SABRES 0311

Job hunt.

What kind of game does he play?

Forgot the weapons training. The course of fire I am still working out. It was originally a business idea but I’m not much of a businessman so maybe it could be a state sponsored thing. This is meant to be a basics course. Four Day Program -Day 1: Learning your weapon. Disassemble, reassemble, cleaning, handling/transport, ammo types and dry fire. Culminates with a weapons safety rule and handling test. Short day. -Day 2: Weapons safety rules. Dry fire, familiarization live fire (day/night). Day 3: Weapons safety rules. Testing course of fire (day/night). Day 4: Weapons safety rules. Test out (day/night). Day Five: Optional. Shooting on the move and in confined spaces. -Between shooting reps we will have guided discussions. These will include active shooter, hostage, and emergency medical situations. -Course team runs no more than two courses a month to avoid burnout. -If you use your own weapon you supply your own ammunition. Two safety violations and you are done. Fail any tested portion you are done. Show up late twice or argue with an instructor and you are done. Removed shooters will relinquish their weapon and be escorted off site. They will be given their weapon back once legally off site with the bolt/slide locked to the rear. I hear you send it home and you will not be allowed back. Shooters will sign an agreement to all rules on day one along with a hold harmless. Absolutely no hollow points, tracers, or homemade ammo/weapons.

Ok

Probably so. Politicians left and right are gonna do what they do.

No I can’t imagine anything sincere. Well, maybe. I’m not going to say definitively and then have to eat my words. I’d say not likely.

You talking politicians or citizens?

Well I’m not gonna argue about stonewalling. If you think a cram it home approach is the only way, support what you believe. I’ll say the same for how some of you view the process in general. I don’t like it but we’ll see how it works out.

There’s a difference being capable of critical thinking and not applying it to a situation. Again I never said I’m better equipped but I will say if I think someone is not applying it.

They are political talking points because politicians lace underlying intentions with common sense verbiage on issues. It’s how they get you to vote for them. When I talk about risk mitigation it comes from experience in application, not a political campaign. So just because something I say is what someone or some organization says, it doesn’t me I’m their strawman or dedicated supporter. I would defend you the same way even if I didn’t agree on the POV. You don’t put an expiration you will make it harder to get political opposition on board. If you aren’t willing to compromise don’t expect others to and don’t expect results. This is part of swallowing pride for the greater good. Worry more about your’s and other’s willingness to use years old information in planning that effects lives than who you “think” I support. I might support someone’s view on one or a couple areas but that doesn’t constitute a blanket support.

Everything I listed should be planned and implemented in a way to meet each element’s intent. This requires review, assessing, predictive outcomes, so on. You go into any of this half-a$$ed and you get half-a$$ed results that cost people their lives. Simply put, be a professional, be dedicated, be transparent, be open minded, be knowledgeable. I suspect the biggest hurdles are funding and politics. Can’t help you there.

I don’t really have an issue with banning certain weapons. I think where our society is has proven an inability to be responsible. Not just mass shootings but gang violence, domestic violence, and accidental shootings. The willingness of people to use such old data for their decision making is so crazy and makes me question their dedication to saving people’s lives. Response: -No more 18 year olds buying guns. Can’t buy tobacco and alcohol at 18. Why are we selling guns to 18 year olds. -Comprehensive review of the 94 gun ban. Make edits as necessary to meet the environment not instituting a decades old policy. Ban stays in effect for X period of time. Review effectiveness at six month intervals with annual, half way and final analytical report. -Review school safety measures and amend to mitigate vulnerabilities. This includes school staff emergency training. No guns for teachers in school. -Review LE training and current capabilities. Adjust as necessary to meet the threat. -Universal background check to reduce, possibly deter, human threats factor. -Just like we register our cars and register to vote, register guns.

Edit: Reread your question. Identifying and assessing the threat and individual vulnerabilities is not hard. Difficulty is identifying appropriate measures to mitigate the vulnerabilities. You don’t put a band-aid on a cut that requires stitches. This takes actual thinking, again, using current data. Not information primarily based on a 30 year old ban that expired almost 20 years ago and what other countries have done.

Attack instead of answer. Childish. Id love to hear your background on threat identification and mitigation, crisis planning and response. Let’s compare real-world experience to validate our positions.

Yes I think there are crazy people who are looking for an excuse to act out violently and justify their warped sense of reality. And if you make decisions off in accurate data to mitigate the threat those people, current mass shooters, and violent gangs pose you will barely make a difference. You will always be playing catch up if you are unable to assess threats and vulnerabilities accurately.

You are stuck on one dimensional thinking about a dynamic problem. None of those issues are unique in the U.S. How people react to those issues is. Ban every gun if you think it will solve the problem. I think these people’s mindsets will enable them to find other means of inflicting the same level of damage.

Banning private ownership would create an atmosphere that fosters an increase in politically motivated violence. Yes, having access to more lethal weapons makes it easier to inflict mass casualties. When these people find new ways to inflict the same casualties, what will you do?

You assume old methods will work because you assume it’s the same threat. I think the threat has evolved.

People are less willing to accept the idea of thinking through a problem because that’s all they hear with no meaningful action on the back end. As time goes on their demand for immediate action grows and they try to use old data to support their decision making process. This will lead to a false sense of security and bad guys having an easier time finding a way around it.

I didn’t say anything against banning certain weapons, variants and attachments. What I am saying is the mindset these people are using will lead them to find other means of carrying out attacks of similar magnitude. I think more needs to happen.

What change did I say I would be unwilling to accept? When mass shootings like these happen the last thing anyone wants to hear is anything less than immediate action. I understand that. People also need to understand that if you don’t enact the right measures you will end up where you started with more dead people.

I don’t subscribe to the NRA. I think the NRA as with other organizations do/say what they need to in any given moment. I do not think there is a way to have our cake and eat it too. I think a number of things need to change. When our society stops acting like it has then we can go from there. I really wish you would read my posts for what they say and not through the lens of posts from other threads I have posted in. IMO this is what is happening.

I’m not the one who brought up contents of a safe. Funding needs to happen to avoid implementing faulty solutions. Are you referring to the data from the 94 weapons ban? If so you are saying the threat environment during that time and the associated data is the exact same threat environment as today. I disagree that not agreeing with someone’s POV is grounds for removing them. I also disagree that in an actual working group I would be dismissed based on real world experience.

I would say I’m just a regular guy with no greater thinking ability than the next. I just see a problem set and way forward a little differently but with similarities. When did I say people can’t think as critically as me? Some insecurity to go with the immaturity I think.

I don’t know why much hasn’t changed. Could be not a lot of action. I think there should be action taken. That action should be well thought out and implemented. Wow. Ok, looking at times in posts. I didn’t write the initial post then spend 20 minutes looking for resources. I edited the post 20 minutes later after spending 30 seconds finding examples of possible resources. Showing some immaturity IMO. Not the type of mindset that contributes to problem solving.