Homeland Security Says to Confront Mass Shooters With Scissors.

  • 121 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Guybrush_3
#51 Posted by Guybrush_3 (8308 posts) -

[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?

Avatar image for thegerg
#52 Posted by thegerg (18398 posts) -
[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?

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.

"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." Exactly this, "get out, hide out, take out."
Avatar image for sonicare
#53 Posted by sonicare (55924 posts) -
[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.  

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?

Jump out the window. Play possum by covering yourself in ketchup. Use smaller children as meat shields. Etc. etc.
Avatar image for chrisrooR
#54 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -

[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?

c. Pray to Alex Jones
Avatar image for thegerg
#55 Posted by thegerg (18398 posts) -

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

 

Bad advice.  

sonicare

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?

Jump out the window. Play possum by covering yourself in ketchup. Use smaller children as meat shields. Etc. etc.

 

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?

Avatar image for whipassmt
#56 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

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

Then what are they supposed to do, charge a shooter with scissors?

:lol: at you not even watching the video. They proposed that if you're in clear view of the shooter to either run, duck for cover or as a last resort use whatever items around yourself as a last line of defense. All the video does is offer some sound advice when there's a shooter at a workplace, school, hospital or elsewhere.

I usually don't watch videos that are linked to on a GS forum.

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#57 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[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?

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.

 

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.   

Avatar image for sonicare
#58 Posted by sonicare (55924 posts) -

[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

Jump out the window. Play possum by covering yourself in ketchup. Use smaller children as meat shields. Etc. etc.

 

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?

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.
Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#59 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[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

Jump out the window. Play possum by covering yourself in ketchup. Use smaller children as meat shields. Etc. etc.

 

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.  

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
#60 Posted by deactivated-59d151f079814 (47239 posts) -

[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

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.

 

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.

Avatar image for thegerg
#61 Posted by thegerg (18398 posts) -
[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"] Jump out the window. Play possum by covering yourself in ketchup. Use smaller children as meat shields. Etc. etc.sonicare

 

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?

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.

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."
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
#62 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30204 posts) -
It's so cute how hartsick has his panties all twirled up over this.
Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#63 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[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.  

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#64 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[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

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.

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."

 

There is never just one option.  Life 101.  

Avatar image for thegerg
#65 Posted by thegerg (18398 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"] Jump out the window. Play possum by covering yourself in ketchup. Use smaller children as meat shields. Etc. etc.hartsickdiscipl

 

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.  

Remember, now, you didn't say that it was a bad advice if you DO have other means of defense. You said that it was a bad option if "you don't have another means of defense." If you have the option of attacking with a chair and breaking contact then you DO have other means of defense. You seem to be very confused.
Avatar image for lamprey263
#66 Posted by lamprey263 (35021 posts) -
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.
Avatar image for whipassmt
#67 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

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

Avatar image for thegerg
#68 Posted by thegerg (18398 posts) -

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="sonicare"] 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.hartsickdiscipl

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."

 

There is never just one option.  Life 101.  

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.
Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#69 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

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?  

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#70 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[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.  

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.

 

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

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#71 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

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

He wears panties? How do you know this?

 

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

Avatar image for chrisrooR
#72 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -

[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

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.

 

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. 

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#73 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[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.  

Avatar image for chrisrooR
#74 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -

[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?  

When it endangers the lives of other people. Also, you don't have 'rights', you have privileges.
Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#75 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[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?  

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

 

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.  

Avatar image for whipassmt
#77 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

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

He wears panties? How do you know this?

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

Well if he must know the truth, you do not wear panties

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

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#78 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[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.  

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#79 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[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.

Well if he must know the truth, you do not wear panties

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

 

What can I say?  It just feels right.

Avatar image for chrisrooR
#80 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -

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

 

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

hartsickdiscipl

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

 

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.  

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.
Avatar image for whipassmt
#81 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[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.

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.

"we are endowed with certain unalienable rights by our Creator".

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#82 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[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?  

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

 

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.  

Avatar image for thegerg
#83 Posted by thegerg (18398 posts) -

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

 

There is never just one option.  Life 101.  

hartsickdiscipl

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.

 

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

Please try to answer the question.
Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#84 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[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.  

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.

 

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.  

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#85 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[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.  

Please try to answer the question.

 

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

Avatar image for chrisrooR
#86 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -

[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

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.

"we are endowed with certain unalienable rights by our Creator".

So in essence, they come from God?
Avatar image for whipassmt
#87 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[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

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.

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.

don't defend yourself, Obama will come to the rescue for you, on his nice horse.

Avatar image for whipassmt
#88 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[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

"we are endowed with certain unalienable rights by our Creator".

So in essence, they come from God?

Yep.

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#89 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[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

"we are endowed with certain unalienable rights by our Creator".

So in essence, they come from God?

 

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.  

Avatar image for chrisrooR
#91 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -

[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

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.

 

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.  

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?
Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#92 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

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

Yep.

Odin knows best.

 

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

Avatar image for jeremiah06
#93 Posted by jeremiah06 (7215 posts) -
Well instead of sitting around waiting to die someone should try to stop it... It isn't some fist fight people are being murdered in front of you... You pick up something and stick it up the murders arse! Thats what I got from the video...
Avatar image for chrisrooR
#94 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -

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

whipassmt

So in essence, they come from God?

Yep.

So why would we amend these rights, considering they came from a divine creator? I guess God missed a few things.
Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#95 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[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.  

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?

 

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.  

Avatar image for whipassmt
#96 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

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

Yep.

So why would we amend these rights, considering they came from a Divine Creator?.

we don't amend rights, we may alter privileges which are conferred by various governments or groups. But core rights, such as life or property (though property is not an absolute right) must not be altered.

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
#97 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

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

Yep.

So why would we amend these rights, considering they came from a divine creator? I guess God missed a few things.

 

How obtuse. 

Avatar image for whipassmt
#99 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

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

hartsickdiscipl

So why would we amend these rights, considering they came from a Divine Creator? .

How obtuse.

ChrisrooR probably missed a few things.

Avatar image for whipassmt
#100 Posted by whipassmt (15375 posts) -

[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.

Better than Tom Cavip with a pair of scissors.