10 Dead in Shooting at a Buffalo Tops

[SABRES 0311]

9 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Totally immature. Almost as much as telling people over and over that they are not able to think as critically as you. We’re not going to save the world on SabreSpace and it’s too nice out to waste any more time on something that isn’t going to change.

Go Sabres.

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.

[Weave]

3 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

The example I gave about pistol attachments isn’t obfuscation. It is a fact that without those mods/attachments those weapons are still just as lethal. The idea is to reduce a criminal’s capability so understanding what effects that capability and how is very important.

Change does need to happen but it needs to be thought out so that whatever decision is made is actually productive. 

Internal/external ballistics, static/mobile positions, ammo/weapon variants, training, mental health and how all of that put together effects lethality is what needs to be studied. Then that information gets applied to produce courses of action. Then we evaluate the effects of each course. Then we decide and implement. This, in theory would provide the greatest positive effect to reducing mass shootings with the least impact on the contents of your safe.

IMO anyone who disagrees with the above approach lacks critical and analytical thinking skills and should not be taken serious when it comes to planning and crisis management. Their participation would hinder a productive solution.

 

Except the contents of out safes are the least important of these.

The right had wanted to study this to death for decades….. and never puts the funding in place to do the studies. This is a red herring.

And we already know that banning assault weapons works as is.  We’ve got the before and after data, and we have an entire world community as additional test cases.  Study, study, study is deflection, deflection, deflection.  And is why you are not going to grt to be part of the solution.

3 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

The example I gave about pistol attachments isn’t obfuscation. It is a fact that without those mods/attachments those weapons are still just as lethal. The idea is to reduce a criminal’s capability so understanding what effects that capability and how is very important.

Change does need to happen but it needs to be thought out so that whatever decision is made is actually productive. 

Internal/external ballistics, static/mobile positions, ammo/weapon variants, training, mental health and how all of that put together effects lethality is what needs to be studied. Then that information gets applied to produce courses of action. Then we evaluate the effects of each course. Then we decide and implement. This, in theory would provide the greatest positive effect to reducing mass shootings with the least impact on the contents of your safe.

IMO anyone who disagrees with the above approach lacks critical and analytical thinking skills and should not be taken serious when it comes to planning and crisis management. Their participation would hinder a productive solution.

 

Except the contents of out safes are the least important of these.

The right had wanted to study this to death for decades….. and never puts the funding in place to do the studies. This is a red herring.

And we already know that banning assault weapons works as is.  We’ve got the before and after data, and we have an entire world community as additional test cases.  Study, study, study is deflection, deflection, deflection.  And is why you are not going to pgrt to be part of the solution.

3 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

The example I gave about pistol attachments isn’t obfuscation. It is a fact that without those mods/attachments those weapons are still just as lethal. The idea is to reduce a criminal’s capability so understanding what effects that capability and how is very important.

Change does need to happen but it needs to be thought out so that whatever decision is made is actually productive. 

Internal/external ballistics, static/mobile positions, ammo/weapon variants, training, mental health and how all of that put together effects lethality is what needs to be studied. Then that information gets applied to produce courses of action. Then we evaluate the effects of each course. Then we decide and implement. This, in theory would provide the greatest positive effect to reducing mass shootings with the least impact on the contents of your safe.

IMO anyone who disagrees with the above approach lacks critical and analytical thinking skills and should not be taken serious when it comes to planning and crisis management. Their participation would hinder a productive solution.

 

Except the contents of out safes are the least important of these.

The right had wanted to study this to death for decades….. and never puts the funding in place to do the studies. This is a red herring.

And we already know that banning assault weapons works as is.  We’ve got the before and after data, and we have an entire world community as additional test cases.  Study, study, study is deflection, deflection, deflection.  And is why you are not going to pgrt to be part of the solution.

[SABRES 0311]

13 minutes ago, Weave said:

Except the contents of out safes are the least important of these.

The right had wanted to study this to death for decades….. and never puts the funding in place to do the studies. This is a red herring.

And we already know that banning assault weapons works as is.  We’ve got the before and after data, and we have an entire world community as additional test cases.  Study, study, study is deflection, deflection, deflection.  And is why you are not going to grt to be part of the solution.

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. 

[Weave]

Ugh.  3x post.  Apologies.

0311, I suspect you are where I was 15yrs ago.  You know the NRA is flat out lying to folks.  And you know GOP is flat out lying to folks.  And you know the position both of them hold in this discussion is wrong. But you are clinging to this ideal that because you are responsible and not inclined towards violence (I assume) that there must be a way to divine the risk from the responsible so everyone can have their cake and eat it too.  But this is the flaw.  There is a very direct correlation between market availability and number of incidents.  No matter matter what root cause methodology you use, availability of these weapons and magazines are the root cause of mass shootings.  Hopefully it doesn’t take another school getting shot up for your epiphany. The fact that you know already they are lying to you should have your spider sense tingling.

[Weave]

Just now, SABRES 0311 said:

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. 

You are focused on a changing rationale when you should be focused on an unchanging root cause.

And I am saying you would be dismissed because of your unwillingness to accept the change needed to remove root cause.

[SABRES 0311]

Just now, Weave said:

Ugh.  3x post.  Apologies.

0311, I suspect you are where I was 15yrs ago.  You know the NRA is flat out lying to folks.  And you know GOP is flat out lying to folks.  And you know the position both of them hold in this discussion is wrong. But you are clinging to this ideal that because you are responsible and not inclined towards violence (I assume) that there must be a way to divine the risk from the responsible so everyone can have their cake and eat it too.  But this is the flaw.  There is a very direct correlation between market availability and number of incidents.  No matter matter what root cause methodology you use, availability of these weapons and magazines are the root cause of mass shootings.  Hopefully it doesn’t take another school getting shot up for your epiphany. The fact that you know already they are lying to you should have your spider sense tingling.

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.

[Weave]

1 minute ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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.

Where am I misunderstanding?  I acknowledged that you aren’t an NRA guy.  I acknowledged that you aren’t buying what the GOP is selling.  I am responding to you trying to justify doing all kinds of things that have been talking points for decades but don’t acknowledge the one thing that is common. Regardless of motivator or political-cultural landscape it had always been access that has determined mass shootings in USA.

[SABRES 0311]

3 minutes ago, Weave said:

You are focused on a changing rationale when you should be focused on an unchanging root cause.

And I am saying you would be dismissed because of your unwillingness to accept the change needed to remove root cause.

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.

 

[Weave]

3 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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.

 

Immediate action?  Holy *****!  This has been a problem for decades.  How about some action?

[SABRES 0311]

4 minutes ago, Weave said:

Where am I misunderstanding?  I acknowledged that you aren’t an NRA guy.  I acknowledged that you aren’t buying what the GOP is selling.  I am responding to you trying to justify doing all kinds of things that have been talking points for decades but don’t acknowledge the one thing that is common. Regardless of motivator or political-cultural landscape it had always been access that has determined mass shootings in USA.

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. 

[Weave]

5 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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. 

Good.  Lets start with what we already know works and move on from there.

[SABRES 0311]

1 minute ago, Weave said:

Immediate action?  Holy *****!  This has been a problem for decades.  How about some action?

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. 

 

[SABRES 0311]

8 minutes ago, Weave said:

Good.  Lets start with what we already know works and move on from there.

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

[drnkirishone]

13 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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.

 

That is illogical. If we banned private ownership of guns right now we would have less mass shooting compared to the last 10 years.

 

10 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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.

Again right out of the nra playback. People commiting mass murders are doing so with the weapons that maximize the effort. The ability to obtain the weapons used is the force multiplier of the events

[Weave]

2 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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. 

 

America has a unique problem with mass shootings.  They don’t have a unique problem with mental illness, extreme nationalism, bullying, economic inequality, or any of a number of sociopolitical issues.  The rest of the world has very readily solved the issue of mass shootings in the face of all of these non unique issues.  The solution is very straight forward.  

1 minute ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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

You are still stuck on motivation when root cause is access.

[drnkirishone]

1 minute ago, Weave said:

America has a unique problem with mass shootings.  They don’t have a unique problem with mental illness, extreme nationalism, bullying, economic inequality, or any of a number of sociopolitical issues.  The rest of the world has very readily solved the issue of mass shootings in the face of all of these non unique issues.  The solution is very straight forward.  

It is almost as if American exceptionalism is a major problem

[Weave]

1 minute ago, drnkirishone said:

That is illogical. If we banned private ownership of guns right now we would have less mass shooting compared to the last 10 years.

What he is saying is, taking guns will result in fire fights.

I don’t think he’s incorrect.  Any method will need to very carefully consider the 10s of thousands of these things already in circulation.  It won’t be a quick path to eliminating mass shootings.

[SABRES 0311]

10 minutes ago, drnkirishone said:

That is illogical. If we banned private ownership of guns right now we would have less mass shooting compared to the last 10 years.

 

Again right out of the nra playback. People commiting mass murders are doing so with the weapons that maximize the effort. The ability to obtain the weapons used is the force multiplier of the events

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?

[SABRES 0311]

17 minutes ago, Weave said:

America has a unique problem with mass shootings.  They don’t have a unique problem with mental illness, extreme nationalism, bullying, economic inequality, or any of a number of sociopolitical issues.  The rest of the world has very readily solved the issue of mass shootings in the face of all of these non unique issues.  The solution is very straight forward.  

You are still stuck on motivation when root cause is access.

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. 

[SABRES 0311]

22 minutes ago, Weave said:

What he is saying is, taking guns will result in fire fights.

I don’t think he’s incorrect.  Any method will need to very carefully consider the 10s of thousands of these things already in circulation.  It won’t be a quick path to eliminating mass shootings.

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.

[drnkirishone]

12 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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?

Again the nra strawman.

[SABRES 0311]

1 minute ago, drnkirishone said:

Again the nra strawman.

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. 

[K-9]

Speaking of old methods vs new threats, the 2A is the mother of them all. Especially the bastardized interpretations the NRA co-opted decades ago. 

[Weave]

5 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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. 

We’ve done a commendable job of making other instruments of mass destruction difficult to obtain.  Assault rifles need to catch up.  And new things get dealt with as they appear.

Why is this not difficult for the rest of the world, but a major undertaking for threat identifiers and responders here?

[SABRES 0311]

19 minutes ago, Weave said:

We’ve done a commendable job of making other instruments of mass destruction difficult to obtain.  Assault rifles need to catch up.  And new things get dealt with as they appear.

Why is this not difficult for the rest of the world, but a major undertaking for threat identifiers and responders here?

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.

Edited May 29, 2022 by SABRES 0311