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

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Just how ridiculous can the government get?

homeland security needs to lead by example. They need to start carrying scissors instead of a firearm.

 

[asaratis]

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

Just how ridiculous can the government get?

homeland security needs to lead by example. They need to start carrying scissors instead of a firearm.

He who takes a pair of scissors to a gunfight won't even make the first cut!

From the article:

Security consultant Andrew Scott called the information in the video “adequate.”

He conceded that Homeland Security was correct in recommending that people use scissors to attack a gunman but only in a “last, worst-case scenario.”

“Just the suggestion [to fight back] is a positive move,” said Scott, a former SWAT commander in North Miami Beach. “You don’t want to be sheep for the slaughter.”

Taken in pieces:

Security consultant Andrew Scott called the information in the video “adequate.”

Adequate in what regard? Does he mean it is all we need to know concerning office shooters?

He conceded that Homeland Security was correct in recommending that people use scissors to attack a gunman but only in a “last, worst-case scenario.”

What constitutes a "last, worst-case scenario"? Is that when you've been successfully hiding from the shooter while clutching in your sweaty palm, the only pair of paper shears known to be in the office, you spring out from behind a cabinet while screaming and waving the pair of scissors...in the face of a demented killer with an Uzi?


“Just the suggestion [to fight back] is a positive move,” said Scott, a former SWAT commander in North Miami Beach. “You don’t want to be sheep for the slaughter.”

You are sheep for slaughter by virtue of being within a gun free zone. In dueling, gentlemen choose their weapons from an identical pair. In order to have a chance at all against a shooter, you must have equal or better arms.

Paper beats rock...Scissors beat paper...Ballistics beats 'em all!


Traditionally, sea captains keep a sidearm somewhere on their ship...in case of need. Why should not a school principal or office manager do the same? ....just in case he needs to shoot someone rushing toward him with a pair of scissors....LOL

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I was right, I didn't say you don't want to allow it, I said you think it is stupid, yet you continue to argue with me that you did not say it is stupid, even while arguing how stupid it is.

Are you confused?

What makes you think civilians are going to act like Rambo? Are you aware that Rambo died in the book? That is what happens when people stand up and act invulnerable, they get shot, which is why on every single occasion when there was someone with a license to carry a concealed weapon they assessed the situation before they opened fire. If only we could train cops to think that way, instead of having them open fire on crowded streets and shoot more people than the guy with the gun.

Please, keep arguing with me so I can show you just how bad police are at not shooting people in tense situations. The simple fact is, if push comes to shove, I would rather have a civilian in the crowd who will be more concerned about who else might get hurt than a cop whose first thought is getting home every night. Cops are actually more likely to shoot than civilians because they are actually trained to think of taking control of the situation by any means necessary, including killing innocent bystanders.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

I am asking you to provide an actual scenario that supports your hypothetical. Describe a situation where someone defending themselves from an active shooter in a crowd actually results in more deaths than doing nothing. That is your "hypothetical," prove some actual reasoning that leads you to believe that by showing me a situation where that is going to happen.

My bet is that you can't actually come up with one because you would have to set up a situation where the shooter has already stopped shooting, and the only extra body is that of the shooter because he intended to surrender.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Just how ridiculous can the government get?

homeland security needs to lead by example. They need to start carrying scissors instead of a firearm.

He who takes a pair of scissors to a gunfight won't even make the first cut!

From the article:

Security consultant Andrew Scott called the information in the video “adequate.”

He conceded that Homeland Security was correct in recommending that people use scissors to attack a gunman but only in a “last, worst-case scenario.”

“Just the suggestion [to fight back] is a positive move,” said Scott, a former SWAT commander in North Miami Beach. “You don’t want to be sheep for the slaughter.”

Taken in pieces:

Security consultant Andrew Scott called the information in the video “adequate.”

Adequate in what regard? Does he mean it is all we need to know concerning office shooters?

He conceded that Homeland Security was correct in recommending that people use scissors to attack a gunman but only in a “last, worst-case scenario.”

What constitutes a "last, worst-case scenario"? Is that when you've been successfully hiding from the shooter while clutching in your sweaty palm, the only pair of paper shears known to be in the office, you spring out from behind a cabinet while screaming and waving the pair of scissors...in the face of a demented killer with an Uzi?


“Just the suggestion [to fight back] is a positive move,” said Scott, a former SWAT commander in North Miami Beach. “You don’t want to be sheep for the slaughter.”

You are sheep for slaughter by virtue of being within a gun free zone. In dueling, gentlemen choose their weapons from an identical pair. In order to have a chance at all against a shooter, you must have equal or better arms.

Paper beats rock...Scissors beat paper...Ballistics beats 'em all!


Traditionally, sea captains keep a sidearm somewhere on their ship...in case of need. Why should not a school principal or office manager do the same? ....just in case he needs to shoot someone rushing toward him with a pair of scissors....LOL

It is adequate in the regard that you are in a "Gun Free Zone" and do not have a gun, but don't want to stand around and let some guy that doesn't believe in said zones to shoot you. In a rational world where people were allowed to carry whatever they wanted, it would be more than adequate to shoot the fucker the second he pulled his own gun out.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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?

I am asking you to provide an actual scenario that supports your hypothetical. Describe a situation where someone defending themselves from an active shooter in a crowd actually results in more deaths than doing nothing. That is your "hypothetical," prove some actual reasoning that leads you to believe that by showing me a situation where that is going to happen.

My bet is that you can't actually come up with one because you would have to set up a situation where the shooter has already stopped shooting, and the only extra body is that of the shooter because he intended to surrender.

Well, I did, earlier in the thread. But I'll do it again.

Joe works in a cubicle farm, for an insurance company. One of his co-workers, Pete, gets fired and snaps - assaulting the office with smoke grenades and an AR15.

There's chaos all around Joe, people are screaming and running around in all directions, and he can't see anything. He see someone running down the hall towards him, and it looks like he's holding a gun, so Joe opens fire. But instead of Pete, it turns out to be Bill, the guy from accounting, carrying a stapler.


I wouldn't trust myself in that situation, let alone any of my other co-workers.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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?

I am asking you to provide an actual scenario that supports your hypothetical. Describe a situation where someone defending themselves from an active shooter in a crowd actually results in more deaths than doing nothing. That is your "hypothetical," prove some actual reasoning that leads you to believe that by showing me a situation where that is going to happen.

My bet is that you can't actually come up with one because you would have to set up a situation where the shooter has already stopped shooting, and the only extra body is that of the shooter because he intended to surrender.

If you want another example, we can use what almost happened at the Giffords shooting - the shooter was already down, then a man came out of the store and almost shot one of the people who had taken down Loughner.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

I was right, I didn't say you don't want to allow it, I said you think it is stupid, yet you continue to argue with me that you did not say it is stupid, even while arguing how stupid it is.

Are you confused?

There's a difference between thinking it's stupid to do something, and thinking it's stupid to allow someone to do something.

What makes you think civilians are going to act like Rambo? Are you aware that Rambo died in the book? That is what happens when people stand up and act invulnerable, they get shot, which is why on every single occasion when there was someone with a license to carry a concealed weapon they assessed the situation before they opened fire. If only we could train cops to think that way, instead of having them open fire on crowded streets and shoot more people than the guy with the gun.

Are you trying to claim that a civilian shooter, defending themselves, has never accidentally shot an innocent person?

Please, keep arguing with me so I can show you just how bad police are at not shooting people in tense situations. The simple fact is, if push comes to shove, I would rather have a civilian in the crowd who will be more concerned about who else might get hurt than a cop whose first thought is getting home every night. Cops are actually more likely to shoot than civilians because they are actually trained to think of taking control of the situation by any means necessary, including killing innocent bystanders.

In no one am I lauding the skills of Police in these situations.

But I see absolutely no evidence that civilian shooters are any better.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

I am asking you to provide an actual scenario that supports your hypothetical. Describe a situation where someone defending themselves from an active shooter in a crowd actually results in more deaths than doing nothing. That is your "hypothetical," prove some actual reasoning that leads you to believe that by showing me a situation where that is going to happen.

My bet is that you can't actually come up with one because you would have to set up a situation where the shooter has already stopped shooting, and the only extra body is that of the shooter because he intended to surrender.

Well, I did, earlier in the thread. But I'll do it again.

Joe works in a cubicle farm, for an insurance company. One of his co-workers, Pete, gets fired and snaps - assaulting the office with smoke grenades and an AR15.

There's chaos all around Joe, people are screaming and running around in all directions, and he can't see anything. He see someone running down the hall towards him, and it looks like he's holding a gun, so Joe opens fire. But instead of Pete, it turns out to be Bill, the guy from accounting, carrying a stapler.


I wouldn't trust myself in that situation, let alone any of my other co-workers.

First, you have to prove that that someone is stupid enough to pick up a stapler and run around in the situation you described.

After you do that, you have to prove that Pete would not have shot the idiot with a stapler because he is stupid enough to run around when he is shooting people.

Then you have to prove that Joe is actually dumb enough to shoot the guy with a stapler when Pete came armed with smoke grenades and an assault rifle because he thought the stapler looked like an AR-15.

Your example is so pathetic it only happens in movies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

I am asking you to provide an actual scenario that supports your hypothetical. Describe a situation where someone defending themselves from an active shooter in a crowd actually results in more deaths than doing nothing. That is your "hypothetical," prove some actual reasoning that leads you to believe that by showing me a situation where that is going to happen.

My bet is that you can't actually come up with one because you would have to set up a situation where the shooter has already stopped shooting, and the only extra body is that of the shooter because he intended to surrender.

If you want another example, we can use what almost happened at the Giffords shooting - the shooter was already down, then a man came out of the store and almost shot one of the people who had taken down Loughner.

You want me to think that, because the guy who heard the shots didn't kill somebody, it somehow proves you are right? Can you say desperation?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There's a difference between thinking it's stupid to do something, and thinking it's stupid to allow someone to do something.

I bet you can't explain what that difference is.

Are you trying to claim that a civilian shooter, defending themselves, has never accidentally shot an innocent person?

No, I am pointing out how absurd your argument that police are less likely to so so is.

In no one am I lauding the skills of Police in these situations.

You aren't the one that keeps trying to point out the difference between police and civilians? Did someone hack your account?

But I see absolutely no evidence that civilian shooters are any better.

Do you have any evidence that they are worse?

Wait, you just said that you don't think the police can do it either. I guess that means you think everyone should just roll over and die.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There's a difference between thinking it's stupid to do something, and thinking it's stupid to allow someone to do something.

I bet you can't explain what that difference is.

It's pretty simple. One is an opinion based on an action, the other is a law based on the opinion.

Are you trying to claim that a civilian shooter, defending themselves, has never accidentally shot an innocent person?

No, I am pointing out how absurd your argument that police are less likely to so so is.

I don't think I've made that argument.

In no one am I lauding the skills of Police in these situations.

You aren't the one that keeps trying to point out the difference between police and civilians? Did someone hack your account?

I think I see the problem. You're extrapolating what you think my opinion is.

Pointing out the difference in training between Police and civilians with guns isn't the same thing as "lauding the skills of police".

But I see absolutely no evidence that civilian shooters are any better.

Do you have any evidence that they are worse?

As you've pointed out, they don't have to be "worse" to up the body count.

Wait, you just said that you don't think the police can do it either. I guess that means you think everyone should just roll over and die.

This would be another example of you attempting to fill in the blanks with complete nonsense. I've said nothing of the sort.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I am asking you to provide an actual scenario that supports your hypothetical. Describe a situation where someone defending themselves from an active shooter in a crowd actually results in more deaths than doing nothing. That is your "hypothetical," prove some actual reasoning that leads you to believe that by showing me a situation where that is going to happen.

My bet is that you can't actually come up with one because you would have to set up a situation where the shooter has already stopped shooting, and the only extra body is that of the shooter because he intended to surrender.

Well, I did, earlier in the thread. But I'll do it again.

Joe works in a cubicle farm, for an insurance company. One of his co-workers, Pete, gets fired and snaps - assaulting the office with smoke grenades and an AR15.

There's chaos all around Joe, people are screaming and running around in all directions, and he can't see anything. He see someone running down the hall towards him, and it looks like he's holding a gun, so Joe opens fire. But instead of Pete, it turns out to be Bill, the guy from accounting, carrying a stapler.


I wouldn't trust myself in that situation, let alone any of my other co-workers.

First, you have to prove that that someone is stupid enough to pick up a stapler and run around in the situation you described.

After you do that, you have to prove that Pete would not have shot the idiot with a stapler because he is stupid enough to run around when he is shooting people.

Then you have to prove that Joe is actually dumb enough to shoot the guy with a stapler when Pete came armed with smoke grenades and an assault rifle because he thought the stapler looked like an AR-15.

Your example is so pathetic it only happens in movies.

I think you might be confused as to what a "hypothetical situation" is.
How exactly would I go about "proving" anything?

Are you claiming that the situation I described is impossible?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I am asking you to provide an actual scenario that supports your hypothetical. Describe a situation where someone defending themselves from an active shooter in a crowd actually results in more deaths than doing nothing. That is your "hypothetical," prove some actual reasoning that leads you to believe that by showing me a situation where that is going to happen.

My bet is that you can't actually come up with one because you would have to set up a situation where the shooter has already stopped shooting, and the only extra body is that of the shooter because he intended to surrender.

If you want another example, we can use what almost happened at the Giffords shooting - the shooter was already down, then a man came out of the store and almost shot one of the people who had taken down Loughner.

You want me to think that, because the guy who heard the shots didn't kill somebody, it somehow proves you are right? Can you say desperation?

You asked for a hypothetical, and I gave you one. (Actually, 2)

Attempting to change my argument is usually either a sign that 1.) you don't understand what I'm talking about or 2.) you're backtracking.

 

[RoadVirus]

DHS says "Fend off an attackewr with scissors!" But beware! If you run with scissors, a scissor ban will be needed!

 

[yidnar]

Except that a pair of scissors really can kill somebody, but duct tape and plastic won't protect you from a chemical attack.

Sure but not if that other person has a gun and is 20, 30 feet away.

10 yards away? LOL. If they have to pause to reload and I have a pair of scissors I could close that distance pretty quickly. If my other option is being shot to death its a clear choice.

Of course they should not have to pause to reload, government has no right to do that. Mass murderers should be able to fire hundreds of rounds without pause, its their right.

what if he has more than one gun??

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's pretty simple. One is an opinion based on an action, the other is a law based on the opinion.

You didn't have to prove me right.

I don't think I've made that argument.

I agree, you don't think.

I think I see the problem. You're extrapolating what you think my opinion is.

Pointing out the difference in training between Police and civilians with guns isn't the same thing as "lauding the skills of police".

It is when you attempt to use that training as a basis for your argument against civilians being armed.

As you've pointed out, they don't have to be "worse" to up the body count.

They just have to be unarmed.

This would be another example of you attempting to fill in the blanks with complete nonsense. I've said nothing of the sort.

This would be you attempting to deflect from your stupidity by blaming it on others.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, I did, earlier in the thread. But I'll do it again.

Joe works in a cubicle farm, for an insurance company. One of his co-workers, Pete, gets fired and snaps - assaulting the office with smoke grenades and an AR15.

There's chaos all around Joe, people are screaming and running around in all directions, and he can't see anything. He see someone running down the hall towards him, and it looks like he's holding a gun, so Joe opens fire. But instead of Pete, it turns out to be Bill, the guy from accounting, carrying a stapler.


I wouldn't trust myself in that situation, let alone any of my other co-workers.

First, you have to prove that that someone is stupid enough to pick up a stapler and run around in the situation you described.

After you do that, you have to prove that Pete would not have shot the idiot with a stapler because he is stupid enough to run around when he is shooting people.

Then you have to prove that Joe is actually dumb enough to shoot the guy with a stapler when Pete came armed with smoke grenades and an assault rifle because he thought the stapler looked like an AR-15.

Your example is so pathetic it only happens in movies.

I think you might be confused as to what a "hypothetical situation" is.
How exactly would I go about "proving" anything?

Are you claiming that the situation I described is impossible?

So it is not a hypothesis, it is a wild accusation. You could have said that in the first place instead of trying to dress it up as something you actually thought through.

Hypothesis | Define Hypothesis at Dictionary.com

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you want another example, we can use what almost happened at the Giffords shooting - the shooter was already down, then a man came out of the store and almost shot one of the people who had taken down Loughner.

You want me to think that, because the guy who heard the shots didn't kill somebody, it somehow proves you are right? Can you say desperation?

You asked for a hypothetical, and I gave you one. (Actually, 2)

Attempting to change my argument is usually either a sign that 1.) you don't understand what I'm talking about or 2.) you're backtracking.

I asked you to explain how you came to the conclusion that armed citizens would make things worse. You have danced around for I don't know how long to avoid answering a simple question. I understand why you did that now, but it would have saved us both a lot of time if you had simply admitted you were making a ridiculous point in an attempt to justify something you put no thought into.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's pretty simple. One is an opinion based on an action, the other is a law based on the opinion.

You didn't have to prove me right.

I don't think I've made that argument.

I agree, you don't think.

Ad homs are also generally a good indicator that you don't understand what I'm saying.

It is when you attempt to use that training as a basis for your argument against civilians being armed.

But I haven't done that. That's my point.

You assumed that's what I was saying. But it's not.

As you've pointed out, they don't have to be "worse" to up the body count.

They just have to be unarmed.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I think you might have lost the thread of this conversation.

This would be another example of you attempting to fill in the blanks with complete nonsense. I've said nothing of the sort.

This would be you attempting to deflect from your stupidity by blaming it on others.

No, not quite.

You are creating opinions and assigning them to me. Correcting that isn't "deflection".