Posted on 10/08/2015 7:30:48 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Common sense apparently does strange things to some progressive minds. Yesterday morning, speaking on Fox and Friends, Ben Carson said of a mass-shooting situation, “I would not just stand there and let him shoot me. I would say, ‘Hey guys, everybody attack him. He may shoot me, but he can’t get us all.’”
The New York Times declared that his statement was “drawing widespread rebuke from his critics and reviving questions about his candidacy.” ABC News asked him to “clarify” his statement, leading to this rather amusing exchange:
ABC: Dr. Carson can you clarify your statements on the Oregon shooting?
Carson: What needs clarification?
ABC: I guess there’s an implication that you’re saying that the students didn’t do enough to save themselves.
Carson: No, I said nothing about them. I said what I would do.
ABC: And can you say what you would do?
Carson: I would ask everybody to attack the gunman because he can only shoot one of us at a time. That way we don’t all wind up dead.
He then laughed and walked away. Later, on Megyn Kelly’s show, he said that he wasn’t laughing at the shooting but rather the “silliness” of the people asking the question. He said that he wanted to “plant the seed in people’s minds so that if this happens again they don’t all get killed.”
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO...
There was a time when the guidance for passengers in airplane hijackings could be summed up in one word: Cooperate. And on September 11, 2001, hijackers used that guidance to guarantee their control of three airplanes — the planes that later flew straight into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. But on one aircraft, the passengers learned that cooperation meant certain death, and they unilaterally changed the protocols. As a result, it’s now virtually unthinkable that American passengers will simply stand by and allow a hijacker to seize an airliner’s controls.
To hail the passengers of Flight 93 is not to condemn the passengers of Flight 11, Flight 175, and Flight 77. In a terrifying situation, they were doing what they were taught to do.
The current guidance for victims in mass-shooting situations is just as passive as the original guidance for hijacking victims. “Shelter in place,” they’re told. In other words, hide and wait for rescue. Carson is urging a change in the paradigm, to immediate group resistance.
The key word here is “group.” The sad stories of mass shootings are replete with tales of individual heroism, of the one man who charged the attacker only to be shot down. In Oregon, Chris Mintz resisted and was shot multiple times. At Fort Hood, Captain John Gaffney reportedly died charging Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan. But where one man fails, two or three can succeed — just ask Spencer Stone, Alek Skarlatos, and Anthony Sadler, the three American men who foiled an August terrorist attack on a French train.
Should the defining characteristic of Americans under fire — whether from terrorists or from depraved gunmen — be their eagerness to shelter or their courage to resist? And should a presidential candidate prioritize “sensitivity” over all other virtues? Carson is urging Americans to change their thinking, to take responsibility for their own defense. In a previous era, this would be called leadership. Now, all too many people just call it mean.
As I’ve said before, none of us can truly know how we’ll respond to a crisis until we face that ultimate test, but aspiration is the first step to action, and we can and should urge our fellow Americans to fight — together, immediately, and viciously — when confronted by a mortal threat. “Shelter in place” is supposed to mean “wait for help.” All too often it means “wait to die.” Those are not American words. They are not in keeping with American culture. On Flight 93, the battle cry was “Let’s roll.” On a train in Belgium, it was “Let’s go.” Those are the right words — the American words — for defeating evil.
—David French is an attorney and a staff writer at National Review.
I mentioned my concerns to our priest.
He agreed.
We need a plan.
Well, wrong thread or not, you're still probably correct in your assertion.
> Well, wrong thread or not, you’re still probably correct in
> your assertion.
It was about Hillary likening the NRA to the Soviets and ayatollahs in Iran.
In any situation when someone is holding a gun on a group of people with the intent of lining them up and blowing the top of their head off one by one, it is absurd to simply wait your turn.
The shooter may be crazed lunatic, or a cold and calculating lunatic, but still needs to line up the sights and pull the trigger, each time. The barrel must point to a vital organ while the trigger is pulled, each time.
Why make it easy by holding still?
In addition, the fact that he will soon get his own head ripped off and shat down his throat may cause him to be off in his a aim a tad.
Unfortunately the best move for the classroom full of students at UCC would have been mass attack. However, everything they have been taught is the opposite, drop and cover. Of course the proximity to the shooter is a big consideration, the closer you the faster you need to attack.
I would move forward as I brought my weapon to target.
Ever notice in the old Superman TV shows from the 50s that Superman lets the bullets bounce off him, but then ducks when the crook throws the empty gun at him?
To be honest, I dont think any of us know positively how we would respond if ever in that situation. Each circumstance is different and how we react is subject to many variables.
We have turned into a country of metro sexsual balless wonders
My favorite Superman gun moment is where he grabs the crook’s revolver & crushes it in his fist. The crook’s moll faints dead away.
(the prop gun must have been made of licorice or something)
> But where one man fails, two or three can succeed — just ask Spencer Stone, Alek Skarlatos, and Anthony Sadler, the three American men who foiled an August terrorist attack on a French train.”
Excellent advice.
Also, prayers to Spencer Stone, who was attacked by muzzies and stabbed 4 times in the chest this morning.
I was in a mass shooting. When I heard there was a man in our building shooting people, I just ran out of my building g into the next, and out of it into the next building.
Your adrenaline us going. You don’t really think, at least not at the beginning.
In my building, the only people that died were those he shot in the first few minutes.
Then a lot of people barricaded their offices, and climbed up in ceiling. They hid for about 5 hours.
Every situation is different.
It’s a very surreal event.
[ Gov. John Kasich was just on Fox. He said he trusts the First Responders to handle situations. Idiot. ]
“First Responders” are usually sadly just mere “Cleanup Crew Responders”.....
Usually the “First Responders” that make the most difference are well armed citizens who happen to be there at the time.
Apparently the first responders were able to count to 10 in Oregon.
Kasich is such a Douche.
I picture one possible version of that as the students holding chairs and desks in front of them like shields moving as one mass on the attacker. Like a phalanx of Roman soldiers.
The makeshift shields wouldn't stop bullets but they would slow their velocity. More than that they obscure specific targets for the shooter to pick out and increase the mass and hardness of the dog pile that's about to bury him and it would make an intimidating front that may unnerve him and cause him to fail to shoot.
No need to describe what to do after he's down.
Hi neighbor.
I lived in Durango for 18 years. I now live in Ignacio, 20+ miles south.
Everyone I know here has guns, some a few and some alot. I have a few and working on a lot.
FMCDH(BITS)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.