10 Dead in Shooting at a Buffalo Tops

[Weave]

43 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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.

Except its not 30yr old data.  Removal of access works.  Today.  Root cause from the last 2 shootings, access to weapons of mass destruction.

Implementation needs to consider today.  The cause is unchanged.  It’s always been about access.

[SABRES 0311]

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.

[SABRES 0311]

15 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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.

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.

Edited May 29, 2022 by SABRES 0311

[Weave]

Up until now you’ve hinted at this with plenty of talking points laced in between that are too commonly heard among politicians that aren’t really interesting in solving this.  Thank you for laying out your position.  We’re mostly in agreement.  I’ve seen a well working ban get ended due to politics.  My only large change to your thoughts are to not give it an expiration date.  If it isn’t working as intended it can be ended legislatively if needed.

Politically you can do something to help.  You can stop supporting the pols who are stonewalling efforts to reduce the violence.

[SABRES 0311]

1 minute ago, Weave said:

Up until now you’ve hinted at this with plenty of talking points laced in between that are too commonly heard among politicians that aren’t really interesting in solving this.  Thank you for laying out your position.  We’re mostly in agreement.  I’ve seen a well working ban get ended due to politics.  My only large change to your thoughts are to not give it an expiration date.  If it isn’t working as intended it can be ended legislatively if needed.

Politically you can do something to help.  You can stop supporting the pols who are stonewalling efforts to reduce the violence.

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.  

[SwampD]

6 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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.

 

 

3 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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.

 

8 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

 

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.

 

 

[Weave]

The other side has shown repeatedly that there is no compromise.  Thank you NRA.  This is only getting done one way.  As I’ve said up thread, the other side won’t be invited to the table because they won’t compromise and they won’t defy the NRA.

[SABRES 0311]

9 minutes ago, SwampD said:

 

 

 

 

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.

[SABRES 0311]

45 minutes ago, Weave said:

The other side has shown repeatedly that there is no compromise.  Thank you NRA.  This is only getting done one way.  As I’ve said up thread, the other side won’t be invited to the table because they won’t compromise and they won’t defy the NRA.

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.

[Weave]

30 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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.

Can you honestly say you perceive sincerity in wanting a solution from the right?

[SABRES 0311]

12 minutes ago, Weave said:

Can you honestly say you perceive sincerity in wanting a solution from the right?

You talking politicians or citizens?

[Weave]

46 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

You talking politicians or citizens?

Politicians.

[SwampD]

2 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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.

I know we are both smart. Maybe we just come to different conclusions based on what we value as important. I don't need you to be stupid in order to not see things my way (or not apply your intelligence to the problem). I'm not that insecure.

[SABRES 0311]

16 minutes ago, Weave said:

Politicians.

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.

[Weave]

25 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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.

And that is why I believe it will need to be crammed home.  The politicians on the right do not have a sincere interest in helping.  There is too much NRA money to be lost.

[SABRES 0311]

1 minute ago, Weave said:

And that is why I believe it will need to be crammed home.  The politicians on the right do not have a sincere interest in helping.  There is too much NRA money to be lost.

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

[drnkirishone]

5 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

 Again I never said I’m better equipped but I will say if I think someone is not applying it.

You have said you are better. It is the repeated arguement you use everytime someone calls out something you say and I am guessing I am not the only one that typically dismisses things you say because of it.

[SABRES 0311]

10 minutes ago, drnkirishone said:

You have said you are better. It is the repeated arguement you use everytime someone calls out something you say and I am guessing I am not the only one that typically dismisses things you say because of it.

Ok

[SABRES 0311]

On 5/29/2022 at 1:45 PM, SABRES 0311 said:

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.

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. 

[LGR4GM]

On 5/29/2022 at 10:34 PM, SABRES 0311 said:

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

Yea, the right is going to do nothing. They are perfectly comfortable with children dying as long as they fire up their base and get their gun lobby money. 

Chris Jacobs made it 7 days after supporting common sense gun legislation before basically being forced out. But this isn't cancel culture, nope. Pathetic.