Ironically, if people were to confront, aggressively, a mad shooter with whatever weapons they could scrounge, the overall death toll would probably be lower – though the survival rate for the “first responder” may not be great.
So there is a point to the otherwise risible “scissor strategy,” and in a way it is refreshing to see the authorities admit that passive submission is an EFFING HORRIBLE response, even though they’re doing it for an underhanded reason (supporting victim disarmament policies).
In practical terms, a couple brave souls with the will to fight can probably turn a potential mass killing into a singleton, even unarmed. Not many civilians with that mindset, though.
Comment by DougM (Progophobe) — February 2, 2013 @ 7:29 pm
I was remiss in not including that up top.
Hmm … might not be too late.
Comment by DougM (Progophobe) — February 2, 2013 @ 7:37 pm
She’s saving the diagonal wire cutters for herself.
Comment by JoeBandMember™ — February 2, 2013 @ 7:52 pm
“You ‘Arm’ yourself with scissors” says a …erm, woman surrounded by 24-hour professional armed guards.
So she’s saying there will be more of these “mass shootings”? [well, duh - but she's implying an increasing rate]
Which means they know that disarming Law-Abiding citizens won’t fix a dang thing.
I find myself jaw-droppingly gobsmacked at this “advice” from my .gov.
Sure, I’ll run at a California coyote skreeching like a deranged baboon just to get ‘em out of the yard. [their look of disbelief and 'this is so worng!' is hilarious]
Or even a Mountain Lion [lone hunters are very, very careful]
But a pack of wolves? or a bear?!? not bloody likely. I’d want serious armament for that. [if we actually had such 'round here]
This denial of Reality and Rights is approaching …. waiddaminnit:
Alinksy Tactic Suggestion: It is a Human Right to Protect Oneself and One’s Family
How’s that for a sudden thought?
Comment by Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause* — February 3, 2013 @ 9:50 am