brings a lawn chair and camps in one spot?
 
2013-04-07 02:05:43 PM  

One Bad Apple: RedPhoenix122: Krymson Tyde: No praying? According to Facebook this shiat wouldn't happen if we prayed more.

Also armed everyone.

Kind of implied with the "fight back" part.

Bringing a knife to a gunfight is ill advised but considered an epic win when it works


That's why I have one of these:
www.onpointsupply.com
That way, I never have to choose.

/I really do have one, but only for the ridiculous factor. It was 20 bucks, how could I *not* buy something like that?
 
2013-04-07 04:51:12 PM  
My PD internal circulated this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VcSwejU2D0

I had the same thoughts as the Subby - Cpt. Obvious figured out iMovie.
 
2013-04-07 11:48:27 PM  

way south: Maybe the guy has body armor (so far, none of them have)


The Aurora shooter had full body armor including a tactical helmet.

The problem with trying to defend a mass shooting is that the shooter knows exactly what he's going to do and you don't. That gives him a huge tactical advantage. If everybody in that movie theater had a gun, Holmes would probably have still killed a number of people before anyone reacted and was able to take him down.
 
2013-04-08 12:04:16 AM  

CruiserTwelve: way south: Maybe the guy has body armor (so far, none of them have)

The Aurora shooter had full body armor including a tactical helmet.

The problem with trying to defend a mass shooting is that the shooter knows exactly what he's going to do and you don't. That gives him a huge tactical advantage. If everybody in that movie theater had a gun, Holmes would probably have still killed a number of people before anyone reacted and was able to take him down.


The body armor was an early report that was contradicted in later reports which said he was wearing a tactical vest, but not armor.
 
2013-04-08 12:14:11 AM  

vygramul: The body armor was an early report that was contradicted in later reports which said he was wearing a tactical vest, but not armor.


Yep, a 'tactical vest' is the military equivalent of a fishing vest - designed to hold lots of stuff in various spots, but not to function as any sort of armor.

CruiserTwelve: The problem with trying to defend a mass shooting is that the shooter knows exactly what he's going to do and you don't. That gives him a huge tactical advantage. If everybody in that movie theater had a gun, Holmes would probably have still killed a number of people before anyone reacted and was able to take him down.


Yes, but he would have killed quite a few fewer people though.
 
2013-04-08 09:14:39 AM  

CruiserTwelve: way south: Maybe the guy has body armor (so far, none of them have)

The Aurora shooter had full body armor including a tactical helmet.

The problem with trying to defend a mass shooting is that the shooter knows exactly what he's going to do and you don't. That gives him a huge tactical advantage. If everybody in that movie theater had a gun, Holmes would probably have still killed a number of people before anyone reacted and was able to take him down.




He has the tactical advantage but he also has the strategic choice of targets.

Criminals don't often target large crowds because they present too many unpredictable outcomes. Someone might resist. Someone might run. There might be an off duty cop in their ranks. What you want (as a crook) are fewer variables.
Body armor or not, you can't keep up your assault with small caliber rounds plinking off you. Which is what you risk even if you pick the most advantageous situation.

What we've done is weed out the weapons and leave a trapped audience. The shooter is no longer limited by the confines of a secure vantage point or the fear of return fire.

The damage of the "gun free zone" theory isn't just that the shooter has been given an advantage, its that we've also assured him of that advantage by law and by example. They will attempt more audacious crimes because they've been given bigger opportunities.

If we can reverse that perception then the least we will do is redirect mad gunmen to targeting smaller groups.
 
2013-04-08 11:05:23 AM  

way south: CruiserTwelve: way south: Maybe the guy has body armor (so far, none of them have)

The Aurora shooter had full body armor including a tactical helmet.

The problem with trying to defend a mass shooting is that the shooter knows exactly what he's going to do and you don't. That gives him a huge tactical advantage. If everybody in that movie theater had a gun, Holmes would probably have still killed a number of people before anyone reacted and was able to take him down.

He has the tactical advantage but he also has the strategic choice of targets.

Criminals don't often target large crowds because they present too many unpredictable outcomes. Someone might resist. Someone might run. There might be an off duty cop in their ranks. What you want (as a crook) are fewer variables.
Body armor or not, you can't keep up your assault with small caliber rounds plinking off you. Which is what you risk even if you pick the most advantageous situation.

What we've done is weed out the weapons and leave a trapped audience. The shooter is no longer limited by the confines of a secure vantage point or the fear of return fire.

The damage of the "gun free zone" theory isn't just that the shooter has been given an advantage, its that we've also assured him of that advantage by law and by example. They will attempt more audacious crimes because they've been given bigger opportunities.

If we can reverse that perception then the least we will do is redirect mad gunmen to targeting smaller groups.


The gun free zone theory isn't some random hope that killers will respect them. It's that anyone with a gun in that zone automatically needs to be intercepted and arrested. There are about as many teachers going about armed in gun free zones today as there were before the law was passed, so it's not like suddenly mass shooters became even more capable than before.
 
2013-04-08 11:44:55 AM  

vygramul: way south: CruiserTwelve: way south: Maybe the guy has body armor (so far, none of them have)

The Aurora shooter had full body armor including a tactical helmet.

The problem with trying to defend a mass shooting is that the shooter knows exactly what he's going to do and you don't. That gives him a huge tactical advantage. If everybody in that movie theater had a gun, Holmes would probably have still killed a number of people before anyone reacted and was able to take him down.

He has the tactical advantage but he also has the strategic choice of targets.

Criminals don't often target large crowds because they present too many unpredictable outcomes. Someone might resist. Someone might run. There might be an off duty cop in their ranks. What you want (as a crook) are fewer variables.
Body armor or not, you can't keep up your assault with small caliber rounds plinking off you. Which is what you risk even if you pick the most advantageous situation.

What we've done is weed out the weapons and leave a trapped audience. The shooter is no longer limited by the confines of a secure vantage point or the fear of return fire.

The damage of the "gun free zone" theory isn't just that the shooter has been given an advantage, its that we've also assured him of that advantage by law and by example. They will attempt more audacious crimes because they've been given bigger opportunities.

If we can reverse that perception then the least we will do is redirect mad gunmen to targeting smaller groups.

The gun free zone theory isn't some random hope that killers will respect them. It's that anyone with a gun in that zone automatically needs to be intercepted and arrested. There are about as many teachers going about armed in gun free zones today as there were before the law was passed, so it's not like suddenly mass shooters became even more capable than before.




They should have been intercepted, but these zones were often applied without security or some means to make that inception happen.

It isn't about a change in the shooters ability or our means of defend, its that we have an advertised vulnerability that the nation has done very little to fix for decades.
Shootings happen, politicians double down on the stupid, more shootings happen.

If we want to stop it then we've got to start defending where we're weakest. Crowds have to become dangerous to mass shooters again.
 
2013-04-08 01:07:32 PM  

dfenstrate: heili skrimsli: dfenstrate: From a few company parties, I think they figured out I earned enough money that she wouldn't be coming back after she had the kid. They decided to just fire her when it was convenient for them, and save themselves any future expenses from someone who wasn't going to come back.

They didn't want to give a paid maternity leave to someone who wouldn't return when it was over?

Shocking.

Do you become illiterate after reading 400-odd characters?


Other than 'paid maternity leave' what future expenses were they saving themselves? Her current salary? Well shiat, why not just get rid of her now and hire someone who will be around longer than another six months, seeing as she had no intention of returning to work post-birth. They'd also neatly solve the problem of absenteeism for doctor appointments and whatnot before the maternity leave anyway, which if she worked up until the actual birth she could've taken despite having no intention whatsoever of returning.

They were probably happy to pay the four grand and be done with it.
 
Displayed 231 of 231 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report