Gabe Suarez on mass shootings

Status
Not open for further replies.

SIRVEYR666

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
379
Location
Michigan
I received this article in Warrior News today. I though all of you would like to read it as well. I'm sure that some will take issue with one of his "ideas", but I totally understand and agree with it.

1). Understand that your safety is your own responsibility. Carry a weapon...everywhere. Company Policy says you can't? Hide your gun better. Law says you can't? Tough choice isn’t it, but I'll point out some dead people who would love to be live outlaws.

Hope you all enjoy the read...now discuss.:D


Preventing School (and anywhere else) Mass Murders

Some people will be shocked at the tone of this article. They should be. If we listed all the shootings in schools and churches, and any other "gun free" area, this document would still be downloading!


It would be quite a list. Well, we have what? Three school shooting in the last couple of months. We can only speculate why these events happened. Being good, we cannot fathom what goes on in the mind of evil. And make no mistake my friends, there is in fact evil out there. But lets see if we can solve this problem of evil men targeting the weak.

What did these places and events all have in common?

1). Guns were specifically not allowed on the premises by official policy or by law. Some locations have specific legal prohibitions, while others rely only on “company policy”.

Murderers will ignore signs telling them something is prohibited. Clearly, if the state prohibits guns on campus, the good people will obey and leave their guns at home. But quite clearly these signs did not dissuade the killers. Think about it. The only people obeying the law and the signs were the good people…the victims.

What is the reason behind the “No Guns” policies? Many in authority seek control above all else. They want to control things and people walking about armed cannot be controlled as easily. Obviously they lose control when the sign-ignoring, armed killers come.

2). Those inside were unarmed and totally helpless. The terrorist would call these gun-free places, “soft targets”. Notice how none of these terrorists ever picks a gun store, or a police station, or even a shooting course?

3). The police were called to each one of these events. But unless the police happen to be exactly there when the shots are fired, and have the mental perspective and courage to run to the sound of the guns for the sole purpose of locating and killing the gunman outright, the delay in response will be several minutes under best case scenario. And once there, even with the extensive “Active Shooter” training in police circles, the over riding goal is to control and capture, rather than to locate and kill the gunman, that being the only real way to prevent the death of innocents..

4). The events were eventually resolved by the police presence, but not without some victim deaths. Repeatedly we see that in the majority of these events, the killing is done fairly quickly in the beginning moments of the event.

5). There has been some discussion about arming teachers. As my good friend, the late great Col. Jeff Cooper said, “One is no more armed because he possesses a pistol than he is a musician because he owns a piano”. In such events, teachers and principals will be useless unless they have self-selected themselves to cultivate the very opposite of what their job is. How many teachers or principals have the internal strength to pull a trigger on one of their students? How many would do the things we would do? I’m sure there are some, but they are certainly not in the majority..

How can we prevent the next one? (And there will be a next one)

1). Understand that your safety is your own responsibility. Carry a weapon...everywhere. Company Policy says you can't? Hide your gun better. Law says you can't? Tough choice isn’t it, but I'll point out some dead people who would love to be live outlaws.

Can't have a gun under your circumstances? Then carry a knife and learn how to use it offensively. Spend money and get trained with your knife. Buying another competition 45 will do you no good if you cannot carry it with you 24/7/365. Are there metal detectors? Carry something deniable as a weapon but easy to stab with. You need to be armed. If the rules prevent you from doing so, find a way around them. Think like a criminal.

A knife may not be an equal to a shotgun, but you have a choice. You can die on your knees defenseless, asking yourself why you obeyed the sign, or you can die killing the crazy gunman. You might even prevail against him.

2). Make those who pass these stupid “no gun” laws responsible for their decisions. The parents and family members of the victims should sue the pants off of the institutions who support such stupid policies. Sue the Jewish Center. Sue the school. Sue the principal of the school, the board of education, the police chief, the mayor, the governor, everyone. I’m certain there are plenty of pro-gun attorneys here. Put your skills to use. If these people do not understand morality and the Constitution, perhaps they will understand poverty.

3). Teachers and principals aren't interested in CCW, push for an armed cop at the school during all school hours. If this takes some extra tax money, consider it cheap insurance. In police circles, the job of a “school resource officer” has always been characterized as a cushy job suitable only for those who don’t want to work on the streets. This needs to change and change right now.

If the city has money to fly the mayor around, and work incessantly on perfectly good streets, they can put a police officer on duty at every school during school hours. And by the way, we need an armed and trained officer who will run to sound of the guns, not some fat donut-eating slob three weeks from retirement. You pay the tax that employs them and the customer is always right.

Take a page from the Liberals. MAKE NOISE!!

4). Many of the kids were actually corralled by the school officials into rooms ready for the gunmen. This lock down concept is again the product of “controllers”. A locked door will not dissuade anyone who wants to get in. As your kids get older teach them that rules are relative. My kids are told to ignore orders if the orders seem stupid. How easy is it to break down a door and kill a classroom in lock down? Their standing orders are to run like hell if they hear shots in a school. I have promised them that they will not get in trouble. Teachers would also be better served by telling the kids to run. One teacher mentioned that they cannot “lose control of the classroom like that”. I told her that when the bad guy kicks the door in and begins shooting she will have already lost control. Teach to kids about cover, and how to RUN!


Also as they get older teach them about ferocity and how to put a man down for good with what they have. Teach them how to bludgeon a head with a chair or a sack of quarters. Teach them how to stab a pencil into the gun man’s eye. Their safety is eventually their own responsibility as well as yours.
 
Almost anything can be a weapon. If it can't be used offensively, it can be used defensively, i.e. tossed at an active shooter in an attempt to distract them.

I demonstrated no less than 15 improvised weapons just lying around my living room last night to my wife when she remarked to me that the whole reason that I felt safe wherever I went was due to my utter dependence on a firearm. I quickly debunked that (can't carry at school or the bar that I work at) and showed her how to make due with what you have, both offensively and defensively.


(One of my improvised weapons ideas inclued tossing a cat at an imaginary attacker busting in the door... don't laugh, she still has her claws...)
 
He has the balls to speak his mind; far more bold than I. I do not know about his comments on police response to active shooters and “school resource officers”, as I am not familiar with LE tactics, training, or practices. Still, you will not hear me advocating breaking the law. I do not even own a tinfoil hat, but I fear our “Law & Order” immeasurably more than I fear BG’s. So, I guess that means I contradict myself. It is great that he is willing to tell it like it is. Maybe he can shift a few people’s paradigms. Considering the audience for his newsletter, I wonder if it really will have any effect, though. I will try to do my part by taking a newby shooting.
 
I have always done whatever it took to ensure my safety...rules?...laws?...I'll follow the ones that make sense. I have changed my way of making a living to a legal means (it used to be running moonshine)...but I haven't forgot how to NOT get caught. I also admire him for the balls to speak his mind...and he is 100% correct....you can die on your knees...or you can die fighting! As the saying goes..."You may find me dead in a ditch somewhere, but by God I'll be laying in a pile of brass."
 
I am one of those teachers who have the will to fight but cannot carry. I am prohibited, firstly, on pain of very serious jail time; secondly, I do not have complete faith in my own personal ability to keep a firearm concealed for decades on end without dropping the gun, being made, or leaving it behind accidentally. To each his own - I do not want to carry a firearm onto campus.

That said, one should note that all of these shootings have been at largely complacent settings, places where the population is accustomed to peace, docility, and civility. Should a gunman try to come a-shooting at my campus, you can be certain that the response will be different (I am at a major metropolitan high school).

We have a fit young police officer on campus from day's beginning to end; he is always armed and a fine replacement for the donut-grabber that dwelled here previously.

There are at least six active shooter teachers here on campus, all with prior military experience (one is an AR Major). They are not likely to beg for their lives should the shooter come within arm's reach.

The walls are constructed of 1' solid concrete, with solid steel plate reinforced doors that can easily defeat a SWAT battering ram. No windows in either doors or walls (although there is a little 2x2" reinforced glass viewing panel in the door).

And, lastly, the kids are no sniveling sheltered youths. Any gunman who gets past the PO, past the doors, and past myself better shoot fast as he will have twenty belligerents to deal with.

----------

Why doesn't the federal government require more schools to be like mine?
 
With the two words , Gabe Suarez I am sure that this thread will get locked. Anyhow I recently read his tactical pistol book and was disappointed, it lacked substance that I got from Massad Ayoobs Combat Handgunnery.

Was he a student of Jeff Cooper? Or loosely associtated with him?
 
Good words. Hard words to weigh risks on. There a science somewhere that needs to be drawn on. (defence in a school atmosphere). He will not take prisoners so its very hard to disarm him.

I recently read his tactical pistol book and was disappointed, it lacked substance that I got from Massad Ayoobs Combat Handgunnery.

Worst book I ever read on the subject. Spend your money elsewhere. Moer on promoting self image, special bullets. Lacks content in a big way.
 
QUOTE
1). Understand that your safety is your own responsibility. Carry a weapon...everywhere. Company Policy says you can't? Hide your gun better. Law says you can't? Tough choice isn’t it, but I'll point out some dead people who would love to be live outlaws. END QUOTE

No, I do not agree. If I worked at a place that had a no firearms policy, I would obey. If I felt so unsafe that I could not obey then I would go to work elsewhere.

One thing that is supposed to separate us from the criminal is that we obey the law. If the law says I cannot carry in someplace that serves alcohol, for instance, then I do not carry there or else do not go there.

Each of us has a choice.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of many, it is my opinion that many are paranoid.
If we were to take the number of people and hours that they were in church and then take the number of people who have been shot there, the number is miniscule. The same for mall or school shootings. I am not willing to risk my freedom to carry where it is illegal. I am not willing to refrain from belonging to and participating in a good local church because the leadership might prohibit carrying a firearm.

I have never had a problem with being attacked in church and do not know anyone who has. I have been going to church regularly longer than many here have been alive.

Be cautious, but not paranoid, and do not let CCW control your lives or become an idol. There is no 100% safety whether you carry or not.

I think that Gabe's life is about guns and self-defense. It has become an idol to him. It is not what my life is about.

Regards,
Jerry
 
:confused:
With the two words , Gabe Suarez I am sure that this thread will get locked.
:confused:

Why would it be locked? Am I missing something?


I think that Gabe's life is about guns and self-defense. It has become an idol to him. It is not what my life is about.

My life is about staying alive by any means necessary. I do this by learning from and training with people who know much more about the subject than I do. I don't expect everyone elses life to be "consumed" with guns and self-defense, but I'm glad that some people's are. They make good trainers. Gabe teaches real-world tactics, not some of the gun school high speed low drag BS that others are teaching. I'm not saying his philosophy is the best there is, but it fits my mindset quite well.
 
(One of my improvised weapons ideas inclued tossing a cat at an imaginary attacker busting in the door... don't laugh, she still has her claws...)
Now THAT is an effective improvised weapon. Killer attack cat.
 
Do a search on Gabe Suarez and you will see why, he was convicted in a fraud case involving his former PD.

I was dissapointed in his book, like I stated before, Ayoobs was much better on the same topic.
 
It's a good read, even if the author may have his own problems.

If laws confine you, get used to them, work to change them, or move outside their influence. Don't just wait for someone else to do it, because they're not psychic, and cannot read your mind to determine just what you want.

It's a shame that qualified individuals are prohibited from supplementing the first responders. Guess that's policy and the law, huh, so it can't be changed. You guys will never change it. Why bother?
 
bogie said:
It's a good read, even if the author may have his own problems.

If laws confine you, get used to them, work to change them, or move outside their influence. Don't just wait for someone else to do it, because they're not psychic, and cannot read your mind to determine just what you want.

It's a shame that qualified individuals are prohibited from supplementing the first responders. Guess that's policy and the law, huh, so it can't be changed. You guys will never change it. Why bother?
Lately, your posts come across as reflecting frustration. That or maybe you are trying to rouse people to action. Which is it? Both?

“Supplementing first responders”, talk about scary. Are you talking about armed non-LE being the actual first responders, or assisting LE when they arrive? When my thought turns to some of these tense situations concerning nutcase murderers in public places, I envision attempting armed assistance akin to fighting a war on 2 fronts. Not only do you have to be concerned with the original threat(s), but you have to worry about LE. They want to go home safely at the end of the day just as much as everyone else. I really do not want to be arrested, shot by LE (or BG’s), or slow down LE and thereby allow the BG(s) to kill more innocent people. For those not wanting to be a hero, but having a genuine desire to save human life, how do they perform a cost/benefit analysis of their possible armed engagement of the BG(s)?

Now, do not confuse my musings with a desire to engage an active shooter. I do not do keyboard commando. My a** and my family come first.
 
2). Those inside were unarmed and totally helpless. The terrorist would call these gun-free places, “soft targets”. Notice how none of these terrorists ever picks a gun store, or a police station, or even a shooting course?

Totally helpless? Only if they choose to be. Being armed won't necessarily make them totally helpful anymore than being unarmed means being totally helpless.

Law says you can't? Tough choice isn’t it, but I'll point out some dead people who would love to be live outlaws.

There is nothing like a criminal endorsing others to break the law.

And once there, even with the extensive “Active Shooter” training in police circles, the over riding goal is to control and capture, rather than to locate and kill the gunman, that being the only real way to prevent the death of innocents..

I can't say that I know of any situations specifically put down by cops with active shooter training, but I do know the local cops in my area have specific individuals that work the schools and who have active shooter training and their goal is NOT control and capture, but to stop the shooter.

Repeatedly we see that in the majority of these events, the killing is done fairly quickly in the beginning moments of the event.

I am not sure what he means by this. Sometimes is the case that the killing is done early on or very quickly, as with NIU, but many of the mass shooting events will go on for quite some time from several minutes to 10s of minutes such as VT, Columbine, Jonesboro, Kip Kinkel, Santana HS, Erfert, Red Lake HS, Jokela school, UT Clock Tower, École Polytechnique, Dawson College, Luby's, Patrick Sherrill, Mark O'Barton, Tyler, Texas, and so on.

Some of the shootings are over very quickly because they have been stopped by others fighting back. So sure enough, the shootings only happen in the opening moments because somebody puts an end to them very quickly. Some of these shootings may have gone on for a lot longer.

In some cases, the shootings only happen at the beginning of the event, which is relative, because the shooter ends up holing up for a considerable amount of time. So maybe the shootings only lasted a few minutes and then there was a several hour standoff such as at Tacoma Mall.

So saying that the majority of mass shootings are done fairly quickly in the opening moments of an event is somewhat misleading.
 
Yeah. This guy doesn't seem like someone I want speaking out for me in regard to my Second Amendment rights.

I'd bet he could teach us all a thing about self-defense, and is surely a better shot than I, but philosophically he's off-putting to me, and psychologically, he's not helping convert any antis or "on the fencers".
 
Understand that your safety is your own responsibility. Carry a weapon...everywhere. Company Policy says you can't? Hide your gun better. Law says you can't? Tough choice isn’t it, but I'll point out some dead people who would love to be live outlaws.

That's an excellent insight into the minds of lawbreakers. They violate laws when they choose, usually when it's to their advantage, and they hide their violations. When good guys cross the line they become bad guys.

Tough choice isn't it. You become who you are by making many small decisions in life, and then one day you look at yourself in the mirror and see you looking back at yourself.

Gabe Suarez seems to be good at rationalizing sleazy behavior and in encouraging others to do the same. So you want to live. Is that what you want to live for?

There are other choices in those same situations, most of them far better choices for someone who wants to live as something other than animal or a bad guy. We try to be people who don't have to be watched at all times, who can be trusted, and on whom other people can turn their backs without fear of being betrayed or stabbed.
 
BSF-
“Supplementing first responders”, talk about scary. Are you talking about armed non-LE being the actual first responders, or assisting LE when they arrive? When my thought turns to some of these tense situations concerning nutcase murderers in public places, I envision attempting armed assistance akin to fighting a war on 2 fronts. Not only do you have to be concerned with the original threat(s), but you have to worry about LE. They want to go home safely at the end of the day just as much as everyone else. I really do not want to be arrested, shot by LE (or BG’s), or slow down LE and thereby allow the BG(s) to kill more innocent people. For those not wanting to be a hero, but having a genuine desire to save human life, how do they perform a cost/benefit analysis of their possible armed engagement of the BG(s)?
U of TX tower 1966.
Pearl MS, 1997
Co Springs, CO 2007
 
That's an excellent insight into the minds of lawbreakers. They violate laws when they choose, usually when it's to their advantage, and they hide their violations. When good guys cross the line they become bad guys.

See the LONG thread on Civil Disobedience. An unjust law is not meant to be followed, at least not according to our Founding Fathers.

If THAT DAY of resistance ever comes to this country we need beware. Some other "gunnies" will be the first to turn in those who still possess, their arms, because it is against "the law".
Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

* Thomas Jefferson
That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.

* John Stuart Mill, On Liberty



Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.

* Edmund Burke
 
Just in a general way, the breaking, or advocacy of the breaking of a law doesn't necessarily translate to sleazy behavior in my opinion. Laws have relativity on how compliance with them affects our lives and the lives of others. To me, the act of breaking a law which has no negative impact on others means that there has been an illegal act committed but not necessarily a wrong done in the moral sense. Some things are just wrong even if the law doesn't specifically prohibit them and others are not even if the law does prohibit them.

If you choose to violate a prohibition on concealed carry you may well be a criminal depending upon the circumstances, but you aren't going to be labeled by me to be a bad person on that basis alone.

I don't know the first thing about the author of the article. Never heard of him in fact. He may be sleazy. But in the context of his article, I think he's right.
 
Here's the problem: we have a right and we're not demanding that it be obeyed on the part of government.

We, as a group, have been too polite. As Tom Gresham put it (badly paraphrased): "We've been nice and bought into the "sporting use" arguments."

Well, all Suarez is saying is that it's time to stop ASKING. We have been asking, and asking...and asking...and we're STILL getting mowed down simply because some moron decides he or she wants to be on TV.

We have RIGHTS. We, as a group, have not NOT demanded those rights. Since we're not making the demand, the government (local, state, fed) has seen fit to restrict it.

It is time to make a few demands.

***

As for sleazy actions: is demanding your right to POLITICAL speech 60 days before an election bad? McCain-Feingold says it is...and by not demanding your rights, it is now restricted. It shows a certain mentality on your part to go along with the program because it's easy.

***

Furthermore, the world IS dangerous. That's the way it is. If you're not interested in full time self-defense, then that's your choice. But, now you're just slinging mud. The message is clear and correct, even if you don't like the messenger.
 
I totally agree that we are responsible for our own survival. From the beginning it has always been the survival of the fittest. If we don't put ourselves on a equal plateau to survive then we won't.:)
 
5). There has been some discussion about arming teachers. As my good friend, the late great Col. Jeff Cooper said, “One is no more armed because he possesses a pistol than he is a musician because he owns a piano”. In such events, teachers and principals will be useless unless they have self-selected themselves to cultivate the very opposite of what their job is. How many teachers or principals have the internal strength to pull a trigger on one of their students? How many would do the things we would do? I’m sure there are some, but they are certainly not in the majority..

The "opposite" of what our job is? What a nonsensical statement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top