Go Sealed Mindset!

[dsm2nr]

http://kstp.com/news/stories/S2698060.shtml?cat=1

[redaudi]

horribly written, and dubious potential. more likely to give some idiot delusions of grandeur, a hero complex, in a bad situation and get more people killed.

sorry, but civilians are not going to react well to a situation like that, and having one simple ''seal taught'' course isn't going to change much of anything.

betcha he makes a ton of money feeding off the hysteria, though.

[dsm2nr]

horribly written, and dubious potential. more likely to give some idiot delusions of grandeur, a hero complex, in a bad situation and get more people killed.

sorry, but civilians are not going to react well to a situation like that, and having one simple ''seal taught'' course isn't going to change much of anything.

betcha he makes a ton of money feeding off the hysteria, though.

So you propose people do nothing to prepare? You'd rather they be sheep and run around panicked? Should permit to carry holders not practice as well?

[jgalt]

horribly written, and dubious potential. more likely to give some idiot delusions of grandeur, a hero complex, in a bad situation and get more people killed.

sorry, but civilians are not going to react well to a situation like that, and having one simple ''seal taught'' course isn't going to change much of anything.

betcha he makes a ton of money feeding off the hysteria, though.

Bit of a blanket statement, don't you think? Not only is it entirely possible [*] that someone with no military training could have successfully ended last night's attack, but where do you think all those folks who have left the military go once they retire or choose not to re-enlist? Don't they become civilians again?

I have no experience with "Sealed Mindset" so I won't comment on their courses. However, there is training out there that can help to prepare you to react should you ever be in a self-defense scenario (which last night definitely was) - and to assume that such training is

more likely to give some idiot delusions of grandeur, a hero complex, in a bad situation and get more people killed

is one of the dumber generalizations I've heard in a long time...

[*] You'll note I said "possible", not "likely"...

[thunderoussilence]

If someone can create situational awareness maybe the body count may have been less. Sealed mindset if he can help 1 person then he has made a difference

[redaudi]

Bit of a blanket statement, don't you think? Not only is it entirely possible [*] that someone with no military training could have successfully ended last night's attack, but where do you think all those folks who have left the military go once they retire or choose not to re-enlist? Don't they become civilians again?
I have no experience with "Sealed Mindset" so I won't comment on their courses. However, there is training out there that can help to prepare you to react should you ever be in a self-defense scenario (which last night definitely was) - and to assume that such training is

more likely to give some idiot delusions of grandeur, a hero complex, in a bad situation and get more people killed

is one of the dumber generalizations I've heard in a long time...

Sorry that you disagree.

Yes it is a bit of a blanket statement, and I will agree with you that it IS entirely possible.

However, the common theme I seem to notice when these tragedies occur is hysteria. It's very rare that during a short, extreme situation like Aurora that someone assertively and calmly responds with force. It's unfortunate.

my next statement that you seem to so flippantly dismiss, I think it's more likely than you're willing to accept. I stand by the thought that without considerate training, having a single course stick THAT HARD in the minds of MOST average civilians (and when I say civilians, I mean no prior military/law enforcement experience) is rather unlikely. It boils down to the fact that without prior mitigation or experience, the fight or flight mechanism of your average joe is likely going to default to flight (or worse, freeze).

Back to your former military comment. The percentage of Americans that are military or former is rather small, and even then the percentage of combat experienced/combat arms/QRF etc is even smaller. I’m fairly confident that a former infantry soldier would react better than someone in finance or public affairs (just as an example, not a blanket statement applying to all former cash handlers and photo snipers).

Finally, what it really boils down to is that it’s extremely hard to say what you would or would not do if the **** hits the fan. It’s even harder to know how someone else is going to react. Case in point, there were at least three service members in that theater. 2 airmen, and 1 sailor. They made no difference during the attack. I certainly wouldn’t assume that I would have made a difference, and that’s after 8 years Army, and LOTS of practice with all manner of firearms. It’s easy to say ‘oh well I would have just capped his lilly ass’, etc, but until you are in that situation, you really don’t know how you will react. You can train and train and train, and that certainly helps, but it’s no guarantee. And your average run of the mill typical (but not all) civilian (with no military/leo history) is not going to train and train and train. They may take one course. It’s better than nothing, but there’s no guarantee it sticks.

[jgalt]

redaudi-

Saying this:

I stand by the thought that without considerate training, having a single course stick THAT HARD in the minds of MOST average civilians (and when I say civilians, I mean no prior military/law enforcement experience) is rather unlikely. It boils down to the fact that without prior mitigation or experience, the fight or flight mechanism of your average joe is likely going to default to flight (or worse, freeze).

is dramatically different than saying this:

more likely to give some idiot delusions of grandeur, a hero complex, in a bad situation and get more people killed.

Had you said the top one in your initial post, I'd have had no quarrels as it is an obvious-on-its-face statement...

[redaudi]

horribly written, and dubious potential. more likely to give some idiot delusions of grandeur, a hero complex, in a bad situation and get more people killed.

sorry, but civilians are not going to react well to a situation like that, and having one simple ''seal taught'' course isn't going to change much of anything.

betcha he makes a ton of money feeding off the hysteria, though.

So you propose people do nothing to prepare? You'd rather they be sheep and run around panicked? Should permit to carry holders not practice as well?

It would be nice if more people were prepared. However, as I mentioned, I think there would still be many a panicked sheep regardless of what self help courses they took beforehand. It's a natural reaction to hit flight mode and think dear god (or whatever diety you beleive in) this can't be happening to me oh **** oh **** oh ****, and it's hard to overcome. Combat (and Aurora was nothing short of a combat zone) is not a natural state for people to be in, and the majority react adversly.

Secondly, I'm insulted that you would insinuate that I would rather people be sheep. I'd rather people were people, I'm sick to death of the general sheep public, faces stuck to cell phones, ears plugged with headphones, no idea of what's going on around them until reality ******* down their throats.

Lastly. Really?

[redaudi]

redaudi-

Saying this:

I stand by the thought that without considerate training, having a single course stick THAT HARD in the minds of MOST average civilians (and when I say civilians, I mean no prior military/law enforcement experience) is rather unlikely. It boils down to the fact that without prior mitigation or experience, the fight or flight mechanism of your average joe is likely going to default to flight (or worse, freeze).

is dramatically different than saying this:

more likely to give some idiot delusions of grandeur, a hero complex, in a bad situation and get more people killed.

Had you said the top one in your initial post, I'd have had no quarrels as it is an obvious-on-its-face statement...

Could I have phrased it differently? I suppose that I could have. However, I'm a cynical jaded bastard, and would not be surprised at all if my original comment ended up happening. I guess I lack faith in (most of) my fellow man. :/


agreed, though, no hard feelings.

[Sorcerer]

I have a friend husband and wife who got there permits when Minnesota first went to shall issue. Fast forward 5 years later. I get a call asking what gun do I think they should use for there renewal class. In there first class they shot the only hand gun they had at that time, a Ladysmith 38 sp 1 inch barral. Thay now had 5 hand guns and had not fired any fire arm in 5 years. They had not shot after there fist class. They also only carried once maybe twice on there first pemit. They called a week later in a panic, they failed the shooting part of the class. They took a gun they had never shot and had not even looked at the owners manuel. I am sure this is far more common than we want to admit. We in Minnesota have more than 100,000 pemit holders. I want to be some were behind them if they start to use there gun in self defence.

[Stradawhovious]

Nothing quite like taking advantage of a tragedy. Didn't even let the bodies cool.

Borderline poor taste.

[rugersol]

I want to be some were behind them if they start to use there gun in self defence.

+∞³

[jgalt]

I have a friend....

I suspect your friends would not be among those who would react effectively (defined any way you'd like) to an active shooter situation. I also suspect that, based on your description, even if they took the course offered by Sealed Mindset, they'd still not be very likely to react effectively.

But that doesn't mean my suspicion is correct, or that they shouldn't try to resist if they had been in that theater...

My initial objection to redaudi's post (the part I quoted) was the notion that untrained / panicked shooters (i.e. permit holders) could somehow make the situation worse. Even if a permit holder ended up hitting one or more innocents, there is no way to prove that would be worse than an active shooter facing zero resistance, with plenty of ammo, able to direct his attention toward keeping his victims contained (as it appears this guy did, shooting at those heading toward exits).

Would it be portrayed in the media & by the gun-grabbers as being worse? Well of course - but it wouldn't actually be for those stuck in that situation...

I suspect we all agree that a lot of training & practice is better than only a little of either or both, and that only a little is still better than none. However, since each person in that theater (or in any active shooter situation) is an individual, with an individual right to act in defense of themselves should they choose to do so, my primary (possibly only?) concern is that those individuals who do have the mindset to defend themselves, are legally allowed to carry with them the means to do so - regardless whether they've had any training or not.

Essentially my objection to redaudi's original statement is that it might be taken seriously by your friends as an argument against getting more training, since it isn't likely to do any good anyway. Obviously, that doesn't mean redaudi's generalization was wrong (except for the part about making things worse...) - just that it isn't at all helpful...

Choosing to resist in a situation like this can't possibly have worse results than choosing not to do so, and could end the carnage well before the shooter had planned. Obviously, there is no way to make a scenario like this become something "good", but any resistance has a good chance of making it "less bad" than it otherwise might have been...

[Jackpine Savage]

Nothing quite like taking advantage of a tragedy. Didn't even let the bodies cool.

Borderline poor taste.

The media sought them out. I see this as a positive. A little counter balance to the idiots like Bloomberg.

[cobb]

sorry, but civilians are not going to react well to a situation like that, and having one simple ''seal taught'' course isn't going to change much of anything.

Not trying to poke a hot stick in the eye, but what does that statement sound like? To me it sounds just like what an anti would say, such as "the bad guy will just take your gun away and use it on you". So unless you have extensive training every year, you should not carry?

With that same thought, unless you have steel enforced door and window jambs with steel bars over your windows that will stop a break in, don't bother locking the doors and windows, the bad guy will just cause more damage when entering.

NO, no no, unless you can prepare at the top most level, don't bother, just accept the fact that you will surcome.