Homeland Security suggests we all brandish scissors against mass murderers...

[Sunshine]

Why do you think it's "stupid" to advise people to use anything they can find to neutralize an attacker, if the opportunity presents itself?

Because in her mind it would be better then being armed.

What else do you see in your crystal ball, oh great swami?


It's hilarious to me when people claim some inside knowledge of other people's thoughts.

You mean like archeologists who tell us what the ancients 'thought' after looking at a few bits of pottery?

 

[GuyPinestra]

Homeland Security has advice for confronting mass murders: scissors - NYPOST.com

Just how ridiculous can the government get?

Should I just lay down and let them kill me instead?

No, you should be able to pull out your LEGAL firearm and SHOOT BACK!!

 

[GuyPinestra]

Should I just lay down and let them kill me instead?

In your case yes.....please.
Me? I'm going to shoot the asshole.

What if you accidentally shot and killed a co-worker by mistake?

You mean like the NYPD and those 9 innocent bystanders?

 

[uscitizen]

No not scissors! You could not run if you had to!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I think it's hilarious that people think that "everyone having a gun" would prevent an office or school shooting.

All it would do is raise the body count.

If every adult at Sandy Hook were armed, and willing to use their weapons, more kids would be dead? Can you explain that logic?

Because teachers and janitors aren't trained SWAT officers, and don't have the slightest idea how to function in an active shooter situation.

 

[Clementine]

No one is going to run up to a shooter with a pair of scissors and live to tell about it.

My suggestion to all if you don't like guns, get some wasp spray. It shoots something like 20 feet in a direct stream and if you get that in a person's eyes, they are blinded and need immediate medical care. It's recommended that you keep that on you instead of mace. I suppose some libs will have an issue with that, too.

Best way to stop a shooter is to shoot the son of a bitch. No telling where or when the next psychopath will show up, but I still say lock the doors on the school. I know when I would drive to the school to pick my kids up after basketball practice, you couldn't get in unless someone inside pushed the door open for you. People can still get out in case of fire and no one can get in unless they are let in. During school hours, the doors are always unlocked, which doesn't make much sense to me. Usually, guests are supposed to drop by the office and get a pass. For some reason, shooters don't follow that. I think it would be good to have someone watching the doors and sizing up a person before letting them in. In many schools, the office personnel and teachers get to know the parents and others who would come by the school. Being leery of strangers carrying large assault weapons might prevent a tragedy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think it's hilarious that people think that "everyone having a gun" would prevent an office or school shooting.

All it would do is raise the body count.

If every adult at Sandy Hook were armed, and willing to use their weapons, more kids would be dead? Can you explain that logic?

Because teachers and janitors aren't trained SWAT officers, and don't have the slightest idea how to function in an active shooter situation.

The first cops in an active shooter situation aren't trained SWAT officers either, which is why the first police on the scene at Columbine waited for backup. How did that work out again? Didn't waiting for SWAT to show up actually increase the body count?

Do you want to keep trying, or are you going to admit you cannot defend your position?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If every adult at Sandy Hook were armed, and willing to use their weapons, more kids would be dead? Can you explain that logic?

Because teachers and janitors aren't trained SWAT officers, and don't have the slightest idea how to function in an active shooter situation.

The first cops in an active shooter situation aren't trained SWAT officers either, which is why the first police on the scene at Columbine waited for backup. How did that work out again? Didn't waiting for SWAT to show up actually increase the body count?

Do you want to keep trying, or are you going to admit you cannot defend your position?

My position is my opinion. Yours is your opinion.

It's not a matter of "facts".

You're claiming a certain result from a hypothetical, and I'm suggesting another.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

In your case yes.....please.
Me? I'm going to shoot the asshole.

What if you accidentally shot and killed a co-worker by mistake?

That happens in Texas almost every hour of the day, not a day goes by that hundreds of people are not accidentally shot by coworkers.

It happens all the time to cops and soldiers.

But that's not the point.

It's at least equally as likely as a "citizen gun owner" saving the day during a mass shooting.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Is Napolitano still in charge there? That would explain their stupidity.

Why do you think it's "stupid" to advise people to use anything they can find to neutralize an attacker, if the opportunity presents itself?

Why do you think it is stupid to allow people to avail themselves of the single most effective tool for stopping someone with a weapon?

When did I say anything like that?

 

[Bigfoot]

Man, if I attacked somebody with my wife's good scissors she would kill me!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because teachers and janitors aren't trained SWAT officers, and don't have the slightest idea how to function in an active shooter situation.

The first cops in an active shooter situation aren't trained SWAT officers either, which is why the first police on the scene at Columbine waited for backup. How did that work out again? Didn't waiting for SWAT to show up actually increase the body count?

Do you want to keep trying, or are you going to admit you cannot defend your position?

My position is my opinion. Yours is your opinion.

It's not a matter of "facts".

You're claiming a certain result from a hypothetical, and I'm suggesting another.

I asked a specific question regarding your hypothetical, you replied with blather about them not being SWAT trained, and thus incapable, in your opinion, of shooting straight. It allegedly took 20 minutes for the first tact team to arrive at Sandy Hook, yet you insist that the teachers being armed would have made things worse. Asking you to explain that is not an unreasonable request, yet you can't, and you expect me to accept your inability to defend your idiotic position as a difference of fucking opinion.

Newsflash, outrageous stupidity is not an opinion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What if you accidentally shot and killed a co-worker by mistake?

That happens in Texas almost every hour of the day, not a day goes by that hundreds of people are not accidentally shot by coworkers.

It happens all the time to cops and soldiers.

But that's not the point.

It's at least equally as likely as a "citizen gun owner" saving the day during a mass shooting.

The point is that most of the time it happens it is deliberate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why do you think it's "stupid" to advise people to use anything they can find to neutralize an attacker, if the opportunity presents itself?

Why do you think it is stupid to allow people to avail themselves of the single most effective tool for stopping someone with a weapon?

When did I say anything like that?

Are you trying to say you didn't post, and then defend, the claim that people having guns would make things worse? Are you trying to argue that you actually meant that you think it is smart to have guns in the office even though it will make things worse?

Your arguments are beyond moronic at the moment.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Why do you think it is stupid to allow people to avail themselves of the single most effective tool for stopping someone with a weapon?

When did I say anything like that?

Are you trying to say you didn't post, and then defend, the claim that people having guns would make things worse? Are you trying to argue that you actually meant that you think it is smart to have guns in the office even though it will make things worse?

Your arguments are beyond moronic at the moment.

You're making assumptions based on things I haven't said.

I never said anything about "not allowing" people to have guns.

Believing that it's likely to up the body count, rather than help, is my opinion. But I didn't suggest anything about rules, or "allowing" or "disallowing".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The first cops in an active shooter situation aren't trained SWAT officers either, which is why the first police on the scene at Columbine waited for backup. How did that work out again? Didn't waiting for SWAT to show up actually increase the body count?

Do you want to keep trying, or are you going to admit you cannot defend your position?

My position is my opinion. Yours is your opinion.

It's not a matter of "facts".

You're claiming a certain result from a hypothetical, and I'm suggesting another.

I asked a specific question regarding your hypothetical, you replied with blather about them not being SWAT trained, and thus incapable, in your opinion, of shooting straight. It allegedly took 20 minutes for the first tact team to arrive at Sandy Hook, yet you insist that the teachers being armed would have made things worse. Asking you to explain that is not an unreasonable request, yet you can't, and you expect me to accept your inability to defend your idiotic position as a difference of fucking opinion.

Newsflash, outrageous stupidity is not an opinion.

No, not quite.

You created a specific hypothetical situation, and demanded that I defend my position in your hypothetical.

Which I've chosen not to do, because arguing about "what would have happened if..." is a waste of time.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When did I say anything like that?

Are you trying to say you didn't post, and then defend, the claim that people having guns would make things worse? Are you trying to argue that you actually meant that you think it is smart to have guns in the office even though it will make things worse?

Your arguments are beyond moronic at the moment.

You're making assumptions based on things I haven't said.

I never said anything about "not allowing" people to have guns.

Believing that it's likely to up the body count, rather than help, is my opinion. But I didn't suggest anything about rules, or "allowing" or "disallowing".

I don't recall saying you said you didn't want to allow it, what I said is you think it is stupid. Are you trying to move the goalposts because you realize how stupid your position is?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My position is my opinion. Yours is your opinion.

It's not a matter of "facts".

You're claiming a certain result from a hypothetical, and I'm suggesting another.

I asked a specific question regarding your hypothetical, you replied with blather about them not being SWAT trained, and thus incapable, in your opinion, of shooting straight. It allegedly took 20 minutes for the first tact team to arrive at Sandy Hook, yet you insist that the teachers being armed would have made things worse. Asking you to explain that is not an unreasonable request, yet you can't, and you expect me to accept your inability to defend your idiotic position as a difference of fucking opinion.

Newsflash, outrageous stupidity is not an opinion.

No, not quite.

You created a specific hypothetical situation, and demanded that I defend my position in your hypothetical.

Which I've chosen not to do, because arguing about "what would have happened if..." is a waste of time.

Your hypothetical is that it would increase the body count. Feel free to apply you hypothetical to any real world position you can find to make your point. My bet is I can use any actual situation that ever happened to prove you wrong.

Care to take the challenge?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Are you trying to say you didn't post, and then defend, the claim that people having guns would make things worse? Are you trying to argue that you actually meant that you think it is smart to have guns in the office even though it will make things worse?

Your arguments are beyond moronic at the moment.

You're making assumptions based on things I haven't said.

I never said anything about "not allowing" people to have guns.

Believing that it's likely to up the body count, rather than help, is my opinion. But I didn't suggest anything about rules, or "allowing" or "disallowing".

I don't recall saying you said you didn't want to allow it, what I said is you think it is stupid. Are you trying to move the goalposts because you realize how stupid your position is?

This was your post:

Why do you think it is stupid to allow people to avail themselves of the single most effective tool for stopping someone with a weapon?

I haven't say anything close to "it's stupid to allow people to have guns".

What I think is "stupid" is the idea that the solution to mass shooting is having a civilian Rambo in every school and office. Not guns (or even civilian Rambos) themselves.

What I think is "stupid" is people flipping out at the DHS video for no other reason than it didn't demand everyone carry a gun all the time.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I asked a specific question regarding your hypothetical, you replied with blather about them not being SWAT trained, and thus incapable, in your opinion, of shooting straight. It allegedly took 20 minutes for the first tact team to arrive at Sandy Hook, yet you insist that the teachers being armed would have made things worse. Asking you to explain that is not an unreasonable request, yet you can't, and you expect me to accept your inability to defend your idiotic position as a difference of fucking opinion.

Newsflash, outrageous stupidity is not an opinion.

No, not quite.

You created a specific hypothetical situation, and demanded that I defend my position in your hypothetical.

Which I've chosen not to do, because arguing about "what would have happened if..." is a waste of time.

Your hypothetical is that it would increase the body count. Feel free to apply you hypothetical to any real world position you can find to make your point. My bet is I can use any actual situation that ever happened to prove you wrong.

Care to take the challenge?

I don't really understand what you're asking me.

Do you want me to describe a hypothetical situation in which a civilian with a gun caused more deaths?

What are you betting that you'll be able to do?