Liberals: If you were in a theater w a mass shooter, would u rather have a gun or phone (911)? Pick.

[Pete7469]

I don't think liberals should have guns.

By supporting criminally insane totalitarian sociopaths like obozo and hitlary they demonstrate piss poor judgement.

Since many of them are hoplophobes they can't be trusted to use a weapon with confidence.

Considering they're weapons grade stupid and a danger to society even while unarmed I would not want to be in a theater with bed wetters shooting at anyone, because they're far more likely to "spray and pray" than take controlled aim and actually neutralize the threat.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It would be much better to have a gun. There is nothing like a 100 or so people blazing away at each other in the dark! Very few people would survive, but it would probably be a lot more exciting than watching the movie!

You didn't answer my question. What would you pick? You're hiding in that dark top row corner of the theater. The gunmen are slaughtering everyone in there...and slowly but surely going row to row....up to where you are.

Do you want a gun? Or a phone to call 911? OR...a gun free zone sign.

**Now the wild card. You are shielding your 10 year old daughter....who is crying desperately for help. Gunmen are coming. About 20 seconds away now...

Which do you want?

You do know that he won't give you an honest answer, right?

Well the question is such a retarded set up.

Yes... because people never get shot in theaters or other gun-free zones.

Thank you for proving me correct.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The OP is not a fan of the "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation." Sure you'd want something to defend yourself.

So, you'd choose the gun - something you argue you have no right to own.

 

[bucs90]

"Liberals: If you were in a theater w a mass shooter, would u rather have a gun or phone (911)? Pick."

This fails as a false dilemma fallacy, typical of the ignorance and lack of sound reasoning skills common to most on the right.

How so? Obozo and you libs say these mass shootings happen every week.

It's about as realistic a scenario I can offer. You're stuck in a room with a gunman slaughtering people. In a corner. He's headed towards you. If you could pick....would you want a gun...or 911 cell phone...OR a Gun Free zone sign in the room.

Which options did I leave out?

There's a reason you libs call this scenario retarded rather than answering. Yet...in other threads you all claim how common these are in America.

 

[bucs90]

Ok....lots of libs still haven't answered. I don't know why....they seem to have all the answers regarding guns. I even added the 3rd option of a "Gun Free Zone" sign to completely prevent the scenario from even happening....and they wouldn't even take that.

Buc... I gave you similar mass shooting scenario in a class room from your other post... You abandoned me bc you cannot or do not have explanation nor excuses. But your gun nuts buddies told me I'm fantasizing. Then you turn around you using a theater mass shooting.
Mass shooting in theatre. Realistically. First shot every single soul inside that theater will start running with massive panic and confusions. I will be shielding my daughter while we are running. If I have my gun with me (which I will never do) it's impossible for me stop and start shooting. Because the person next to me and the next and the next will start pushing then will end up on the floor being trampled to death. Second it's dark how, who and where should I aim? Do I keep firing hoping I will get the bad guy? Then end up killing more people? Just imagine 2 or 3 of these dumb gun nuts wannabe a hero inside this theater. My honest answer to you is I will call 911 is the responsible way.
NOW...back to my mass shooting scenario in a class room. Arming teachers or professors to stop mass shootings in class room.
1. Do you expect these educators having one gun in one hand and a book in one hand while inside a classroom so he/she can shoot back?
2. Do you expect the shooter will notify them when they start shooting? I'm here to shoot you pull your gun now..
3. Do you expect these educators will even dare to engage in gun battle?
4. When first shot rang there will be lots of students running from different directions panic at massive scale. A professor or students might engage in gun battle. Just imagine the casualties of this gun battle by untrained people?
So what made you think that flooding this country with more guns on top of what we have now will solve these shootings? Maybe we should sell them at all liquor stores like cigarettes so ALL citizens have guns?
I do not have a solution but since you are the expert hoping you can enlighten us. Thank you.

So your answer is dial 911 and try to run past the gunman and hope he doesn't shoot you? Got it.

Your classroom scenario:

1: In a shooting...why would a teacher keep holding a book while shooting back? No. I wouldn't expect that. Put both hands on the gun if you need the gun.
2. Maybe. Maybe not. But the first shot indicates it's on. If the first shot is a teacher...50 others will still be ready.

3 and 4: Teachers will have to accept the dual role cops have. Cops now have to be couselors, mental health assessors, community activists, firefighters, first aid medics, and discipline people's children. They've had to take on MANY roles that aren't their job. Well......teachers may have to do the same. And they have June and July "off". Perfect. 2 available months to train them. If they don't like it....quit. Plenty of ex military or ex police will be willing to do it. And hey....as a bonus....classrooms will see an exodus of liberals and influx of conservative minded teachers.

There. I answered.

 

[bucs90]

The OP is not a fan of the "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation." Sure you'd want something to defend yourself.

So, you'd choose the gun - something you argue you have no right to own.

Yes. Most liberals won't admit it...some have. But they'd want that gun. It's really no different than asking "If you're stuck in a burning building....would you rather have a huge fire extinguisher or a phone to call 911?".

The answer is so obvious. But libs want to deny everyone else the chance to have that protection.

 

[Pete7469]

So your answer is dial 911 and try to run past the gunman and hope he doesn't shoot you? Got it.

Your classroom scenario:

1: In a shooting...why would a teacher keep holding a book while shooting back? No. I wouldn't expect that. Put both hands on the gun if you need the gun.
2. Maybe. Maybe not. But the first shot indicates it's on. If the first shot is a teacher...50 others will still be ready.

3 and 4: Teachers will have to accept the dual role cops have. Cops now have to be couselors, mental health assessors, community activists, firefighters, first aid medics, and discipline people's children. They've had to take on MANY roles that aren't their job. Well......teachers may have to do the same. And they have June and July "off". Perfect. 2 available months to train them. If they don't like it....quit. Plenty of ex military or ex police will be willing to do it. And hey....as a bonus....classrooms will see an exodus of liberals and influx of conservative minded teachers.

There. I answered.

Anything that gets bed wetters out of classrooms is a net gain for society. Moonbat brainwashers at UT are pissing themselves because Campus Carry passed. They're insisting they won't obey the law and will deny their students rights.

Hope that gets these dumbfucks fired and sued.

 

[candycorn]

The OP is not a fan of the "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation." Sure you'd want something to defend yourself.

So, you'd choose the gun - something you argue you have no right to own.

As Stated, a reasonable response to an unreasonable situation. And no,I wouldn't choose a gun; that was the choice I was given; that or a cell phone. I'd go with something made by the Taser corporation.

 

[Slyhunter]

The OP is not a fan of the "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation." Sure you'd want something to defend yourself.

So, you'd choose the gun - something you argue you have no right to own.

As Stated, a reasonable response to an unreasonable situation. And no,I wouldn't choose a gun; that was the choice I was given; that or a cell phone. I'd go with something made by the Taser corporation.

Maximum range like 20 feet, no thanks.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The OP is not a fan of the "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation." Sure you'd want something to defend yourself.

So, you'd choose the gun - something you argue you have no right to own.

As Stated, a reasonable response to an unreasonable situation. And no,I wouldn't choose a gun; that was the choice I was given; that or a cell phone. I'd go with something made by the Taser corporation.

When presented with someone clearly willing and able to use deadly force against you and others, why would you choose to arm yourself with less than deadly force in response?

 

[candycorn]

The OP is not a fan of the "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation." Sure you'd want something to defend yourself.

So, you'd choose the gun - something you argue you have no right to own.

As Stated, a reasonable response to an unreasonable situation. And no,I wouldn't choose a gun; that was the choice I was given; that or a cell phone. I'd go with something made by the Taser corporation.

When presented with someone clearly willing and able to use deadly force against you and others, why would you choose to arm yourself with less than deadly force in response?

Blood lust isn't attractive.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The OP is not a fan of the "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation." Sure you'd want something to defend yourself.

So, you'd choose the gun - something you argue you have no right to own.

As Stated, a reasonable response to an unreasonable situation. And no,I wouldn't choose a gun; that was the choice I was given; that or a cell phone. I'd go with something made by the Taser corporation.

When presented with someone clearly willing and able to use deadly force against you and others, why would you choose to arm yourself with less than deadly force in response?

Blood lust isn't attractive.

That's right -- and in response to blood lust, you choose to arm yourself with less than deadly force..
Why?

 

[charwin95]

Ok....lots of libs still haven't answered. I don't know why....they seem to have all the answers regarding guns. I even added the 3rd option of a "Gun Free Zone" sign to completely prevent the scenario from even happening....and they wouldn't even take that.

Buc... I gave you similar mass shooting scenario in a class room from your other post... You abandoned me bc you cannot or do not have explanation nor excuses. But your gun nuts buddies told me I'm fantasizing. Then you turn around you using a theater mass shooting.
Mass shooting in theatre. Realistically. First shot every single soul inside that theater will start running with massive panic and confusions. I will be shielding my daughter while we are running. If I have my gun with me (which I will never do) it's impossible for me stop and start shooting. Because the person next to me and the next and the next will start pushing then will end up on the floor being trampled to death. Second it's dark how, who and where should I aim? Do I keep firing hoping I will get the bad guy? Then end up killing more people? Just imagine 2 or 3 of these dumb gun nuts wannabe a hero inside this theater. My honest answer to you is I will call 911 is the responsible way.
NOW...back to my mass shooting scenario in a class room. Arming teachers or professors to stop mass shootings in class room.
1. Do you expect these educators having one gun in one hand and a book in one hand while inside a classroom so he/she can shoot back?
2. Do you expect the shooter will notify them when they start shooting? I'm here to shoot you pull your gun now..
3. Do you expect these educators will even dare to engage in gun battle?
4. When first shot rang there will be lots of students running from different directions panic at massive scale. A professor or students might engage in gun battle. Just imagine the casualties of this gun battle by untrained people?
So what made you think that flooding this country with more guns on top of what we have now will solve these shootings? Maybe we should sell them at all liquor stores like cigarettes so ALL citizens have guns?
I do not have a solution but since you are the expert hoping you can enlighten us. Thank you.

So your answer is dial 911 and try to run past the gunman and hope he doesn't shoot you? Got it.

Your classroom scenario:

1: In a shooting...why would a teacher keep holding a book while shooting back? No. I wouldn't expect that. Put both hands on the gun if you need the gun.
2. Maybe. Maybe not. But the first shot indicates it's on. If the first shot is a teacher...50 others will still be ready.

3 and 4: Teachers will have to accept the dual role cops have. Cops now have to be couselors, mental health assessors, community activists, firefighters, first aid medics, and discipline people's children. They've had to take on MANY roles that aren't their job. Well......teachers may have to do the same. And they have June and July "off". Perfect. 2 available months to train them. If they don't like it....quit. Plenty of ex military or ex police will be willing to do it. And hey....as a bonus....classrooms will see an exodus of liberals and influx of conservative minded teachers.

There. I answered.

Class scenario.
1. In order for the teacher/professor to react quickly a gun should be in their hand all the time. Correct? What good does it do if the gun is inside that back pack? Do you expect the shooter to give you notice?
2. A murderer will notify you before committing a crime? Since when??
3 & 4. Agree. teachers take dual role all the time but teach them about gun battle is totally different. There are teachers/professor that you cannot even trust them to change a flat tire let alone in gun battle. My buddy a political science professor at UCLA and his colleagues totally totally disagree about arming them and most are conservatives and he support all gun restrictions. My other friend a basketball ball coach carry his gun all the time in his backpack a liberal. This dilemma is not just about liberal issue but all sides. Has the same doubt like me about when to shoot back if and when someone try to kill him by surprise. How fast can he pull his gun out of the backpack with the safety on?

 

[bucs90]

Ok....lots of libs still haven't answered. I don't know why....they seem to have all the answers regarding guns. I even added the 3rd option of a "Gun Free Zone" sign to completely prevent the scenario from even happening....and they wouldn't even take that.

Buc... I gave you similar mass shooting scenario in a class room from your other post... You abandoned me bc you cannot or do not have explanation nor excuses. But your gun nuts buddies told me I'm fantasizing. Then you turn around you using a theater mass shooting.
Mass shooting in theatre. Realistically. First shot every single soul inside that theater will start running with massive panic and confusions. I will be shielding my daughter while we are running. If I have my gun with me (which I will never do) it's impossible for me stop and start shooting. Because the person next to me and the next and the next will start pushing then will end up on the floor being trampled to death. Second it's dark how, who and where should I aim? Do I keep firing hoping I will get the bad guy? Then end up killing more people? Just imagine 2 or 3 of these dumb gun nuts wannabe a hero inside this theater. My honest answer to you is I will call 911 is the responsible way.
NOW...back to my mass shooting scenario in a class room. Arming teachers or professors to stop mass shootings in class room.
1. Do you expect these educators having one gun in one hand and a book in one hand while inside a classroom so he/she can shoot back?
2. Do you expect the shooter will notify them when they start shooting? I'm here to shoot you pull your gun now..
3. Do you expect these educators will even dare to engage in gun battle?
4. When first shot rang there will be lots of students running from different directions panic at massive scale. A professor or students might engage in gun battle. Just imagine the casualties of this gun battle by untrained people?
So what made you think that flooding this country with more guns on top of what we have now will solve these shootings? Maybe we should sell them at all liquor stores like cigarettes so ALL citizens have guns?
I do not have a solution but since you are the expert hoping you can enlighten us. Thank you.

So your answer is dial 911 and try to run past the gunman and hope he doesn't shoot you? Got it.

Your classroom scenario:

1: In a shooting...why would a teacher keep holding a book while shooting back? No. I wouldn't expect that. Put both hands on the gun if you need the gun.
2. Maybe. Maybe not. But the first shot indicates it's on. If the first shot is a teacher...50 others will still be ready.

3 and 4: Teachers will have to accept the dual role cops have. Cops now have to be couselors, mental health assessors, community activists, firefighters, first aid medics, and discipline people's children. They've had to take on MANY roles that aren't their job. Well......teachers may have to do the same. And they have June and July "off". Perfect. 2 available months to train them. If they don't like it....quit. Plenty of ex military or ex police will be willing to do it. And hey....as a bonus....classrooms will see an exodus of liberals and influx of conservative minded teachers.

There. I answered.

Class scenario.
1. In order for the teacher/professor to react quickly a gun should be in their hand all the time. Correct? What good does it do if the gun is inside that back pack? Do you expect the shooter to give you notice?
2. A murderer will notify you before committing a crime? Since when??
3 & 4. Agree. teachers take dual role all the time but teach them about gun battle is totally different. There are teachers/professor that you cannot even trust them to change a flat tire let alone in gun battle. My buddy a political science professor at UCLA and his colleagues totally totally disagree about arming them and most are conservatives and he support all gun restrictions. My other friend a basketball ball coach carry his gun all the time in his backpack a liberal. This dilemma is not just about liberal issue but all sides. Has the same doubt like me about when to shoot back if and when someone try to kill him by surprise. How fast can he pull his gun out of the backpack with the safety on?

1- Cops dont walk around gun in hand. They draw it. Teacher would do the same. Only if the teacher was the target of a sudden ambush would it be an issue...same for cops. Teachers can carry concealed...like undercover cops or secret service do. Right?

2- No. Murderers usually don't advertise. But gunshots are loud. And when armed people hear gunshots...they know it may be time to act.

3/4: Fine. Teachers who don't want to carry don't have to. Many teachers are spineless liberals...and I wouldn't want them armed either. However....some teachers would be quite capable. Allow them to carry. Kinda like Air Marshalls on a plane. Never know who it is or where they are.

See??? Not Air Marshalls. School Marshalls.

 

[bucs90]

The OP is not a fan of the "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation." Sure you'd want something to defend yourself.

So, you'd choose the gun - something you argue you have no right to own.

As Stated, a reasonable response to an unreasonable situation. And no,I wouldn't choose a gun; that was the choice I was given; that or a cell phone. I'd go with something made by the Taser corporation.

So you'd bring a Taser to a gun fight? And liberals wonder why we don't trust them to be in charge of anything important. Yeah...bad guy closing in on you.....firing .45 caliber hollow points at you. And you fetch your trusty stun gun. Fuckin liberals man.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I marked both gun and phone. Why? Because I'd rather call in the police but still have the option to defend myself.

Depends on how far away and if I can get away or not.

 

[bucs90]

I marked both gun and phone. Why? Because I'd rather call in the police but still have the option to defend myself.

Depends on how far away and if I can get away or not.

Excellent answer. Dial 911 on speaker phone....identify yourself and what you're wearing so cops will know you are armed and might have to engage the shooter.

One person actually picked the No Guns sign to prevent the scenario. I hope it was a joke.

 

[candycorn]

The OP is not a fan of the "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation." Sure you'd want something to defend yourself.

So, you'd choose the gun - something you argue you have no right to own.

As Stated, a reasonable response to an unreasonable situation. And no,I wouldn't choose a gun; that was the choice I was given; that or a cell phone. I'd go with something made by the Taser corporation.

So you'd bring a Taser to a gun fight? And liberals wonder why we don't trust them to be in charge of anything important. Yeah...bad guy closing in on you.....firing .45 caliber hollow points at you. And you fetch your trusty stun gun. Fuckin liberals man.

332-206 trusted twice

 

[candycorn]

The OP is not a fan of the "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation." Sure you'd want something to defend yourself.

So, you'd choose the gun - something you argue you have no right to own.

As Stated, a reasonable response to an unreasonable situation. And no,I wouldn't choose a gun; that was the choice I was given; that or a cell phone. I'd go with something made by the Taser corporation.

When presented with someone clearly willing and able to use deadly force against you and others, why would you choose to arm yourself with less than deadly force in response?

Blood lust isn't attractive.

That's right -- and in response to blood lust, you choose to arm yourself with less than deadly force..
Why?

I guess to help elay the concerns I would have of becoming a gun crazy. I'd feel comfortable with my choice in this, Again, total BS situation. Like if a guy had the gun pointed at your temple to where the barrel was touching your skin. Then he tells your 14 y/o daughter to give him a blow job and that her 8 y/o sister is next. Do you tell your kids to listen to the crazy man and lower themselves to his level and participate in this act of madness or do you try to die with some modicum of dignity?

 

[bucs90]

So, you'd choose the gun - something you argue you have no right to own.

As Stated, a reasonable response to an unreasonable situation. And no,I wouldn't choose a gun; that was the choice I was given; that or a cell phone. I'd go with something made by the Taser corporation.

When presented with someone clearly willing and able to use deadly force against you and others, why would you choose to arm yourself with less than deadly force in response?

Blood lust isn't attractive.

That's right -- and in response to blood lust, you choose to arm yourself with less than deadly force..
Why?

I guess to help elay the concerns I would have of becoming a gun crazy. I'd feel comfortable with my choice in this, Again, total BS situation. Like if a guy had the gun pointed at your temple to where the barrel was touching your skin. Then he tells your 14 y/o daughter to give him a blow job and that her 8 y/o sister is next. Do you tell your kids to listen to the crazy man and lower themselves to his level and participate in this act of madness or do you try to die with some modicum of dignity?

What??? So you're saying my scenario is BS?? A guy with a gun shooting in a theater...headed towards you?? Um....dude...watch the news. Even Obama said these mass shootings are happening at alarming regularity.

You just don't like my scenario. Because it shows liberal hypocrisy.