mass shooter defense for nongunners - less lethal devices?

[armygreen]

just brainstorming here because i would like actual possible solutions to mass shooters,

and although most any gun owner is entirely comfortable with using lethal to stop lethal,
a lot of nongunners simply aren't ready to make that committment.

how about offering the anti-gun and/or afraid-of-gun, teachers, admins, mall staff, workplace staff, etc., -- less-lethal forms of stopping such a shooter?

something that projectiles pepper balls, rubber bullets, even a paintball gun or simunition,
something that can be done from behind cover or a little bit of distance so you can duck
behind cover after firing.

and along with it, just like we have fire extinguishers at the ready - how about a bulletresistant vest they can strap on for this defense assault?

again am just looking for ideas they may accept, because i think trying to convert brainwashed left to see the truth is maybe too difficult to accomplish at this time.

[Dead-OnSniperService]

/thread

[armygreen]

/thread

got it, pretend-toughguy. now go back to your videogames i think your mom is making you a grillcheese sandwich and hotpockets.

thanks for actually reading /not.

[guncrank1]

Less than legal defense would be a Tazer or a device like Kimber Pepperblaster.

To stop a suicidal mass murder not likely

Stun guns and pepper spray are contact weapons good for disabling a attacker
Like a mugger or a sexual predator.

[ssracer]

If someone is intent on committing mass murder with a gun, nothing is likely to stop them short of lethal force, most effectively administered by another gun

[Dead-OnSniperService]

/thread

got it, pretend-toughguy. now go back to your videogames i think your mom is making you a grillcheese sandwich and hotpockets.

thanks for actually reading /not.

Not pretending to be a tough guy. But im not a very firm beleiver in taking a gun to a knife fight. And my Mom is dead. Your making alot of friends around here

[jackalo626]

.............WOW!

[guncrank1]

/thread

got it, pretend-toughguy. now go back to your videogames i think your mom is making you a grillcheese sandwich and hotpockets.

thanks for actually reading /not.

What??
This is the correct way to eliminate a threat , lethal force.
Your less than lethal is less than prefect.

A unarmed approch would be better with some martial art attack.
The problem with less lethal is lack of training.
IMO a person with a gun and no trainig is more effective than a person with less lethal and no trainig.

[armygreen]

Less than legal defense would be a Tazer or a device like Kimber Pepperblaster.

To stop a suicidal mass murder not likely

Stun guns and pepper spray are contact weapons good for disabling a attacker
Like a mugger or a sexual predator.

i agree, i don't mean tasers and stunguns i mean distance weapons as i noted above.

If someone is intent on committing mass murder with a gun, nothing is likely to stop them short of lethal force, most effectively administered by another gun

i addressed all this in the first post.

i've many times stated my solution is end gunfreezones period.

but do you really think most of these leftist teachers are ever going to go armed? they're most definitely not.
but i'd rather them hit a shooter in the face with a paintball or pepperball from a shotgun, or toss a flashbang,
than do what they did in CT - shield kids and simply get shot, and the kids still got shot.

for anyone who's serious about self defense, you leave NOTHING off the table. improvised weapons, blades, etc., it's all potential and anything is better than nothing.

saying "guns or nothing" very often leaves you with: nothing.

my ex-girlfriend i've offered many devices for self-defense; she has always refused the blades;
but she readily accepts knucks, kuboton, and an asp. i'm very happy she at least takes those when jogging. they're less lethal than a good blade but it's all in percentages and 10% is higher than 0, and 20% is twice as good as 10.

these leftist teachers just are simply going to refuse guns; but they might say yes to a bulletresistent vest and a simunition gun, or a shottie with pepperballs.

[armygreen]

What??
This is the correct way to eliminate a threat , lethal force.
Your less than lethal is less than prefect.

A unarmed approch would be better with some martial art attack.
The problem with less lethal is lack of training.
IMO a person with a gun and no trainig is more effective than a person with less lethal and no trainig.

where on earth did i ever say no training? on the contrary i wouldn't hand anyone any weapon without teaching them how to use it, even knucks, most people don't even know how to use knucks they will break their own fingers.

you've just suggested a gun and no training as a possibility? i think that's insane, i wouldn't hand the keys to a car to a 13yr old either. no device capable of killing (car, gun, nailgun) should ever be handed to anyone without training, period, ever.

come on you guys, think before you respond and please READ what i wrote before you respond.

[guncrank1]

Women with pepper spray and no training
"Oh, I will protect myself and not hurt the attacker"

Women with pepper spray and a .38 snub nose and no training
" Oh , I will protect myself and hurt/kill the attacker because I have made up my mind"

First example made up
Second example my wife
But she has had police training with the sheriff office where she worked at in FL
So that is not quite true.
I think you get the idea.

[guncrank1]

What??
This is the correct way to eliminate a threat , lethal force.
Your less than lethal is less than prefect.

A unarmed approch would be better with some martial art attack.
The problem with less lethal is lack of training.
IMO a person with a gun and no trainig is more effective than a person with less lethal and no trainig.

where on earth did i ever say no training? on the contrary i wouldn't hand anyone any weapon without teaching them how to use it, even knucks, most people don't even know how to use knucks they will break their own fingers.

you've just suggested a gun and no training as a possibility? i think that's insane, i wouldn't hand the keys to a car to a 13yr old either. no device capable of killing (car, gun, nailgun) should ever be handed to anyone without training, period, ever.

come on you guys, think before you respond and please READ what i wrote before you respond.

Really are you serious
If you are old enough to own a gun , you are old enough to make up your mind to use it.
So do not try the BS route with me.

[scorpionmain]

I think a solution for those that don't want armed guards could be two unarmed national guard or reserve soldiers on the premises.
Their uniformed presence would be a deterrent & these guys and gals would lay down their lives to try to protect our nation's greatest treasures.

[armygreen]

Really are you serious
If you are old enough to own a gun , you are old enough to make up your mind to use it.
So do not try the BS route with me.

i have absolutely no idea, what the eff you are even trying to argue with me over,

and not one iota of anything i posted was "BS" anything mister.

good day crank, hope someday you'll READ posts but i don't hold out hope after this exchange, adios.

[guncrank1]

You asked a question and I gave a honest answer
Then you start you did read it all.
I would have not answered if I did.
And I never said you said no training
I said that
If you want to discuss , use logic

Point /Counter Point

[CCRBUM]

Both my Sig 226 and my AK will work as a distance weapon in an urban setting... Just saying... As far as I'm concerned when it comes to protecting my family, friends and neighbors petals force is justified.

[Netto]

You guys are obviously not taking the time to actually read what armygreen has posted, and you're also not thinking before you post.

[Netto]

I mean seriously, come on guys!

[ssracer]

Unless you plan on following up a non-lethal barrage with physically taking down and restraining the armed psycho on a killing spree, all it is going to do is maybe delay the inevitable. If he is willing to kill you and those around you and none of you are willing to kill him to stop him then the battle is lost.

[JustShootIt]

/thread

got it, pretend-toughguy. now go back to your videogames i think your mom is making you a grillcheese sandwich and hotpockets.

thanks for actually reading /not.

For the record:

Personal attacks won't be tolerated.

I didn't see anything that reflected DOSS being a "tough guy" He simply replied to the OP

While he didn't agree with you, that doesn't give you a reason to make silly assumptions.

One thing you'll notice here is we all know each other and don't have many "internet tough guys"

Sure, we don't always agree on things, but do a pretty good job of getting points across without being d bags or slandering one another....

Carry on.....keep it civil

[Rem700]

Unless you plan on following up a non-lethal barrage with physically taking down and restraining the armed psycho on a killing spree, all it is going to do is maybe delay the inevitable. If he is willing to kill you and those around you and none of you are willing to kill him to stop him then the battle is lost.

agreed and good explanation.

[WLJ]

[son of liberty]

HIDE, RUN AWAY,PRAY SOMEONE ELSE HAS A GUN. There is a flaw in the whole idea of defense by people who cant or wont take lethal steps against someone who has commited him self to the action even in the face of death. MINDSET MINDSET MINDSET, Lion or lamb, a lamb with sharp teeth will still be slaughtered by the loin, its just what they are. There is only one thing that will stop someone who has commited his life to his actions, take his life.

[scorpionmain]

But I might add that armed defense is the only real defense.
I want a cop in every school and the teachers to have the right to carry on school grounds if they ccdw.

[jackalo626]

But I might add that armed defense is the only real defense.
I want a cop in every school and the teachers to have the right to carry on school grounds if they ccdw.

The portion of teachers having right to carry still faces the question with me about it being a gun free zone. If they are carrying then out of common sense it can't be called a gun free zone.