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
    More: Obvious, mass shooting, Texas State University, Houston Police Department, Columbine High School, Holocaust survivors, Virginia Tech, Seung-Hui Cho  
•       •       •

2208 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Apr 2013 at 7:53 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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