On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:31:50 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

No, Johnnymop, I don't have "eye problems. I see perfectly at a
distance. But I do use one lens reading glasses when shooting with "iron
sights" to rein in my right eye so I can clearly see the front and rear
sights, and the lensless left eye then focuses on the target. Took me a
while to get used to it, but it works very well for me. With a red dot
or a scope, I don't use any glasses. I also don't have all the various
physical problems you seem to have, what with your endless surgeries.

===

Too bad about your distemper however, should have gotten those shots
when you were a puppy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_distemper

On 10/4/2015 4:38 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:22:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/4/2015 4:28 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 16:12:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/4/2015 3:42 PM, Califbill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2015 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:17:29 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

It's the Fretwell-Herring-W'hine-FlaTrash response, immortalized by the
Onion. "We can't do nuttin' about this, honey!"

I put my opinion about this and it was lost in the noise.

We should be teaching everyone to FIGHT BACK.
If everyone in that room scattered and immediately started throwing
everything they could pick up, at the shooter, he would be too busy
ducking to shoot and they could take him down.

There is no down side. The ONLY way he can kill them all is if they
stand there patiently and wait their turn.

One unarmed guy tried to "fight back" in the latest shootings and he got
shot 7 times. Fortunately he survived.

I think more lives are saved by following protocol ... meaning
people move into a secure area, lock the door, shut off the lights and
stay quiet.



Example?

Airline hijacking. We have not really had one since the passengers
figured out they can fight back. If they had have acted sooner, they
would have saved the plane in Pennsylvania
The leaky TSA process really has little to do with it. (97% failure
rate on their own test)
The fact that the hijacker will be beat to a bloody pulp does.
These days if someone just gets a little frisky, passengers take him
down.

The reason is the same, this is not a robbery where giving up some
money will save you. You have to understand the guy is there to kill
you and the only chance you have is to be a hard target.




And most of the nine killed, were asked their religion and then shot.
Might be better off fighting back. If you get shot, you are more likely to
survive, as he can not aim as well.



Yup. All those little kids at Sandy Hook shuda just thrown their copies
of "Dick, Jane and Sally" at the gunman.

This conversation is getting funny. A bunch of unarmed people are going
to ward off a guy with a large magazine, semi-automatic
by throwing books at him.

Boy, that will put terror in the heart of the next nutcase with a gun
who decides to make himself famous.


Would the Massachusetts laws stop you if you decided to go off the deep end and shoot
a bunch of school kids? No.

Nope, they wouldn't.

Well, for the record, I'm not worried about you.

I'd be more worried about someone with lots of guns, who feels the need to brag about
his abilities, exhibits some pretty anti-social tendencies, knows he's not well
liked, uses lies to support narcissistic traits, and spends most of his time sitting
in a basement.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

I think I know who you are referring to.

On 10/4/2015 4:41 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/4/15 5:38 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:22:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/4/2015 4:28 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 16:12:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/4/2015 3:42 PM, Califbill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2015 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:17:29 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

It's the Fretwell-Herring-W'hine-FlaTrash response,
immortalized by the
Onion. "We can't do nuttin' about this, honey!"

I put my opinion about this and it was lost in the noise.

We should be teaching everyone to FIGHT BACK.
If everyone in that room scattered and immediately started throwing
everything they could pick up, at the shooter, he would be too busy
ducking to shoot and they could take him down.

There is no down side. The ONLY way he can kill them all is if they
stand there patiently and wait their turn.

One unarmed guy tried to "fight back" in the latest shootings and
he got
shot 7 times. Fortunately he survived.

I think more lives are saved by following protocol ... meaning
people move into a secure area, lock the door, shut off the
lights and
stay quiet.



Example?

Airline hijacking. We have not really had one since the passengers
figured out they can fight back. If they had have acted sooner,
they
would have saved the plane in Pennsylvania
The leaky TSA process really has little to do with it. (97% failure
rate on their own test)
The fact that the hijacker will be beat to a bloody pulp does.
These days if someone just gets a little frisky, passengers take
him
down.

The reason is the same, this is not a robbery where giving up some
money will save you. You have to understand the guy is there to
kill
you and the only chance you have is to be a hard target.




And most of the nine killed, were asked their religion and then shot.
Might be better off fighting back. If you get shot, you are more
likely to
survive, as he can not aim as well.



Yup. All those little kids at Sandy Hook shuda just thrown their
copies
of "Dick, Jane and Sally" at the gunman.

This conversation is getting funny. A bunch of unarmed people are
going
to ward off a guy with a large magazine, semi-automatic
by throwing books at him.

Boy, that will put terror in the heart of the next nutcase with a gun
who decides to make himself famous.


Would the Massachusetts laws stop you if you decided to go off the
deep end and shoot
a bunch of school kids? No.

Nope, they wouldn't.

Well, for the record, I'm not worried about you.

I'd be more worried about someone with lots of guns, who feels the
need to brag about
his abilities, exhibits some pretty anti-social tendencies, knows he's
not well
liked, uses lies to support narcissistic traits, and spends most of
his time sitting
in a basement.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!


Looking in the mirror again, Johnnymop?

You don't know who the reference is to? Seriously?

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2015 5:08 PM, Califbill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2015 3:42 PM, Califbill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2015 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:17:29 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

It's the Fretwell-Herring-W'hine-FlaTrash response, immortalized by the
Onion. "We can't do nuttin' about this, honey!"

I put my opinion about this and it was lost in the noise.

We should be teaching everyone to FIGHT BACK.
If everyone in that room scattered and immediately started throwing
everything they could pick up, at the shooter, he would be too busy
ducking to shoot and they could take him down.

There is no down side. The ONLY way he can kill them all is if they
stand there patiently and wait their turn.

One unarmed guy tried to "fight back" in the latest shootings and he got
shot 7 times. Fortunately he survived.

I think more lives are saved by following protocol ... meaning
people move into a secure area, lock the door, shut off the lights and
stay quiet.



Example?

Airline hijacking. We have not really had one since the passengers
figured out they can fight back. If they had have acted sooner, they
would have saved the plane in Pennsylvania
The leaky TSA process really has little to do with it. (97% failure
rate on their own test)
The fact that the hijacker will be beat to a bloody pulp does.
These days if someone just gets a little frisky, passengers take him
down.

The reason is the same, this is not a robbery where giving up some
money will save you. You have to understand the guy is there to kill
you and the only chance you have is to be a hard target.




And most of the nine killed, were asked their religion and then shot.
Might be better off fighting back. If you get shot, you are more likely to
survive, as he can not aim as well.



Yup. All those little kids at Sandy Hook shuda just thrown their copies
of "Dick, Jane and Sally" at the gunman.

This conversation is getting funny. A bunch of unarmed people are going
to ward off a guy with a large magazine, semi-automatic
by throwing books at him.

Boy, that will put terror in the heart of the next nutcase with a gun
who decides to make himself famous.






If the books hit, he will be dodging. Just going to stand there and wait
to be shot?


Guess you are right. The obvious solution is just around the corner.
I think that in the near future a liberal Democratic president and a
Democratic Congress is going to make gun owner's worst fears come true,
NRA be damned. It has happened elsewhe

http://mic.com/articles/123049/19-years-after-passing-strict-gun-control-laws-here-s-what-happened-in-australia



Well, they seem to ignore the Constitution anyways.

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:17:43 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 10/4/2015 4:41 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/4/15 5:38 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:22:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/4/2015 4:28 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 16:12:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/4/2015 3:42 PM, Califbill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2015 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:17:29 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

It's the Fretwell-Herring-W'hine-FlaTrash response,
immortalized by the
Onion. "We can't do nuttin' about this, honey!"

I put my opinion about this and it was lost in the noise.

We should be teaching everyone to FIGHT BACK.
If everyone in that room scattered and immediately started throwing
everything they could pick up, at the shooter, he would be too busy
ducking to shoot and they could take him down.

There is no down side. The ONLY way he can kill them all is if they
stand there patiently and wait their turn.

One unarmed guy tried to "fight back" in the latest shootings and
he got
shot 7 times. Fortunately he survived.

I think more lives are saved by following protocol ... meaning
people move into a secure area, lock the door, shut off the
lights and
stay quiet.



Example?

Airline hijacking. We have not really had one since the passengers
figured out they can fight back. If they had have acted sooner,
they
would have saved the plane in Pennsylvania
The leaky TSA process really has little to do with it. (97% failure
rate on their own test)
The fact that the hijacker will be beat to a bloody pulp does.
These days if someone just gets a little frisky, passengers take
him
down.

The reason is the same, this is not a robbery where giving up some
money will save you. You have to understand the guy is there to
kill
you and the only chance you have is to be a hard target.




And most of the nine killed, were asked their religion and then shot.
Might be better off fighting back. If you get shot, you are more
likely to
survive, as he can not aim as well.



Yup. All those little kids at Sandy Hook shuda just thrown their
copies
of "Dick, Jane and Sally" at the gunman.

This conversation is getting funny. A bunch of unarmed people are
going
to ward off a guy with a large magazine, semi-automatic
by throwing books at him.

Boy, that will put terror in the heart of the next nutcase with a gun
who decides to make himself famous.


Would the Massachusetts laws stop you if you decided to go off the
deep end and shoot
a bunch of school kids? No.

Nope, they wouldn't.

Well, for the record, I'm not worried about you.

I'd be more worried about someone with lots of guns, who feels the
need to brag about
his abilities, exhibits some pretty anti-social tendencies, knows he's
not well
liked, uses lies to support narcissistic traits, and spends most of
his time sitting
in a basement.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!


Looking in the mirror again, Johnnymop?

You don't know who the reference is to? Seriously?

YKW!
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:51:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/4/2015 12:38 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:59:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Require all firearms be turned in to the government.


Do you think that would reduce the killings in this country?


Yup...

... and that's where we are heading unless the hard core 2nd Ammendment
clingers don't open their eyes and minds and become willing to discuss
and consider gun control laws that fit contemporary times. To continue
to say "nothing will work" and be satisfied with the status quo is
eventually going to force the issue.

===

A classic case of the cure being worse than the disease. Once more, I
don't believe you can solve a social problem with the legal system. It
didn't work with prohibition, and it's not working with the war on
drugs. I won't go into detail here but there are lots of other ways
to commit mass mayhem without using guns at all. Look no further than
the Boston Marathon.


Understood but horrific as it was, there are far fewer Boston Marathons
when compared to mass shootings using guns.


Americans are lazy but they can be resourceful if they need to be.

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 15:50:13 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

... and that's where we are heading unless the hard core 2nd Ammendment
clingers don't open their eyes and minds and become willing to discuss
and consider gun control laws that fit contemporary times. To continue
to say "nothing will work" and be satisfied with the status quo is
eventually going to force the issue.


Yup, we would just need to trim 4 or 5 amendments off of the Bill of
Rights.

Wasn't that one reason why we had the 2d amendment in the first place?


No.

I guess you never read some of the comments from the people who wrote
it and considered that they had just won a bloody revolution against
the most powerful country in the world.

The real point is that gun confiscation would have to violate the 2d,
4th, 5th, 6th and perhaps the 10th amendment.
I doubt they would get half in any kind of buy back, even at a
generous market price. Then you get down to forcible "takings", black
markets and millions of instant criminals.
How many prisons are you going to build?

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:58:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/4/2015 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:17:29 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

It's the Fretwell-Herring-W'hine-FlaTrash response, immortalized by the
Onion. "We can't do nuttin' about this, honey!"

I put my opinion about this and it was lost in the noise.

We should be teaching everyone to FIGHT BACK.
If everyone in that room scattered and immediately started throwing
everything they could pick up, at the shooter, he would be too busy
ducking to shoot and they could take him down.

There is no down side. The ONLY way he can kill them all is if they
stand there patiently and wait their turn.

One unarmed guy tried to "fight back" in the latest shootings and he got
shot 7 times. Fortunately he survived.

Weren't we talking about mass shootings where gunmen were in a room
full of people and there was no chance that you could just cooperate
and get away.
How many times would he have been shot if he stood still and waited
his turn.

I think more lives are saved by following protocol ... meaning
people move into a secure area, lock the door, shut off the lights and
stay quiet.

Fine but what happens when the bad guy comes in that room and turns
the light back on?
Maybe you can't get to a secure area, you are all in the break room
with no door on it and light coming in from outside. Most modern LEED
buildings have plenty of natural light.

If everyone immediately started throwing **** at the gunman, he would
have to start thinking about ducking because the incoming might just
be a coffee cup or it might be a lap top charger "slung" from a 3'
cord. A pound or so, coming in at a few hundred feet per second is
going to leave a mark.
These guys are not specially trained SWAT guys, they are just
insecure losers for the most part and losing control of the situation,
even for a few seconds might be all it takes to stop them.

As I said, what would you have to lose?
It isn't a robbery, he is there to kill you.

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 16:12:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/4/2015 3:42 PM, Califbill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2015 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:17:29 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

It's the Fretwell-Herring-W'hine-FlaTrash response, immortalized by the
Onion. "We can't do nuttin' about this, honey!"

I put my opinion about this and it was lost in the noise.

We should be teaching everyone to FIGHT BACK.
If everyone in that room scattered and immediately started throwing
everything they could pick up, at the shooter, he would be too busy
ducking to shoot and they could take him down.

There is no down side. The ONLY way he can kill them all is if they
stand there patiently and wait their turn.

One unarmed guy tried to "fight back" in the latest shootings and he got
shot 7 times. Fortunately he survived.

I think more lives are saved by following protocol ... meaning
people move into a secure area, lock the door, shut off the lights and
stay quiet.



Example?

Airline hijacking. We have not really had one since the passengers
figured out they can fight back. If they had have acted sooner, they
would have saved the plane in Pennsylvania
The leaky TSA process really has little to do with it. (97% failure
rate on their own test)
The fact that the hijacker will be beat to a bloody pulp does.
These days if someone just gets a little frisky, passengers take him
down.

The reason is the same, this is not a robbery where giving up some
money will save you. You have to understand the guy is there to kill
you and the only chance you have is to be a hard target.




And most of the nine killed, were asked their religion and then shot.
Might be better off fighting back. If you get shot, you are more likely to
survive, as he can not aim as well.



Yup. All those little kids at Sandy Hook shuda just thrown their copies
of "Dick, Jane and Sally" at the gunman.

This conversation is getting funny. A bunch of unarmed people are going
to ward off a guy with a large magazine, semi-automatic
by throwing books at him.

Boy, that will put terror in the heart of the next nutcase with a gun
who decides to make himself famous.


It is better than just standing there.
You also start changing the subject.
The targets of majority of these shootings are adults or damn close to
it.

The idea is just to disorient the guy and gain the edge that could
allow you to take him down.
If he really is there with a box fed SA and plenty of ammo, taking him
down is the only way this will stop.
Maybe you could learn something from fire ants.
It is no problem to stomp on hundreds of them, but once they decide to
attack you, a couple dozen can make you forget why you are there.

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:08:56 -0700, Califbill billnews wrote:



Yup. All those little kids at Sandy Hook shuda just thrown their copies
of "Dick, Jane and Sally" at the gunman.

This conversation is getting funny. A bunch of unarmed people are going
to ward off a guy with a large magazine, semi-automatic
by throwing books at him.

Boy, that will put terror in the heart of the next nutcase with a gun
who decides to make himself famous.




If the books hit, he will be dodging. Just going to stand there and wait
to be shot?

If you look around the normal office or classroom, there will be lots
of stuff you can throw.
Eventually someone will man up and go get the guy if he gets
distracted enough

The other part of the drill should be to scatter. Create a situation
where he is always surrounded, Once you clump up, it is easy to shoot
a lot of people without having to really look around,

John probably has the army term for that.

I have no problem with the idea of turning off the light and hoping
you get passed by but that is not going to work for everyone.

I know when Charlie Mann shot up the IBM rust bucket in DC (actually
Maryland) the guys in the computer room spread out and armed
themselves with whatever they could find. They never got to test my
theory because the guy didn't go there but they were not going to be
willing victims. It might have helped that most were veterans with
military training.

BTW that may have been the first "workplace" shooting that we ever
heard about. It was before the post office people started making it
famous.