10 Dead in Shooting at a Buffalo Tops

[Indabuff]

[Weave]

3 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

First Paragraph

-Agreed but I think a gun cabinet is acceptable. Steel with a strong lock or combo.

Second Paragraph

-Agreed.

Third Paragraph

-Disagree.

Fourth Paragraph

-I hear the term assault weapon but it’s not really a category. To agree or disagree I would need to see a list of proposed weapons by actual nomenclature/variant. I’m guessing people mean AR and AK families of weapons.

Fifth Paragraph

-Agreed. Not sure why there wouldn’t be a director of any organization.

Sixth Paragraph

-Agreed. I have to think there is a database. We have to register cars with proof of proper documentation. So yeah.

Seventh Paragraph

-Agreed. A dedicated analyst section would do the trick and creates a few jobs.

Assault weapon = the definition from the 1993 ban.

[SABRES 0311]

3 hours ago, Weave said:

Assault weapon = the definition from the 1993 ban.

Not a good definition. A pistol without the ability to attach a suppressor or grip is still just as lethal. Just one example. 

A 10 round mag offers an assailant more lethality than a 15 round mag assailant if the 10 round shooter is better trained. The gun is the tool, the lethality comes from how it used.

I don’t have a perfect answer to this problem but I know common sense gun control should apply common sense. I also agree the status quo is not working.

[drnkirishone]

1 hour ago, SABRES 0311 said:

The gun is the tool, the lethality comes from how it used.

Sounds to me like you are making the case for gun ownership licensing.

[Weave]

6 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Not a good definition. A pistol without the ability to attach a suppressor or grip is still just as lethal. Just one example. 

A 10 round mag offers an assailant more lethality than a 15 round mag assailant if the 10 round shooter is better trained. The gun is the tool, the lethality comes from how it used.

I don’t have a perfect answer to this problem but I know common sense gun control should apply common sense. I also agree the status quo is not working.

It was an effective definition, and thats all that matters.  Don’t let perfect be the enemy of better.

And a well trained shooter is more lethal with a 20rd mag than 10:

This is simple.  Whether you liked the definition or not, The 1993 assault weapon ban worked.  We have 3-4x the number of mass shootings compared to during the decade the assault weapon ban was in place.  Frequency and number of mass shootings blew up immediately after it sunsetted. The definition and capacity restriction worked well enough to reduce mass shootings considerably.

The word salad you are using is the same obfuscation the NRA has been using since I was a member in the 80’s and 90’s.  The data is obvious.  Mass shootings become more frequent as military variant weapons  and high capacity magazines become more commercially available.  It is time to permanently remove their commercial availability.  Regardless ot whether you specifically are responsible enough to own them, we as a society have been demonstrating for decades that society is not responsible enough for them to remain on the market.

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Weave

[Weave]

6 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Not a good definition. A pistol without the ability to attach a suppressor or grip is still just as lethal. Just one example. 

Another point.  This tyranny of the minority via the need for 60 votes in the Senate will ultimately be overcome.  There is a great majority that has had enough of the gun rights crowds insistence on not actively seeking ways to avoid the carnage.  As a result of your insistence and truculence, you will not be at the table when decisions are finally made and moved forward.  Your continued unwillingness to propose a solution within will keep you out.  And consequently you will lose much more than if you would have acted proactively when offered the opportunity.

Obfuscation like “A pistol without the ability to attach a suppressor or grip is still just as lethal. Just one example.”  will be met with a response like, “oh Ok.  We’ll ban those too.  Thank you for your help”.

If you want to be taken as serious regarding the problem of mass shootings, start pressing your leadership to make changes like mandatory  background check, licensing, and mandatory storage requirements.  Until that happens you will be seen (and rightfully so) as part of the problem.  The time is rapidly running out for gun owners to step up and offer and implement solutions instead of spitting out the same rhetoric thats been spit for decades after every mass killing. We will move on without you. 
 

Edit- I get pissed, and am furious as I write this, because as a gun owner and shooter this stupid, stubborn unwillingness to accept change is going to end up negatively affecting me and the contents of my safe.  And all I feel right now is a hearty ***** you to all of you that are willing to throw out the baby with the bath water.

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Weave

[SwampD]

It's been like this since the shooting.

https://www.theonion.com

[SABRES 0311]

6 hours ago, drnkirishone said:

Sounds to me like you are making the case for gun ownership licensing.

You should need a license for a gun. You have to get a permit, then a license, then insurance and registration for a car. You need a permit to do certain types of property work.

[SABRES 0311]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

Another point.  This tyranny of the minority via the need for 60 votes in the Senate will ultimately be overcome.  There is a great majority that has had enough of the gun rights crowds insistence on not actively seeking ways to avoid the carnage.  As a result of your insistence and truculence, you will not be at the table when decisions are finally made and moved forward.  Your continued unwillingness to propose a solution within will keep you out.  And consequently you will lose much more than if you would have acted proactively when offered the opportunity.

Obfuscation like “A pistol without the ability to attach a suppressor or grip is still just as lethal. Just one example.”  will be met with a response like, “oh Ok.  We’ll ban those too.  Thank you for your help”.

If you want to be taken as serious regarding the problem of mass shootings, start pressing your leadership to make changes like mandatory  background check, licensing, and mandatory storage requirements.  Until that happens you will be seen (and rightfully so) as part of the problem.  The time is rapidly running out for gun owners to step up and offer and implement solutions instead of spitting out the same rhetoric thats been spit for decades after every mass killing. We will move on without you. 
 

Edit- I get pissed, and am furious as I write this, because as a gun owner and shooter this stupid, stubborn unwillingness to accept change is going to end up negatively affecting me and the contents of my safe.  And all I feel right now is a hearty ***** you to all of you that are willing to throw out the baby with the bath water.

 

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.

 

[SwampD]

4 minutes 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.

 

And yet this approach would hinder a productive solution for a lot longer time.

 

[SABRES 0311]

3 hours ago, Weave said:

It was an effective definition, and thats all that matters.  Don’t let perfect be the enemy of better.

And a well trained shooter is more lethal with a 20rd mag than 10:

This is simple.  Whether you liked the definition or not, The 1993 assault weapon ban worked.  We have 3-4x the number of mass shootings compared to during the decade the assault weapon ban was in place.  Frequency and number of mass shootings blew up immediately after it sunsetted. The definition and capacity restriction worked well enough to reduce mass shootings considerably.

The word salad you are using is the same obfuscation the NRA has been using since I was a member in the 80’s and 90’s.  The data is obvious.  Mass shootings become more frequent as military variant weapons  and high capacity magazines become more commercially available.  It is time to permanently remove their commercial availability.  Regardless ot whether you specifically are responsible enough to own them, we as a society have been demonstrating for decades that society is not responsible enough for them to remain on the market.

 

It’s not a word salad. This isn’t the 80s and 90s. A new study needs to be done consisting of in depth threat and coarse of action analysis. If you apply a 1994 solution to a 2022 problem you will at best achieve minimum results. 

It’s not about a perfect solution because I don’t believe one exists. It’s about finding the most productive solution to meet a current and emerging threat. 
 

[SwampD]

1 minute ago, SABRES 0311 said:

It’s not a word salad. This isn’t the 80s and 90s. A new study needs to be done consisting of in depth threat and coarse of action analysis. If you apply a 1994 solution to a 2022 problem you will at best achieve minimum results. 

It’s not about a perfect solution because I don’t believe one exists. It’s about finding the most productive solution to meet a current and emerging threat. 
 

Even minimum results equals human lives.

[SABRES 0311]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

And yet this approach would hinder a productive solution for a lot longer time.

 

Then make a snap decision and see how that works. The idea is to save people’s lives and there seems to be reluctance to use in depth planning and analysis. It’s a joke how little people know about crisis planning and management. It’s tragic how those same people try to act like they know what goes into it.

 

[SABRES 0311]

Just now, SwampD said:

Even minimum results equals human lives.

Minimum results equal minimum lives saved. If you dont apply common sense to problem framing and solution development then you don’t offer much value in problem solving.

[SwampD]

5 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Then make a snap decision and see how that works. The idea is to save people’s lives and there seems to be reluctance to use in depth planning and analysis. It’s a joke how little people know about crisis planning and management. It’s tragic how those same people try to act like they know what goes into it.

 

Yes. It takes a lot of analysis and critical thinking ability to know that an 18 year old kid should not be able to walk into a store and leave with an assault rifle and large capacity magazines.

3 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Minimum results equal minimum lives saved. If you dont apply common sense to problem framing and solution development then you don’t offer much value in problem solving.

Even one life is worth it.

 

Word salad and obfuscation.

[SABRES 0311]

Just now, SwampD said:

Yes. It takes a lot of analysis and critical thinking ability to know that an 18 year old kid should not be able to walk into a store and leave with an assault rifle and large capacity magazines.

Even one life is worth it.

 

Word salad and obfuscation.

It’s not just an 18 year old kid. The problem is bigger.

Saving one life or saving many is what you are failing to understand.

Lack of crisis experience and ability to think through a problem set.

[SwampD]

Just now, SABRES 0311 said:

It’s not just an 18 year old kid. The problem is bigger.

Saving one life or saving many is what you are failing to understand.

Lack of crisis experience and ability to think through a problem set.

Bull. This isn’t a military operation where you are weighing how many troops you will lose compared to what will be gained.

There is only one side to this equation, and it is how many lives will be saved.

[SABRES 0311]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

Bull. This isn’t a military operation where you are weighing how many troops you will lose compared to what will be gained.

There is only one side to this equation, and it is how many lives will be saved.

Correct this isn’t a military operation. This is a societal issue where the lives of innocent people are on the line. I believe your approach will fail to keep the most people safe given the threat in favor a doing something for the sake of doing something.

Saving lives is the goal. The problem is dynamic. 

By the way, military planning is much more than friendly loss estimates. 
 

 

[SwampD]

12 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Correct this isn’t a military operation. This is a societal issue where the lives of innocent people are on the line. I believe your approach will fail to keep the most people safe given the threat in favor a doing something for the sake of doing something.

Saving lives is the goal. The problem is dynamic. 

By the way, military planning is much more than friendly loss estimates. 
 

 

Obviously simplified while typing with my thumbs.

Again, it doesn't have to be “the most” lives saved. They aren’t just numbers on a spreadsheet. “Any” lives saved is a step in the right direction. It will be actual people, after all. And we’ll never know the actual number.

Or, we could continue to do nothing. At least we’ll have something to discuss here on SS every offseason.

[SABRES 0311]

5 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Obviously simplified while typing with my thumbs.

Again, it doesn't have to be “the most” lives saved. They aren’t just numbers on a spreadsheet. “Any” lives saved is a step in the right direction. It will be actual people, after all. And we’ll never know the actual number.

Or, we could continue to do nothing. At least we’ll have something to discuss here on SS every offseason.

Again you are correct. They aren’t just numbers on a spreadsheet. Therefore the approach should to save as many as possible. That requires actual thinking.

Nobody said to not do anything.

Edit: I am getting this vibe you think my mindset is desensitized and/or the military approach to operational planning is callous by nature. If true on either you are misinformed. If not then disregard.

Edited May 29, 2022 by SABRES 0311

[SwampD]

2 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Again you are correct. They aren’t just numbers on a spreadsheet. Therefore the approach should to save as many as possible. That requires actual thinking.

Nobody said to not do anything.

Columbine was how many years ago?

Where are all these deep thinking studies that have taken place over the past 20+ years?

We can watch people pretending to “think” for only so long before we realize that they actually do want to do nothing.

[SABRES 0311]

27 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Columbine was how many years ago?

Where are all these deep thinking studies that have taken place over the past 20+ years?

We can watch people pretending to “think” for only so long before we realize that they actually do want to do nothing.

I’m willing to bet those studies exist. FBI.gov might be a good place to look. 
 

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/analysis-recent-mass-shootings

https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-resources

Might not be everything you’re looking for but it took 30 seconds to find.

Edited May 29, 2022 by SABRES 0311

[SwampD]

5 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

I’m willing to bet those studies exist. FBI.gov might be a good place to look. 
 

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/analysis-recent-mass-shootings

https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-resources

Might not be everything you’re looking for but it took 30 seconds to find.

Judging by the times in our posts, it took about 20 minutes.

If they already exist, then why has nothing changed? Do they conclude that sacrificing innocent lives every so often actually saves more lives than if there was an assault weapons ban? 

[SABRES 0311]

19 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Judging by the times in our posts, it took about 20 minutes.

If they already exist, then why has nothing changed? Do they conclude that sacrificing innocent lives every so often actually saves more lives than if there was an assault weapons ban? 

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.

[SwampD]

8 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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.

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.