Progressive reloading press?

UT Alumnus.. yes, Dillon 1050... I've been competing in USPSA for about 33 years... I could not have afforded to shoot the number of shots, especially in the early part of the learning curve, without hand loading the pistol ammunition.. I conservatively estimate 350,000

For those who are unfamiliar with the active shooter problem, a key is to realize that most active shooters fold very quickly once they receive tactical pressure of even the mildest sort. Remember that these guys are typically emotionally crippled and poorly trained. They are relying on having a field of unarmed, panicking victims who won't resist.

Don't buy in to the seemingly reasonable thinking that one must be a heavily armed and impeccable marksman to survive clashing with the typical American active shooter. The record shows that more often than not, once the active shooter recognizes armed resistance he either barricades or kills himself.

Advocacy redacted.

Granted, the trained and dedicated types a la the killers at Charlie Hebdo or Mumbai are a distinctly different kettle of fish. However, with those crews if you're not victorious its a choice of dying on your knees or dying on your feet; they're not going to be merciful.

Most of that makes sense. By your definition of inadequate, I'm comfortable with saying I'm inadequate. Even if I were trained properly, I could not wish for a better scenario than a shooter who quickly offed himself.

By the way, does anybody here train to defend strangers? That's basically what would happen if a CCW got to this shooter before the domestic violence occurred. I mean, does your training include identifying a bad guy with limited information? How would you have been certain the shooter here was not actually law enforcement? Do you just make a best educated guess and go for it?

Personally, I would carry a CCW to defend myself and whoever is with me. If strangers happened to be protected by me protected myself, then that's great for them. There are just so many more moving parts that enter the system when a CCW holder ventures outside their personal circle and tries to protect strangers/others.

If I'm a CCW holder, a shooter is across the mall, and I'm near exit, then I will soon be on the other side of the exit.

Law enforcement officers announce their office, especially if they are not in uniform. If they do discharge their weapons, they're firing on people who are fighting them -- mostly armed people. Based on their actions it's almost always easy to tell the difference between a law enforcement officer and an active shooter.

Back to the situation at hand, I'm frankly troubled that nobody agrees that a shooter who quickly offs himself is about the best outcome. Respectfully, I would like someone to describe a better outcome for the case here.

OK, for the sake of argument, let's say you killed this shooter before he committed the domestic violence. There are at least three problems with that outcome: (1) the wife will most likely be pissed at you for killing her husband and will want you locked up; (2) you then have the most important witness saying the shoot was not justified; and (3) you have to live with knowing you killed a person.

More moving parts...

Some people keep pointing out how difficult it is to deal with self-defensive shooting situations. Other people keep saying they can do it. This sort of discussion is really more about the meeting of different psychological attitudes, and people are just going to dig into their current position. Let's try to make this a bit more productive. What sort of training do you need to address an active shooter scenario? MODERATORS: PLEASE NOTE I AM NOT ADVOCATING GUN-CARRYING OR FIREARMS TRAINING FOR EVERYONE. I'M JUST ASKING HOW TO DO IT RIGHT IF YOU DECIDE TO DO IT AT ALL.

Most civilian self-defense situations are pretty simple. It's enough to know to draw, present, aim, and place your shot. In other words, having good mechanics plus common sense and situational awareness might be enough. Competition shooting typically helps drill your mechanics. Somewhere along the way you should take a course on self-defense law. Training in firearm retention would be good. So that means three courses -- (1) intro self-defense, perhaps up to shooting on the move, (2) self-defense law, and (3) firearm retention -- and competitive shooting as a fun way to keep up your skills -- USPSA, IDPA, maybe even cowboy action.

But would that cover mass shooting situations? Let's see where you go if you take your training further -- erratically moving 3D targets, moving 3D "no shoot" targets in hostage situation, using backup gun, night shooting, learning techniques for shooting and manipulating the gun while injured, moving through buildings, tactics for fighting in teams, etc. Some of this would address the technical aspect of responding to a mass shooter situation. There are some problems: (1) this sort of training is expensive; (2) the availability of such training can be hard to come by for civilians; and (3) skill level is hard to maintain. Often you need special setup to practice this.

I feel that a lot of gun owners, even with some training, are missing mental conditioning. Some sort of martial arts training that knows realism and can pushes your mind and body would be useful. Working against adaptive resistance (an opponent who adapts his attack to your response) would be useful. I have never done force-on-force, which is the gun world equivalent, I guess, so I'm not sure where to place that. But certain aspects of force-on-force seem similar to what I'm talking about here.

I'm not comfortable discussing more technical stuff. For one, I paid a lot of money to get that knowledge. For another, I don't know who is reading this stuff. Why would I want to teach strangers on the internet to kill people?

Sidebar. The fact that many firearms instructors are finding it impossible to make a living indicates there aren't that many people signing up for classes. Now think about the brisk gun sales in this country. Most people would rather buy a fancy gun than pay half the amount to make sure they can actually use it.

I think the crucial thing is to not fall into thinking of a firearm as a talisman that can ward off evil. You do have to train and practice with them. Handgun shooting in particular is a perishable skill, you use it or lose it.

The one thing that I can say for sure is that hiding one's head in the sand and pretending things will go away is ineffective. It's magical thinking. The odds of being in a shooter are relatively low compared to some other threats we face ever day. But an active shooter situation is a "Black Swan", an event with a low probability but potentially catastrophic results.

We all make decisions about risk vs the efforts and costs associated with mitigating them. Look at something very routine like buckling your seatbelt. The risk of an accident for any given single trip is pretty low. The potential harms of being in an accident and not being buckled in though are serious, potentially fatal even at just above fender-bender speeds. Since the effort required to buckle up is minimal every responsible adult wears their belt. Other risk analysis situations are more complex. For example, do you buy insurance for your cell phone? How many fire extinguishers do you need for your home? Do you pay to do a criminal records search on your babysitter or nanny?

Carrying a gun is one of the most complex decisions to analyze. A good many people will go their whole lives without being faced with violent crime. Carrying a gun has costs; the gun costs money, you must buy ammo, you need to train (some places require it for getting a permit) and you need a holster. There's a cost in wardrobe to dress for the gun. Of course, a gun is dangerous- that's why I own them. But used carelessly they're dangerous to the owner and her family.

Not carrying a gun also has its risks. It's difficult to really know the actual risk you face ever day. The staff at Charlie Hebdo knew there had been threats and even attacks, but realistically how could they know that they'd be attacked by terrorists with AKs, dynamite and RPGs? You just don't know.

Crime can be one of those events with perhaps low daily individual odds but very serious consequences. You might lose property, you might be killed. You might comply fully and still be killed. It's dangerous to rely on the good will of someone that's demonstrated the willingness to murder you for the $20 you have in your wallet.

A while back a post was edited due to remarks of a personal attack nature. The attack was unfortunate, but what was mentioned in the post was one of the levels of the conscious competence learning model. In it there are four stages:
Think about this continuum with any skill-set, such as engaging an active shooter.

For many, training to determine their limitations is a good goal, as Dirty Harry said, "A man's GOT to know his limitations." Due to lack of trigger time I'd put myself at Stage 2 in general shooting and I used to shoot a lot.

As for me engaging an active shooter, you don't know what you don't know. That alone puts me at Stage 1. Any competent shooter would be at Stage 1 if they have never trained for that scenario.

Stopping the attack before any innocents are harmed would have been a much better outcome. Stopping the attack without harming the attacker would have been even better.