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.

(Campus Reform)   If you were a professor at a major university during a shooting, what would you do? Lock the doors? Turn off the lights? The correct answer is: carry on as normal, ignore your students' concerns, and joke about having them tackle the shooter   (campusreform.org) divider line 139
    More: Fail, shocks, Purdue, Rebecca Trax, Inter-process communication, lecture hall, business management  
•       •       •

6176 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2014 at 11:47 AM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-23 01:58:44 PM

Hyjamon: Fizpez: so you all might as well zerg rush the MF'r and hope for the best.

curious, did your training include students or the idea that students will be trained as well?

cause you touch on the point I am trying to make, a zerg rush only works if there is an actual zerg.  If only one person bums rushes the shooter (or only one at a time rush him in a trickle), chances are high that one person is going to die and then all the other wallflowers immediately after.  In order to perform a zerg rush, you need everyone ready to go, not just the instructor (and the few random vets/police who happen to be taking the class as a civilian)


The training will include the students (6th grade and above will get the "rush them" training as well).  Honestly though (and this assumes the shooter is there to kill people) even ONE person rushing is better than zero.

They were really clear on a few points:

The shooter is there to kill as many people as possible.
They plan on dying that day.
You do not (and should not) want to be a sheep waiting to be slaughtered.

They told us the VA Tech shooter had practiced shooting targets on the floor of his local range - the owner thought it strange but didnt make the connection.

It comes down to this: Don't let the shooter in your room BUT if it comes to that you are almost CERTAINLY going to die if you do nothing.  This is not about people thinking they're Rambo - its the simple realization that someone intent on killing a room full of people should not have their job made easier by the people huddling on the floor waiting for a bullet to the back of their head.
 
2014-01-23 02:00:44 PM
PS It was a hard day of training to get through - when you hear some of the "not on TV" facts about mass shootings (Sandy Hook, VA Tech, Columbine) - - - lets just say emotions were pretty raw.
 
2014-01-23 02:01:31 PM

Fizpez: PS It was a hard day of training to get through - when you hear some of the "not on TV" facts about mass shootings (Sandy Hook, VA Tech, Columbine) - - - lets just say emotions were pretty raw.


spill the juicy deets
 
2014-01-23 02:04:51 PM
toughen up, snowflakes.

(a little NSFW unless you work in law enforcement.)
 
2014-01-23 02:11:05 PM

ransack.: Hyjamon: ransack.: No, this is why open source  any software with vulnerabilities is exploited and attacked massively immediately after it is released.

isn't that the truer statement?

Yes, but the difference with OSS is that every vulnerability is immediately apparent to any attacker of reasonable intelligence, whereas with closed software (metaphorically, the active-shooter plan known only to staff), trial-and-error is used and the system is not entirely predictable by the attacker.

In any case, wouldn't the professors, anybody but campus police, they don't even have the authority to tell the students what to do, do they? They are adults, they can run and hide or scream or tackle as they please, no?


if the staff are the only ones who know what to do it is useless to a great degree since a lot of the tactics require more than one person. You are correct that the faculty can't really tell the students what to do, but they also don't have time to tell them what they could do if they want to have a greater chance of survival.

I can't create a barricade, guard the door and arm everyone with something to throw nor do I have time to explain that when the moment comes...everyone in the classroom needs to know what to do when the time comes so that a few guard the door, a few grab tables, chairs, and on down the line.
 
2014-01-23 02:15:30 PM

Fizpez: PS It was a hard day of training to get through - when you hear some of the "not on TV" facts about mass shootings (Sandy Hook, VA Tech, Columbine) - - - lets just say emotions were pretty raw.


we had some faculty have a similar reaction when the police chief briefed us on active shooter situations.  He also echoed the same sentiment...you will need to fight at some stage of the event.

If you are on your knees and the shooter has a gun to your head, you had better put up a fight because you are going to die if you don't. There were a lot of gasps at that statement, I think he offended some sensibilities being so candor, but I think people need to realize you have to confront the situation and cannot be passive.
 
2014-01-23 02:29:20 PM

Hyjamon: Fizpez: PS It was a hard day of training to get through - when you hear some of the "not on TV" facts about mass shootings (Sandy Hook, VA Tech, Columbine) - - - lets just say emotions were pretty raw.

we had some faculty have a similar reaction when the police chief briefed us on active shooter situations.  He also echoed the same sentiment...you will need to fight at some stage of the event.

If you are on your knees and the shooter has a gun to your head, you had better put up a fight because you are going to die if you don't. There were a lot of gasps at that statement, I think he offended some sensibilities being so candor, but I think people need to realize you have to confront the situation and cannot be passive.


Same for people and rape / abduction.  Get into the car and odds of surviving drop vastly.  Might as well have a fighting chance.
 
2014-01-23 02:43:38 PM

Hyjamon: Fizpez: PS It was a hard day of training to get through - when you hear some of the "not on TV" facts about mass shootings (Sandy Hook, VA Tech, Columbine) - - - lets just say emotions were pretty raw.

we had some faculty have a similar reaction when the police chief briefed us on active shooter situations.  He also echoed the same sentiment...you will need to fight at some stage of the event.

If you are on your knees and the shooter has a gun to your head, you had better put up a fight because you are going to die if you don't. There were a lot of gasps at that statement, I think he offended some sensibilities being so candor, but I think people need to realize you have to confront the situation and cannot be passive.


When we had our "situation" here at work a few months ago (suspected person with a weapon on campus, turned out to be an umbrella), I told the two co-workers of my who sheltered in my shared office what the plan was if someone actually made it into the room.

One of them flat out said they couldn't hurt another person.

Think about the implications of that.

One out of three people was basically going to just give up and willingly commit passive suicide instead of trying to save her own life.  And this is a person with a husband and 2 children.

That is why I've *NEVER* said to my son "violence never solves anything" or "violence is never the answer".  Sometimes, violence is the only appropriate answer.  It's a rarity that violence is the appropriate answer, of course.
 
2014-01-23 02:45:57 PM

Alebak: On one hand if he was trying to keep his students calm, I can  sort of see what he was trying to do, and even if they train professors in what to do its possible that this was his "freeze in the headlights" reaction.

But still, this comes across as SUPER RETARDED. If this wasnt actually some kind of nervous reaction than what the fark was he thinking?


Can you explain your point of view?  You seem to have missed all the comments before yours, so you are obviously on a different track.  Lets hear it.

Is the correct action to hide?  Run?  Jump under your chair and cry?  Barricade the doors?  What is the acceptable response, in your mind?

Personally, I think the professor did a good job. No undue panic, no idiotic "feel good" measures, and minimum disruption to the intended goings on (meaning class).
 
2014-01-23 02:47:43 PM

dusty15893: ikanreed: dusty15893: Yes if only there was some sort of saying or idiom to encapsulate your thoughts about discrection and valor.

Yeah, but the hiding doesn't do any good.  It didn't keep bombs from falling in London, and it doesn't keep shooters from shooting.

 but you're delusional if you think you'd have the slightest clue how you'd actually react when put into a situation where "fight or flight" becomes your reality.


Unless you've actually been in "fight or flight" situations several times. Which I have. Every time, I have fought. Not one time have I run. Not once.

Either I'm an idiot (possible), I'm insane (probable), or I'm genetically hardwired to fight (most likely, since my father once look at six guys he'd fired earlier in the week who'd come back armed with knives and won). Flight never actually even occurs to me as an option--some people just don't think that way. Doesn't make either instinct wrong, it just is what it is. /shrug
 
2014-01-23 03:13:08 PM

dittybopper: Hyjamon: Fizpez: PS It was a hard day of training to get through - when you hear some of the "not on TV" facts about mass shootings (Sandy Hook, VA Tech, Columbine) - - - lets just say emotions were pretty raw.

we had some faculty have a similar reaction when the police chief briefed us on active shooter situations.  He also echoed the same sentiment...you will need to fight at some stage of the event.

If you are on your knees and the shooter has a gun to your head, you had better put up a fight because you are going to die if you don't. There were a lot of gasps at that statement, I think he offended some sensibilities being so candor, but I think people need to realize you have to confront the situation and cannot be passive.

When we had our "situation" here at work a few months ago (suspected person with a weapon on campus, turned out to be an umbrella), I told the two co-workers of my who sheltered in my shared office what the plan was if someone actually made it into the room.

One of them flat out said they couldn't hurt another person.

Think about the implications of that.

One out of three people was basically going to just give up and willingly commit passive suicide instead of trying to save her own life.  And this is a person with a husband and 2 children.

That is why I've *NEVER* said to my son "violence never solves anything" or "violence is never the answer".  Sometimes, violence is the only appropriate answer.  It's a rarity that violence is the appropriate answer, of course.


Violence is only the answer if the question is violence. Then, it is the only answer.
 
2014-01-23 03:20:57 PM

kroonermanblack: Correct me if I'm wrong, but counter to the desires of freepers, not every student on campus is armed with a 9mm machine gun or light anti tank rifle, and MOST are not engaged in trench warfare of attrition.

Most are, in fact, completely unarmed civilians with no training who are simply fish in a barrel for a gunman with any sense.


Sense isn't needed; a Lunatic charging into a crowded lecture hall with guns a-blazin' has a huge advantage over the Hero who would save the day.  Everyone in the room is a target for the Lunatic.  The Hero must first make sure he's aiming for the Lunatic and not another Hero, and then he must hit the Lunatic, and *only* the Lunatic.

So unless you can keep your head when a Lunatic is shooting into a panicky crowd, and can be sure that's the Lunatic you're aiming at, that 9mm isn't going to help you.
 
2014-01-23 03:21:20 PM

Aigoo: dusty15893: ikanreed: dusty15893: Yes if only there was some sort of saying or idiom to encapsulate your thoughts about discrection and valor.

Yeah, but the hiding doesn't do any good.  It didn't keep bombs from falling in London, and it doesn't keep shooters from shooting.

 but you're delusional if you think you'd have the slightest clue how you'd actually react when put into a situation where "fight or flight" becomes your reality.

Unless you've actually been in "fight or flight" situations several times. Which I have. Every time, I have fought. Not one time have I run. Not once.

Either I'm an idiot (possible), I'm insane (probable), or I'm genetically hardwired to fight (most likely, since my father once look at six guys he'd fired earlier in the week who'd come back armed with knives and won). Flight never actually even occurs to me as an option--some people just don't think that way. Doesn't make either instinct wrong, it just is what it is. /shrug


You're wired that way - the trainers said people fall into 3 categories (the 3 F's) Fight, Fight or Freeze - who you are in the first instant is who you are.  There are people who will freeze in a room full of people who are being summarily executed - you can almost take as long as you'd like because they will sit there until the end.

They also described the Fight - the type of person, who if you jump out at them in a dark hallway. will smash your face with their first involuntary movement.

IMHO the prof was right to keep them calm, but a straight up moron for not locking the door.
 
2014-01-23 03:23:04 PM

Fizpez: IMHO the prof was right to keep them calm, but a straight up moron for not locking the door.


You're better at phrasing these things.
 
2014-01-23 03:29:52 PM
have sex with hot co-eds
 
2014-01-23 03:47:13 PM

Hyjamon: if the door swings into a classroom, a $1 door stop can be a highly effective deterrent...yet we cannot order them.  Where I teach, there is no way to lock the door in most of the classrooms and there is no budget to install locks.


$25, keep it in your desk and bring it with you if you quit.  They work really well.

http://www.countycomm.com/hydralock.html
 
2014-01-23 03:55:05 PM

Fizpez: They also described the Fight - the type of person, who if you jump out at them in a dark hallway. will smash your face with their first involuntary movement.


haha, this is a fair description of a fight response...especially the involuntary movement part, and it makes for funny ending to pranks pulled on people with this response.


Had a roommate try the "boo" thing in the dark, without thinking I punched him in the face, so I definitely understand the involuntary part.  He did not understand this and was pissed I punched him.
 
2014-01-23 03:55:06 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Sense isn't needed; a Lunatic charging into a crowded lecture hall with guns a-blazin' has a huge advantage over the Hero who would save the day.  Everyone in the room is a target for the Lunatic.  The Hero must first make sure he's aiming for the Lunatic and not another Hero, and then he must hit the Lunatic, and *only* the Lunatic.

So unless you can keep your head when a Lunatic is shooting into a panicky crowd, and can be sure that's the Lunatic you're aiming at, that 9mm isn't going to help you.


The Lunatic is easy to distinguish from the rest of the people.  That should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer.  He's the one that just busted into the room and started shooting at everyone.

ABC's 20/20 actually did a test back in 2009 to see if an armed person in a classroom could effectively fight back.

Except that if you watch it and you are paying attention, they stacked the deck:

1. The "Defensive Shooter" was sitting in the same seat for all the tests.
2. The "Active Shooter" in all of the tests targeted the person in that seat first.

Those two things alone show that the test was rigged from the start, but that was just the biggest problem.  Some of the others:

3. The "Active Shooter" was a SWAT team firearms instructor.  Generally, active shooters don't have that kind of level of competence.

4. The "Defensive Shooter" was using a gun and holster unfamiliar to them.

5. The "Defensive Shooter" was wearing bulky gloves and an oversized t-shirt that made it hard to deploy the gun quickly.

6. The holster the "Defensive Shooter" was required to use is a 'retention holster', which is designed to be difficult for a person to remove the gun (to prevent others from stealing the gun), not designed for a person to deploy the gun quickly.  Mostly, they are worn by uniformed police officers for whom gun retention is an issue.  It wasn't a typical concealed carry-type holster.

Even with all those handicaps, though, at least one of the "Defensive Shooters" managed to hit the "Active Shooter".
 
2014-01-23 03:59:02 PM

dittybopper: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Sense isn't needed; a Lunatic charging into a crowded lecture hall with guns a-blazin' has a huge advantage over the Hero who would save the day.  Everyone in the room is a target for the Lunatic.  The Hero must first make sure he's aiming for the Lunatic and not another Hero, and then he must hit the Lunatic, and *only* the Lunatic.

So unless you can keep your head when a Lunatic is shooting into a panicky crowd, and can be sure that's the Lunatic you're aiming at, that 9mm isn't going to help you.

The Lunatic is easy to distinguish from the rest of the people.  That should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer.  He's the one that just busted into the room and started shooting at everyone.

ABC's 20/20 actually did a test back in 2009 to see if an armed person in a classroom could effectively fight back.

Except that if you watch it and you are paying attention, they stacked the deck:

1. The "Defensive Shooter" was sitting in the same seat for all the tests.
2. The "Active Shooter" in all of the tests targeted the person in that seat first.

Those two things alone show that the test was rigged from the start, but that was just the biggest problem.  Some of the others:

3. The "Active Shooter" was a SWAT team firearms instructor.  Generally, active shooters don't have that kind of level of competence.

4. The "Defensive Shooter" was using a gun and holster unfamiliar to them.

5. The "Defensive Shooter" was wearing bulky gloves and an oversized t-shirt that made it hard to deploy the gun quickly.

6. The holster the "Defensive Shooter" was required to use is a 'retention holster', which is designed to be difficult for a person to remove the gun (to prevent others from stealing the gun), not designed for a person to deploy the gun quickly.  Mostly, they are worn by uniformed police officers for whom gun retention is an issue.  It wasn't a typical concealed carry-type holster.

Even with all those handicaps, though, at lea ...


I actually remember this, though only vaguely, after seeing just a small portion of it the flaws began to become readily apparent and you did a great job summing it up.
 
2014-01-23 04:02:40 PM

Molavian: Hyjamon: if the door swings into a classroom, a $1 door stop can be a highly effective deterrent...yet we cannot order them.  Where I teach, there is no way to lock the door in most of the classrooms and there is no budget to install locks.

$25, keep it in your desk and bring it with you if you quit.  They work really well.

http://www.countycomm.com/hydralock.html


thanks for sharing, that is pretty clever and may be a more economical solution that installing locks on every door
 
2014-01-23 04:13:24 PM

SR_NightBane: I actually remember this, though only vaguely, after seeing just a small portion of it the flaws began to become readily apparent and you did a great job summing it up.


It was pretty obvious to anyone with any firearms experience at all what was going on.

Hell, just the first two points, which should be obvious to even people without firearms experience at all, show that it was a rigged test from the start.
 
2014-01-23 04:30:00 PM
It'll be interesting to see some of the data when we have more defensive shooters in mass shootings. I've read a lot about armed customers in stores killing people who came to rob the place. Anyone have a story of a defensive shooter who saved anyone in a mass shooting incident?

Seems to me a defensive shooter would have a huge advantage over someone there to rob the place, and no advantage at all over someone there to shoot as many people as possible. I'd think even the craziest of people would probably shoot anyone who looked like they might be armed, only after shooting anyone reaching for their armpit, waistband, or ankle.
 
2014-01-23 04:39:01 PM

Molavian: Hyjamon: if the door swings into a classroom, a $1 door stop can be a highly effective deterrent...yet we cannot order them.  Where I teach, there is no way to lock the door in most of the classrooms and there is no budget to install locks.

$25, keep it in your desk and bring it with you if you quit.  They work really well.

http://www.countycomm.com/hydralock.html


And get charged with kidnapping when you use it, and all kinds of other crimes if that door happens to be a fire exit.

It will be nice for the students when you bust that out and then the shooter comes through a closet and kills you. I'm sure removing that will be very intuitive, there's no way that device could slow down an evacuation/escape if the situation unfolds differently than the professor expects. And I'm sure the professor has tons of experience being a hostage and taking control and rescuing others. Even if he doesn't, a polyester strap and a belt buckle will definitely save everyone. Unless the shooter starts a fire, and that's the only way out, and the prof is unconscious, and nobody else knows what this orange strap is or how to remove it, and now the whole class is clustered and panicked in one corner of the room. That will be fine, though.
 
2014-01-23 04:42:01 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: Anyone have a story of a defensive shooter who saved anyone in a mass shooting incident?


Yes.

Two "rebuttal" are offered to this incident:

1) Ms. Assam was a police officer. The reality, however, is that she was a former police officer at the time, not a member of any police force.
2) Ms. Assam was a security guard. This is a misrepresentation, as it implies that Ms. Assam was employed to provide security. In fact, the church's "security" was a group of volunteers from amongst the congregation; Ms. Assam's firearm was her own, and she was permitted to carry only because she held a state-issue concealed weapons permit.

Also, Ms. Assam has since been asked to leave the church, after she came out as a lesbian.
 
2014-01-23 04:45:12 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: It'll be interesting to see some of the data when we have more defensive shooters in mass shootings. I've read a lot about armed customers in stores killing people who came to rob the place. Anyone have a story of a defensive shooter who saved anyone in a mass shooting incident?

Seems to me a defensive shooter would have a huge advantage over someone there to rob the place, and no advantage at all over someone there to shoot as many people as possible. I'd think even the craziest of people would probably shoot anyone who looked like they might be armed, only after shooting anyone reaching for their armpit, waistband, or ankle.


Anyone have a story of a defensive shooter who saved anyone in a mass shooting incident?

Yes, thousands. Here's one -
As Martinez fired, McCoy jumped to the right of Martinez and fired two fatal shots of 00-buckshot with his 12-gauge shotgun, hitting Charles Whitman in the head, neck and left side.
 
2014-01-23 05:48:32 PM

ransack.: Molavian: Hyjamon: if the door swings into a classroom, a $1 door stop can be a highly effective deterrent...yet we cannot order them.  Where I teach, there is no way to lock the door in most of the classrooms and there is no budget to install locks.

$25, keep it in your desk and bring it with you if you quit.  They work really well.

http://www.countycomm.com/hydralock.html

And get charged with kidnapping when you use it, and all kinds of other crimes if that door happens to be a fire exit.

It will be nice for the students when you bust that out and then the shooter comes through a closet and kills you. I'm sure removing that will be very intuitive, there's no way that device could slow down an evacuation/escape if the situation unfolds differently than the professor expects. And I'm sure the professor has tons of experience being a hostage and taking control and rescuing others. Even if he doesn't, a polyester strap and a belt buckle will definitely save everyone. Unless the shooter starts a fire, and that's the only way out, and the prof is unconscious, and nobody else knows what this orange strap is or how to remove it, and now the whole class is clustered and panicked in one corner of the room. That will be fine, though.


don't forget about the situation where the professor IS the shooter, then the strap makes the room a death trap for the students AND the professor has his male TA walking thru the halls with grenades, C4 and rpgs blowing all the doors off their hinges and he has his asain TA who was previously in the IDF on the roof of the tallest building with a sniper rifle picking off all the ones who do manage to make it out of the building.

/nothing is foolproof, so we should do nothing instead.  Republican?
 
2014-01-23 06:41:53 PM

StoPPeRmobile: eggrolls: Seems proof that as a culture, we can become inured to anything.

[media2.giphy.com image 400x220]


Oh, that was beauty. Awesome counterpoint, sir.
 
2014-01-23 07:03:49 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: It'll be interesting to see some of the data when we have more defensive shooters in mass shootings. I've read a lot about armed customers in stores killing people who came to rob the place. Anyone have a story of a defensive shooter who saved anyone in a mass shooting incident?

Seems to me a defensive shooter would have a huge advantage over someone there to rob the place, and no advantage at all over someone there to shoot as many people as possible. I'd think even the craziest of people would probably shoot anyone who looked like they might be armed, only after shooting anyone reaching for their armpit, waistband, or ankle.


The wackos always pick a place the law abiding citizen can't carry a defensive weapon.
 
2014-01-23 07:04:35 PM

Molavian: Hyjamon: if the door swings into a classroom, a $1 door stop can be a highly effective deterrent...yet we cannot order them.  Where I teach, there is no way to lock the door in most of the classrooms and there is no budget to install locks.

$25, keep it in your desk and bring it with you if you quit.  They work really well.

http://www.countycomm.com/hydralock.html


Thanks.
 
2014-01-23 07:05:53 PM

eggrolls: StoPPeRmobile: eggrolls: Seems proof that as a culture, we can become inured to anything.

[media2.giphy.com image 400x220]

Oh, that was beauty. Awesome counterpoint, sir.


I aim to please.
 
2014-01-23 07:17:36 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: It'll be interesting to see some of the data when we have more defensive shooters in mass shootings. I've read a lot about armed customers in stores killing people who came to rob the place. Anyone have a story of a defensive shooter who saved anyone in a mass shooting incident?

Seems to me a defensive shooter would have a huge advantage over someone there to rob the place, and no advantage at all over someone there to shoot as many people as possible. I'd think even the craziest of people would probably shoot anyone who looked like they might be armed, only after shooting anyone reaching for their armpit, waistband, or ankle.


Actually, a defensive shooter has a number of advantages over an active shooter. Once the AS starts shooting, the element of surprise is gone for him. The DS, on the other hand, still retains it. This is especially true because AS tend to pick areas and circumstances where the think every one will be unarmed. The other thing to consider is that most of the time, when confronted by someone shooting back at them, AS tend to fold like a house of cards. Their "magical power of life and death" is no longer uncontested. They might shoot back, of course, but generally these incidents end very quickly after someone shoots back.

The only real exception to that that I can hunk of is Columbine, but that was an anomaly in a number of different ways. First, there were two shooters. That means they could provide psychological support for each other. It's why sniper teams have two people, and why the Japanese used two man minisubs: where an individual might give up or lose their nerve, a member of a close team won't want to let their teammate down.

The other anomalous thing about Coumbine is hat it wasn't supposed to be a school shooting: Plan A was for it to be a bombing. When the bombs didn't work, they went to Plan B.
 
2014-01-23 07:19:18 PM
BTW, posting from an iPod, so excuse the typos.
 
2014-01-23 10:56:03 PM

ransack.: It will be nice for the students when you bust that out and then the shooter comes through a closet and kills you. I'm sure removing that will be very intuitive, there's no way that device could slow down an evacuation/escape if the situation unfolds differently than the professor expects. And I'm sure the professor has tons of experience being a hostage and taking control and rescuing others. Even if he doesn't, a polyester strap and a belt buckle will definitely save everyone. Unless the shooter starts a fire, and that's the only way out, and the prof is unconscious, and nobody else knows what this orange strap is or how to remove it, and now the whole class is clustered and panicked in one corner of the room. That will be fine, though.


Molavian: Movement. Signal's clean. Range, 20 meters.
ransack.: They've found a way in, something we've missed.
Hyjamon: We didn't miss anything.
Molavian: 17 meters.
ransack.: Something under the floor, not in the plans, I don't know.
Molavian: 15 meters.
dittybopper: ransack..
Hyjamon: Definitely inside the barricades.
dittybopper: Let's go.
Molavian: 12 meters.
ransack.: That's right outside the door. Hyjamon, StoPPeRmobile  get back.
Molavian: Man, this is a big farkin' signal.
Hyjamon: How are we doing StoPPeRmobile , talk to me?
StoPPeRmobile : Almost there.
[They welded the door shut, and stepped back away from the door]
StoPPeRmobile : They're right on us.
Hyjamon: Remember, short controlled bursts.
Molavian: 9 meters. 7. 6.
ransack.: That can't be; that's inside the room.
Molavian: It's reading right man, look!
Hyjamon: Then you're not reading *it* right.
Molavian: 5 meters, man. 4. What the hell?
 
2014-01-24 12:34:38 AM

Molavian: ransack.: It will be nice for the students when you bust that out and then the shooter comes through a closet and kills you. I'm sure removing that will be very intuitive, there's no way that device could slow down an evacuation/escape if the situation unfolds differently than the professor expects. And I'm sure the professor has tons of experience being a hostage and taking control and rescuing others. Even if he doesn't, a polyester strap and a belt buckle will definitely save everyone. Unless the shooter starts a fire, and that's the only way out, and the prof is unconscious, and nobody else knows what this orange strap is or how to remove it, and now the whole class is clustered and panicked in one corner of the room. That will be fine, though.

Molavian: Movement. Signal's clean. Range, 20 meters.
ransack.: They've found a way in, something we've missed.
Hyjamon: We didn't miss anything.
Molavian: 17 meters.
ransack.: Something under the floor, not in the plans, I don't know.
Molavian: 15 meters.
dittybopper: ransack..
Hyjamon: Definitely inside the barricades.
dittybopper: Let's go.
Molavian: 12 meters.
ransack.: That's right outside the door. Hyjamon, StoPPeRmobile  get back.
Molavian: Man, this is a big farkin' signal.
Hyjamon: How are we doing StoPPeRmobile , talk to me?
StoPPeRmobile : Almost there.
[They welded the door shut, and stepped back away from the door]
StoPPeRmobile : They're right on us.
Hyjamon: Remember, short controlled bursts.
Molavian: 9 meters. 7. 6.
ransack.: That can't be; that's inside the room.
Molavian: It's reading right man, look!
Hyjamon: Then you're not reading *it* right.
Molavian: 5 meters, man. 4. What the hell?


I enjoyed this.. I feel sexy now
 
2014-01-24 06:04:09 AM

ransack.: Molavian: ransack.: It will be nice for the students when you bust that out and then the shooter comes through a closet and kills you. I'm sure removing that will be very intuitive, there's no way that device could slow down an evacuation/escape if the situation unfolds differently than the professor expects. And I'm sure the professor has tons of experience being a hostage and taking control and rescuing others. Even if he doesn't, a polyester strap and a belt buckle will definitely save everyone. Unless the shooter starts a fire, and that's the only way out, and the prof is unconscious, and nobody else knows what this orange strap is or how to remove it, and now the whole class is clustered and panicked in one corner of the room. That will be fine, though.

Molavian: Movement. Signal's clean. Range, 20 meters.
ransack.: They've found a way in, something we've missed.
Hyjamon: We didn't miss anything.
Molavian: 17 meters.
ransack.: Something under the floor, not in the plans, I don't know.
Molavian: 15 meters.
dittybopper: ransack..
Hyjamon: Definitely inside the barricades.
dittybopper: Let's go.
Molavian: 12 meters.
ransack.: That's right outside the door. Hyjamon, StoPPeRmobile  get back.
Molavian: Man, this is a big farkin' signal.
Hyjamon: How are we doing StoPPeRmobile , talk to me?
StoPPeRmobile : Almost there.
[They welded the door shut, and stepped back away from the door]
StoPPeRmobile : They're right on us.
Hyjamon: Remember, short controlled bursts.
Molavian: 9 meters. 7. 6.
ransack.: That can't be; that's inside the room.
Molavian: It's reading right man, look!
Hyjamon: Then you're not reading *it* right.
Molavian: 5 meters, man. 4. What the hell?

I enjoyed this.. I feel sexy now


I feel sexy regardless, due mainly to my luxurious Mohawk haircut.

That, and my freshly shorn testicles. I highly recommend it
 
2014-01-24 07:05:46 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Sense isn't needed; a Lunatic charging into a crowded lecture hall with guns a-blazin' has a huge advantage over the Hero who would save the day.  Everyone in the room is a target for the Lunatic.  The Hero must first make sure he's aiming for the Lunatic and not another Hero, and then he must hit the Lunatic, and *only* the Lunatic.


Actually, the bolded part isn't true.

First, if all the Defensive Shooter does is distract the Active Shooter for a while so that more people can escape, that's still a major benefit.  He doesn't necessarily have to kill the AS, just make the AS shift his focus from methodically executing the unarmed victims to returning fire to the DS.    And the AS *HAS* to shift his focus to a DS who is actively engaging him.  Not only is it a tactical necessity, it's also a psychological one.

Second, even if the DS hits one or more of the intended victims of the AS, in all probability it would still be a net benefit.  I can't imagine any scenario, no matter how unlikely, where a crossfire between an AS and a DS would result in *MORE* deaths than an AS killing unarmed victims unopposed.  The theory that a crossfire would be worse than a AS methodically executing victims (which I've seen many, many times here on Fark) has never been born out in actual real life.
 
2014-01-24 09:53:23 AM

dittybopper: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Sense isn't needed; a Lunatic charging into a crowded lecture hall with guns a-blazin' has a huge advantage over the Hero who would save the day.  Everyone in the room is a target for the Lunatic.  The Hero must first make sure he's aiming for the Lunatic and not another Hero, and then he must hit the Lunatic, and *only* the Lunatic.

Actually, the bolded part isn't true.

First, if all the Defensive Shooter does is distract the Active Shooter for a while so that more people can escape, that's still a major benefit.  He doesn't necessarily have to kill the AS, just make the AS shift his focus from methodically executing the unarmed victims to returning fire to the DS.    And the AS *HAS* to shift his focus to a DS who is actively engaging him.  Not only is it a tactical necessity, it's also a psychological one.

Second, even if the DS hits one or more of the intended victims of the AS, in all probability it would still be a net benefit.  I can't imagine any scenario, no matter how unlikely, where a crossfire between an AS and a DS would result in *MORE* deaths than an AS killing unarmed victims unopposed.  The theory that a crossfire would be worse than a AS methodically executing victims (which I've seen many, many times here on Fark) has never been born out in actual real life.


Also agree.  I would much rather be in a line of fire and take a random bullet than a guy standing 3 feet away carefully aiming at me.  Many non well placed gunshots are very survivable.
 
2014-01-24 10:52:50 AM

GameSprocket: I keep getting told that guns aren't dangerous, so why would he stop what he was doing just because someone on campus was shooting one?


That's because you were too stupid to comprehend the entire thought. Guns aren't dangerous...
people shooting guns are dangerous.

The more you know...
 
2014-01-24 03:00:08 PM

CivicMindedFive: dittybopper: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Sense isn't needed; a Lunatic charging into a crowded lecture hall with guns a-blazin' has a huge advantage over the Hero who would save the day.  Everyone in the room is a target for the Lunatic.  The Hero must first make sure he's aiming for the Lunatic and not another Hero, and then he must hit the Lunatic, and *only* the Lunatic.

Actually, the bolded part isn't true.

First, if all the Defensive Shooter does is distract the Active Shooter for a while so that more people can escape, that's still a major benefit.  He doesn't necessarily have to kill the AS, just make the AS shift his focus from methodically executing the unarmed victims to returning fire to the DS.    And the AS *HAS* to shift his focus to a DS who is actively engaging him.  Not only is it a tactical necessity, it's also a psychological one.

Second, even if the DS hits one or more of the intended victims of the AS, in all probability it would still be a net benefit.  I can't imagine any scenario, no matter how unlikely, where a crossfire between an AS and a DS would result in *MORE* deaths than an AS killing unarmed victims unopposed.  The theory that a crossfire would be worse than a AS methodically executing victims (which I've seen many, many times here on Fark) has never been born out in actual real life.

Also agree.  I would much rather be in a line of fire and take a random bullet than a guy standing 3 feet away carefully aiming at me.  Many non well placed gunshots are very survivable.


It's amazing how often people don't really think through the implications of what they say.

It's patently obvious to anyone who gives it more than a single second's thought that a crossfire situation is very much the lesser of two evils.
 
Displayed 39 of 139 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report