Homeland Security Says to Confront Mass Shooters With Scissors.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Surprise surprise, hartstick is too f*cking stupid to realize this is meant as advice if you don't have another means of defense.hartsickdiscipl

Bad advice.  

If your options are

a. Stand there and get shot

or

b. attempt to save your life.

which option are you going to chose?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Surprise surprise, hartstick is too f*cking stupid to realize this is meant as advice if you don't have another means of defense.thegerg

Bad advice.  

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Surprise surprise, hartstick is too f*cking stupid to realize this is meant as advice if you don't have another means of defense.Guybrush_3

Bad advice.  

If your options are

a. Stand there and get shot

or

b. attempt to save your life.

which option are you going to chose?

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="shadowkiller11"]No... just no.chrisrooR

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]

 

You should feel bad because you're consistently one of the worst posters I see on these forums. It's misleading if you understand the context of the video. They aren't advising to grab scissors and run at an attacker, the video highlights that this should be a last resort. If they had shown a person unplugging and throwing a phone, I'm sure you would have radically attacked that as well 

"OHHH LAWD THE GOVERNMENT WANTS US TO THROW CHAIRS AT SHOOTERS AND THEY THINK ITS A GOOD IDEA!" - no it isn't, it's an option. A last resort.

You insinuated that they made it seem like it is a good idea. It's not and they never said that, it's just an option. Probably not a great one, but it's an option. 

chrisrooR

This video does nothing to make people feel empowered to stop shooters.  Therefore, it's a bad video.  That was the point of what I was trying to communicate.  

If you think I'm such a "bad poster," why do you visit my threads?  Why not do something more constructive with your life?

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 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="sonicare"][QUOTE="thegerg"] Hold on...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? 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="sonicare"][QUOTE="thegerg"] Hold on...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? 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?

You really are better off throwing a chair at the shooter and running than trying to attack them with scissors.  

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

 

This video does nothing to make people feel empowered to stop shooters.  Therefore, it's a bad video.  That was the point of what I was trying to communicate.  

If you think I'm such a "bad poster," why do you visit my threads?  Why not do something more constructive with your life?

hartsickdiscipl

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.   

  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="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.sSubZerOo

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.   

  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.

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="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?

thegerg

There is never just one option.  Life 101.  

It's so cute how hartsick has his panties all twirled up over this.chessmaster1989

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.lamprey263

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

[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."thegerg

There is never just one option.  Life 101.  

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

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]It's so cute how hartsick has his panties all twirled up over this.whipassmt

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

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

 

This video does nothing to make people feel empowered to stop shooters.  Therefore, it's a bad video.  That was the point of what I was trying to communicate.  

If you think I'm such a "bad poster," why do you visit my threads?  Why not do something more constructive with your life?

hartsickdiscipl

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.   

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="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.chrisrooR

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.   

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. 

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="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.hartsickdiscipl

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

[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.chrisrooR

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

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="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]It's so cute how hartsick has his panties all twirled up over this.hartsickdiscipl

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

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

[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. 

InEMplease

Hence the problem.  

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.

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

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

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

whipassmt

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

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

What can I say?  It just feels right.

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

 

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

hartsickdiscipl

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="hartsickdiscipl"]

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

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="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.chrisrooR

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

Also-  It doesn't endanger the lives of others for responsible people to carry arms.  To say otherwise is to insinuate that everyone is a significant threat, and should be treated like a criminal.  

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

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

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.  

In the US, the right to bear arms came from a realization by our founding fathers that it's far harder for a central government to act tyrannically if the population is armed.  The British tried to disarm the American colonists (among other things).  It would have been impossible for the people to resist their tyranny if they had been disarmed.  The US was also born from the spirit of rugged individualism.  The idea that people should be responsible for themselves, and not limited by their government when it comes to this.  Obviously defending one's self falls under that.  

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] 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.thegerg

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

The question is based on a fallacy.  It can't be answered honestly.  

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

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.

whipassmt

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

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.

hartsickdiscipl

In the US, the right to bear arms came from a realization by our founding fathers that it's far harder for a central government to act tyrannically if the population is armed. The British tried to disarm the American colonists (among other things). It would have been impossible for the people to resist their tyranny if they had been disarmed. The US was also born from the spirit of rugged individualism. The idea that people should be responsible for themselves, and not limited by their government when it comes to this. Obviously defending one's self falls under that.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"] Right. Where did these rights come from? And I don't live in the United States, so my "rights" differ from your "rights. As in, I have a different set of privileges that are decided upon by a central representative government. chrisrooR

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"] Right. Where did these rights come from? And I don't live in the United States, so my "rights" differ from your "rights. As in, I have a different set of privileges that are decided upon by a central representative government. chrisrooR

Before you attack his position based on what you're about to try, look up the rest of the statement that he quoted.  I think you'll find that the "creator" referenced here granted quite a few things that you would agree with.  

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

 

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.  

hartsickdiscipl

In the US, the right to bear arms came from a realization by our founding fathers that it's far harder for a central government to act tyrannically if the population is armed.  The British tried to disarm the American colonists (among other things).  It would have been impossible for the people to resist their tyranny if they had been disarmed.  The US was also born from the spirit of rugged individualism.  The idea that people should be responsible for themselves, and not limited by their government when it comes to this.  Obviously defending one's self falls under that.  

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"] So in essence, they come from God?InEMplease

Odin knows best.

Could have prevented mass tyrannical slaughters in Russia, Nazi Germany, China, and many other countries.  

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] "we are endowed with certain unalienable rights by our Creator".

whipassmt

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"] Right. Where did these rights come from? And I don't live in the United States, so my "rights" differ from your "rights. As in, I have a different set of privileges that are decided upon by a central representative government. chrisrooR

In the US, the right to bear arms came from a realization by our founding fathers that it's far harder for a central government to act tyrannically if the population is armed.  The British tried to disarm the American colonists (among other things).  It would have been impossible for the people to resist their tyranny if they had been disarmed.  The US was also born from the spirit of rugged individualism.  The idea that people should be responsible for themselves, and not limited by their government when it comes to this.  Obviously defending one's self falls under that.  

Medical knowledge has progressed a great deal.  Human nature has not.  It never will.  People are power-hungry and greedy.  That's why you don't see any references to specific medical treatments or anything of the like in the US Constitution.  It also doesn't specify that people should have the right to own a specific type of "arms," such as muskets or rifles.  The right to bear arms will always be a relevant counter to tyranny, to some extent.  Big, central government is, always has been, and always will be a VERY dangerous thing.  This was recognized by the writers of the US Constitution.  

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"] So in essence, they come from God?chrisrooR

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"] So in essence, they come from God?chrisrooR

How obtuse. 

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Yep.

hartsickdiscipl

How obtuse.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"] So you were given the privilege of owning a gun by the founding fathers at the time, and you still maintain that privilege now. And these 'rights' were developed in an era where 'bleeding' a person was still considered a valid medical treatment for illness and disease. Rights have also been amended many times. So 'rights' change over time, no?InEMplease

Medical knowledge has progressed a great deal. Human nature has not. It never will. People are power-hungry and greedy. That's why you don't see any references to specific medical treatments or anything of the like in the US Constitution. It also doesn't specify that people should have the right to own a specific type of "arms," such as muskets or rifles. The right to bear arms will always be a relevant counter to tyranny, to some extent. Big, central government is, always has been, and always will be a VERY dangerous thing. This was recognized by the writers of the US Constitution.

Yep, and John Doe with his .22 will fight off the guv'ment real good now.