Active shooter drill Squirrel Hill Comm Center Jan25 2018 FBI involvment Another coincidence

originally posted by: TheJesuit
OK i can accept state and local fire & police drills for training purposes what I'm interested in is the FBI's involvement in drills that turn in to tragedies ......

How many now?? Can we list them for posterity sake and then we'll actually see the uncanny coincidence or are just the odds that small?

Paddock.. Any answers? Nope
HS in FL Drill days before ...??
New Mexico -Under Surveillance By FBI -turned out to be a training camp... bodies in the ground and they where let free!! Really?

I think there's about 4 or 5 now if not more, i simply don't have the time go back 3 or 4 years to list them all.
You can say what you want but until the FBI gets PRO active on these threats under surveillance instead of a clean up crew after the fact we should be keeping watch to see the trend...

SO, you are advocating "thought crime" then?

No thanks....I prefer innocent until proven guilty. You cannot guarantee 100% security in life. If you think you can, you are running down that road of authoritarian rule, for a false sense of security. Remember, once a right is stripped, it will NEVER return, ever.

PS: Note the saying in my signature. It was as true 200+ years ago as it is today, hell, even more so considering your attitude.

a reply to: Swills

Yeah, larger cities are training for "Mass casualty response" as opposed to individual citizens training in "Save my own ass, instead of leaving me for the government to clean up" AKA they train to count the dead/treat the survivors NOT prevent attacks and NOT to stop attacks before anyone is killed. As I wrote to you earlier - as I suspect you remember - law enforcement/first responders jobs are to respond to an emergency not prevent it.

The idiots trying to make this into an anti-gun crusade are as dishonest as they are misguided.

No gun law in the world could've prevented what happened. The only difference would've been the potential for armed temple-goers, who could've promptly put one or more slugs in the attacker's head/center mass until he went down. If one had been armed with a handgun, great. If one of the victims had been armed with an AR-15/shotgun/any long gun, the scenario would've changed entirely. Yes, that means Citizens walking around with long guns and steel plate armor. I get it, but that is the new reality. The world/this country is a very dark place, fraught with danger with criminals/terrorists/extremists lurking in every State. The old rule book no longer applies: best to throw it out entirely.

Attackers must be put on the defensive. They need to feel fear just walking outside, knowing that every Citizen may (and likely is) armed and that any hostile or aggressive action whatsoever will be met with a most extreme response. We need to change the paradigm from "Woe is me poor victim" to "What is my next best move? What is the most tactically sound position? Where are the exits? Where is cover? Where is concealment? How many people are here right now? Who's supposed to be here? Who looks/is acting out of place?"

In short, we need to erase victimhood and create a culture of Citizens who absolutely refuse to be the victim of some demented criminal or terrorist filth. Gun control is off the table entirely. We are looking to further rescind existing "controls" on firearms, which will enable more citizens to carry more/bigger/better weaponry in the name of defense/security. Criminals are going to carry them either way, so the law doesn't matter in that regard. The only law that's needed is one untying the hands of Citizens.

An executive order would do nicely.

a reply to: Krakatoa

EXACTLY

Once a right is infringed upon or otherwise nullified we are all irrevocably harmed. We've already had a myriad of examples in our history where some low brow moron thought the topic-of-the-week (or any issue/topic, for that matter) was important enough to betray our Constitutional principles.

The tendency for individuals to advocate infringement (sorry, "regulation") of rights they don't like is disturbing. We're the guardians entrusted with freedom and this country, yet ~half of us couldn't care less about that role (some even actively oppose it)