[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"] You're not supposed to feel empowered to stop shooters. How are you really supposed to confront them when they are usually armed and wearing bullet-proof armor? Especially in environments where you're not able to carry a weapon? You were trying to communicate that there was a slant toward having scissors out should be a first line of defense. They never said that, and that's exactly what the title of this thread implicates. They advise running away, exiting the building if possible, ducking for cover, hiding oneself in obscure places, turning your phone on silent...etc. The scissors come into play AFTER all of the previous ideas are exhausted. A last resort for someone who's going to die. And I visit your threads because seeing the GS community take a dump on your ideas makes me laugh.[/QUOTE]

They SHOULD be offering some advice to the public that DOES make people feel more empowered to defend themselves in a situation like this.  Not some crappy, generic set of actions that looks like something out of an earthquake preparedness training film.  A large part of the reason why more people are not armed to defend themselves is because of these "gun-free zones."  A shooter sees that as a free target practice zone.  You can be sure that nobody will fire back there.  

Imagine this-  The video presents option #1 before all of the running, ducking under desks, and grabbing scissors-

"If you are carrying your firearm as allowed by your 2nd Amendment rights, do whatever you can to stop the shooter."

Bullet-proof armor?  You do realize that the majority of mass shooters are NOT wearing this, right?  What you suggest is that people depend on the poice to defend them from immediate threats.  It's a disgusting and Un-American way of thinking.  You and most of OT should be ashamed of yourselves.   

[/QUOTE]

  Yeah any one else snicker at the guy who believes every crazy conspiracy theory out there called some one Un-American?  Same guy who thinks that 9/11 was a inside job, is calling some one Un-American.. This is priceless.

[/QUOTE]

How does questioning the official story of the federal government make someone Un-American?  You seem to be confused about what it means to be an American, in the original sense.  

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="thegerg"]

Reread my questions, you don't seem to understand them.

You're saying it's bad advice to fight with a pair of scissors if you have no other option? What would be a better course of action in that scenario?

[/QUOTE] I believe I was just joking. I dont advocate using children as meat shields. But you seem to be putting forth a rhetorical question since the only thing you can do in your question is fight with a pair of scissors since you said "you have no other options". So why ask what better course of action in that scenario when you disallow any other course of action? Pointless question.[/QUOTE] I ask because the other poster seems to think that advising one to take the only option is bad advice. I'm just trying to figure out how it is "bad" if there is nothing that is relatively "good."[/QUOTE]

There is never just one option.  Life 101.  

[QUOTE="lamprey263"]Well, first off in a school environment teachers should have keys to their classroom to lock their classroom doors in case of an emergency. In general yes if someone is going around capping everyone sitting around waiting to get picked off under a desk isn't going to do yourself or anybody else any good, goes without saying that maybe someone in the most desperate of circumstances should use any means at their disposal to fight back. Of course if one had a gun on them there's always that, but many people go throughout their day without them, students go to school can't bring guns, nor teachers, and many people go to work, commute on buses, subways, work in public places, or even places where people go for leisure like theaters and parks and malls, they're all potential targets for indiscriminate shooting, and many places like that will have people who won't have guns, this in a way is a message for those people, though it came out as a response to Sandy Hook shooting, not a video to go in tandem to new gun laws. This isn't a political message saying "this is your alternative to owning guns which we plan on banning", as much as zealous gun nuts want it to be, which is probably this was posted in the Washington Times and NY Post, which are right wing rags and not to be mistaken with the NY Times and Washington Post. People still have rights to carry guns, nothing really is changing much in that regard as much as people love to whine about.[/QUOTE]

Since when is it ok to restrict a "right" so much?  

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] I ask because the other poster seems to think that advising one to take the only option is bad advice. I'm just trying to figure out how it is "bad" if there is nothing that is relatively "good."[/QUOTE]

There is never just one option.  Life 101.  

[/QUOTE] That doesn't answer the question as to why advising one to take the only option is bad advice if there IS only one option.[/QUOTE]

There is never just 1 option.  There are options of varied effectiveness given the situation.  

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]It's so cute how hartsick has his panties all twirled up over this.[/QUOTE] He wears panties? How do you know this?

[/QUOTE]

I'm sure he would like to know.  He's just using his imagination.  

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"] You're not supposed to feel empowered to stop shooters. How are you really supposed to confront them when they are usually armed and wearing bullet-proof armor? Especially in environments where you're not able to carry a weapon? You were trying to communicate that there was a slant toward having scissors out should be a first line of defense. They never said that, and that's exactly what the title of this thread implicates. They advise running away, exiting the building if possible, ducking for cover, hiding oneself in obscure places, turning your phone on silent...etc. The scissors come into play AFTER all of the previous ideas are exhausted. A last resort for someone who's going to die. And I visit your threads because seeing the GS community take a dump on your ideas makes me laugh.[/QUOTE]

They SHOULD be offering some advice to the public that DOES make people feel more empowered to defend themselves in a situation like this.  Not some crappy, generic set of actions that looks like something out of an earthquake preparedness training film.  A large part of the reason why more people are not armed to defend themselves is because of these "gun-free zones."  A shooter sees that as a free target practice zone.  You can be sure that nobody will fire back there.  

Bullet-proof armor?  You do realize that the majority of mass shooters are NOT wearing this, right?  What you suggest is that people depend on the police to defend them from immediate threats.  It's a disgusting and Un-American way of thinking.  You and most of OT should be ashamed of yourselves.   

[/QUOTE]

For the majority of people caught in situations like this, there's really no way of 'defending' themselves. It's either run, hide, or charge the shooter and possibly die. What else can you do? And as stated before, there are places where you can't carry guns, so the second amendment goes out the window.

I've only suggested rational actions to an EXTREMELY rare event. 

[/QUOTE]

Hence the problem.  I can tell you this much-  It would help the economy much more to have nearly everyone buying arms and defending themselves if the need should arise (cops still needed to investigate and sort things out), than to enact more laws, requiring larger budgets for enforcement, paid for by an already struggling population.  

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="lamprey263"]Well, first off in a school environment teachers should have keys to their classroom to lock their classroom doors in case of an emergency. In general yes if someone is going around capping everyone sitting around waiting to get picked off under a desk isn't going to do yourself or anybody else any good, goes without saying that maybe someone in the most desperate of circumstances should use any means at their disposal to fight back. Of course if one had a gun on them there's always that, but many people go throughout their day without them, students go to school can't bring guns, nor teachers, and many people go to work, commute on buses, subways, work in public places, or even places where people go for leisure like theaters and parks and malls, they're all potential targets for indiscriminate shooting, and many places like that will have people who won't have guns, this in a way is a message for those people, though it came out as a response to Sandy Hook shooting, not a video to go in tandem to new gun laws. This isn't a political message saying "this is your alternative to owning guns which we plan on banning", as much as zealous gun nuts want it to be, which is probably this was posted in the Washington Times and NY Post, which are right wing rags and not to be mistaken with the NY Times and Washington Post. People still have rights to carry guns, nothing really is changing much in that regard as much as people love to whine about.[/QUOTE]

Since when is it ok to restrict a "right" so much?  

[/QUOTE] When it endangers the lives of other people. Also, you don't have 'rights', you have privileges. [/QUOTE]

Wow.  The fact that so many people think like you tells me everything I need to know about why the US is headed in the wrong direction.  No, I DO have rights.  So do you.  Remember that.  Fight for it.  You really do sound like someone who lives under a Communist or Socialist regime.  It's scary as hell.  

[QUOTE="InEMplease"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]

For the majority of people caught in situations like this, there's really no way of 'defending' themselves. It's either run, hide, or charge the shooter and possibly die. What else can you do? And as stated before, there are places where you can't carry guns, so the second amendment goes out the window.

I've only suggested rational actions to an EXTREMELY rare event. 

[/QUOTE]

Hence the problem.  

[/QUOTE]

Did you ever think these shootings are rare because of gun free zones?  That if they just let anyone with a gun enter, these shooting would be more common?  Nah, you didn't think of that.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, everyone has thought of "that."  20 of the last 21 "mass shootings" happened in "gun free zones."  Your logic doesn't work.  

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] He wears panties? How do you know this?

[/QUOTE]

I'm sure he would like to know. He's just using his imagination.

[/QUOTE] Well if he must know the truth, you do not wear panties

[spoiler] you wear th-thong th-thong thong thongs [/spoiler]

[/QUOTE]

What can I say?  It just feels right.