Active shooter scenario

Posted by: barbakane

Active shooter scenario - 01/19/15 02:24 AM

This occurred yesterday. I was just across the street at work when this happened. What if's keep playing through my mind.
It's interesting when it happens to others, but when it's this close to home...you take it more seriously. BTW, there were a lot of kids in our store at that time. Food for thought.

http://news.yahoo.com/florida-police-1-dead-2-injured-mall-shooting-173918969.html
Posted by: ireckon

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/19/15 04:47 AM

The only way I can think to prepare for this is stay low, try to look inconspicuous/dead, and try to figure out what's going on before taking off running. I'm OK with in open/concealed carry, but playing hero in a situation like this would only cause more problems.

If I heard gunshots in a mall, I would never guess the facts here. This is a jealous husband who went crazy. It's a domestic violence incident. I am willing to bet that the other guy who got killed was the wife's lover, and thus nobody randomly got hurt.
Posted by: Phaedrus

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/19/15 11:33 AM

Head on a swivel, pay attention and look around. I make an effort to always check out the layout of a public place; where are the exits? This is important for any kind of emergency, be it a fire or an active shooter. If I was in a mall and heard gunfire I'd move to cover such as I could find and make my way towards an exit. But I wouldn't draw unless I saw the shooter and was forced to engage.

Yes, I CCW everywhere it's legal (and in my state it's legal everywhere with a few exceptions). My sidearm is for my own protection, not for me to try to be a superhero. If I can very clearly see what's going on and there's a clear-cut bad guy involved I may engage if I can do from a position of tactical advantage.

To me the scarier situation would something like the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris. In that scenario the shooters were trained, armed with AK-47s (and according to one report, an RPG!) and may have been wearing armor. Me and my HK P30 are not an even match for two bad guys with rifles. Discretion would be the better part of valor in that situation. But if I were cornered and had to fight or die where I stood then I'd rather go down fighting.
Posted by: Bingley

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/19/15 02:11 PM

Charlie Hebdo aside, even the Aurora situation would have been hard to respond to. Well-armed guy walks into a dark theater, throws a smoke grenade, starts firing into the crowd with a rifle. Let's say you don't die right away. You hide behind the seats, which probably can't stop bullets, ready to shoot the bad guy with your little pistol. Can you see through the smoke, can you see in the dark? While people are screaming and running, can you get a clear shot? Some theaters are big. Can you reliably make a shot at that distance? Will a well-intentioned CCW carrier mistake you for the bad guy and shoot you?

If the room is entirely dark, I hope you've brought your flashlight. And I hope you have practiced the FBI hold, because as soon as you turn on that light, you are *the* target.
Posted by: chaosmagnet

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/19/15 03:22 PM

Here are a couple of resources on active shooter situations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKyLxDv9C9U (good video other than the very poor use of cover shown between about 4:05 and 4:30)

http://emilms.fema.gov/IS907/

As Phaedrus says, situational awareness is crucial.

Like with many other potential emergencies, physical fitness can really pay off if something like this happens where you are.

If you do carry concealed please remember to train and practice. Concealed carriers should plan to be at the range at least monthly, if not more often, and should budget for a class at least annually. Competition can be really helpful, especially for a bit of simulated stress combined with drawing, movement, using cover, clearing malfunctions, and reloads. Those skills are perishable and hard to maintain from inside a range booth.

Quote:
playing hero in a situation like this would only cause more problems.


I respectfully disagree. There have been a number of active shooter situations in the USA that have been stopped by civilians carrying concealed. Also, "playing hero" is not how I would phrase it. I think I would say something closer to "saving lives."
Posted by: gonewiththewind

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/19/15 05:28 PM

If someone is intent on killing people, and you are present, you resist or die like the rest. The crime of passion being a different scenario, as it is targeted toward an individual. The more people that resist the less that will die.
Posted by: haertig

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/19/15 06:04 PM

Some peoples only defense plan is to make mocking and dismissive comments against those who might actually have a plan and training, and then go running around screaming if something happens. My priority is my family. If I can help a runner/screamer/mocker/dismisser while saving my family, I will do so. But my goal is not to play hero with my little pistol that I'm not sure about and save those people. If I do, it will only be incidental.
Posted by: Phaedrus

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/20/15 11:59 AM

Originally Posted By: Bingley
Charlie Hebdo aside, even the Aurora situation would have been hard to respond to. Well-armed guy walks into a dark theater, throws a smoke grenade, starts firing into the crowd with a rifle. Let's say you don't die right away. You hide behind the seats, which probably can't stop bullets, ready to shoot the bad guy with your little pistol. Can you see through the smoke, can you see in the dark? While people are screaming and running, can you get a clear shot? Some theaters are big. Can you reliably make a shot at that distance? Will a well-intentioned CCW carrier mistake you for the bad guy and shoot you?

If the room is entirely dark, I hope you've brought your flashlight. And I hope you have practiced the FBI hold, because as soon as you turn on that light, you are *the* target.


Yeah, the theater shooting is a very bad situation. I think of the theater I frequent. There are emergency exits but they're at the front, close to the regular exit. It would be pretty easy for a shooter to cover the whole theater and block egress. Smoke could work in my favor; if I can't see he can't either. Theater chairs are no cover at all but they are concealment, and could provide a rest to steady a pistol. In Aurora the shooter had an M&P15, and going against an AR in the hands of a skilled user with a sidearm is not a good situation, at all! Worse yet he had body armor that capable of defeating pistol rounds.

Every time I'm at my local multiplex I have a Surefire E1B and a handgun, usually my HK P30S or HK VP9, and both wear tritium night sights. With either of those guns I'm probably going have a very high percentage chance of a head shot within 50 feet and I regularly practice out to 25 yards with them.

IMOHO the only kind of fight you can't win is the one where you give up. Confronting an adversary armed with a powerful rifle isn't easy but it's not impossible. A ways back a USAF bike MP engaged an active shooter armed with an AK-47; the shooter had already killed a few people when the officer reached him. He engaged at a distance of 60 yards, firing four rounds from his Beretta M9, killing the perp. Very recently a Canadian RCMP officer killed an active shooter with one shot from his handgun at a distance of 105 yards, while holding the reins of some horses in the other hand!

When the moment comes you have to be as prepared at you can be. Just like Doug says of the PSP, if it's not on you it can't save you. If you don't regularly CCW and your gun isn't on you that's an issue (and I do understand it's not possible to legally carry everywhere and I don't advocate breaking the law). The first rule of gunfighting is have a gun! Once #1 is taken care of then hopefully that gun is adequate to the task since all you've got is what you brung. You make a good point about little pistols; we carry small guns because they're easy to carry, not because they're effective or easy to shoot. CCW is a numbers game. Your odds of needing a gun are low. If you ever need to draw it you may not need to fire. If you need to fire then odds are good that they're retreat. It's like the old saying- in a bacon, egg and cheese sandwhich the chicken and the cow are involved but the pig is committed! Predators seldom fight to the death.

But of course, the most unlikely thing will still happen eventually. The Aurora shooter and the Charlie Hebdo terrorists goal was to kill. And unlike most such attacks they weren't suicide attacks; they all planned to survive.

While you almost always have some chance, albeit a slim one, some situations are pretty much like the "Kobayashi Maru". There might not be a solution that allows you to "win" every time. Victory may have to be redefined. Can you alter the shooter's plan, saving others? Kill or disable at least one of them potentially lowering the body count? Hard to say.

I think one needs to be aware when planning their day. I try avoid crowded places due to not liking crowds but if you look at a place like an active shooter would then some places appear to be tempting targets. Those are places to avoid if you can. If you can't then be aware of your surroundings.

If you're into guns or at least open to the idea of them, consider CCW. Train as much as you can.

The good new as I see it is that, despite the media circus, events like this are still pretty rare. And I don't expect mass terror attacks on US soil to become commonplace overnight. Prepared and equipped to survive is good, paranoid is not!
Posted by: LesSnyder

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/20/15 01:56 PM

Phaedrus... nice write up

re: high output LED lights... if you haven't ever been accidentally flashed with a 250+ lumen light, and I don't suggest it... it will pretty seriously disorient you... your shooter could get off random shots, but an accident with my Surefire/Malkoff module left me pretty seriously disoriented for 3 to 5 minutes
Posted by: gonewiththewind

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/20/15 02:02 PM

Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is.

The Outlaw Josie Wales


I am not a fan of taking wisdom from Hollywood, but this one is right on. You lose 100% of the fights you give up on. In an active shooter situation, or an airline hijacking these days, if you can't get out, you are likely to die anyway. Take the chance on removing the threat.

As for the shooting a pistol at range, it just takes practice. I can consistently hit a man sized target at 100 meters from the draw, on double action, with a pistol. Yes, I have had considerable training. But it takes practice. If you are carrying a weapon, and you don't practice with it, you might as well not carry it. Whether it is a stick, a knife or a gun. Or even your hands and feet. If you don't train, you will not react well if the situation arises.
Posted by: chaosmagnet

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/20/15 02:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Phaedrus
a USAF bike MP engaged an active shooter armed with an AK-47; the shooter had already killed a few people when the officer reached him. He engaged at a distance of 60 yards, firing four rounds from his Beretta M9, killing the perp. Very recently a Canadian RCMP officer killed an active shooter with one shot from his handgun at a distance of 105 yards, while holding the reins of some horses in the other hand!


In November 2014 an Austin PD officer used his pistol to stop an active shooter on the street. One shot into the X-ring. At over 100 yards. One handed while holding HIS HORSE with the other hand.
Posted by: Bingley

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/20/15 02:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Phaedrus
Every time I'm at my local multiplex I have a Surefire E1B and a handgun, usually my HK P30S or HK VP9, and both wear tritium night sights. With either of those guns I'm probably going have a very high percentage chance of a head shot within 50 feet and I regularly practice out to 25 yards with them.


I've done a course with moving 3D targets (bad guys) and moving "no shoot" non-targets, where you had to be constantly on the move (sometimes involuntarily -- i.e., panicking crowd shoving you). Crazy guys do not move in a smooth, predictable way, and that was simulated (i.e., not shooting ducks scrolling smoothly from left to right at a fair). Even at half the distance of what you're talking about, it was really, really hard. I'd recommend a course like this.
Posted by: Burncycle

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/20/15 08:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Phaedrus
A ways back a USAF bike MP engaged an active shooter armed with an AK-47; the shooter had already killed a few people when the officer reached him. He engaged at a distance of 60 yards, firing four rounds from his Beretta M9, killing the perp.


And that was after basically sprinting (on his bike) over a quarter mile to the scene. Very impressive shot under stress.
Posted by: ireckon

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/20/15 09:42 PM

Well, it turns out that an external shooter would have actually caused more problems in this particular situation. This guy offed himself. I'm struggling to think of a way you could have fired your CCW and and improved upon that outcome. Nobody would have gotten to this guy before he got his victims. So, let's not even mention that.

Again, I'm pro-CCW, and I would carry if I could. So, don't misread what I'm saying.
Posted by: chaosmagnet

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/20/15 10:14 PM

Originally Posted By: ireckon
Well, it turns out that an external shooter would have actually caused more problems in this particular situation.


This isn't quite the same thing as saying someone who was carrying concealed would have caused more problems. The statistics show that having an armed civilian present would have been unlikely to make things worse.

Quote:
This guy offed himself. I'm struggling to think of a way you could have fired your CCW and and improved upon that outcome.


He shot two people. I wasn't there and I don't know anything about how this went down other than in the link to the news story, but it's conceivable that someone who was carrying concealed might have been able to prevent one or both of the victims from being shot. It's also possible that the situation was such that it wasn't preventable by someone carrying concealed. We may never know.

Quote:
Nobody would have gotten to this guy before he got his victims.


How do you know that? I'm not saying you're wrong, because I sure as heck don't know, but you'd have to be in possession of more information about the incident than I am to be sure.
Posted by: haertig

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/20/15 11:48 PM

Originally Posted By: ireckon
Nobody would have gotten to this guy before he got his victims.

Except maybe one of the victims, had they given themselves a chance by being armed and aware. No guarantees, but at least a chance.
Posted by: Mark_R

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/21/15 01:25 AM

IIRC, there were a number of programs put into effect in the wake of Aurora and Sandy Hook. They came down to two philosophies

First:
1) Run
2) If not possible, then Hide
3) If discovered, then fight. I recall airline passengers, in the wake of 9/11, being instructed to throw luggage at any high jackers.

Second: ALICE, intended for schools and compartmented buildings like office buildings.
Alert
Lockdown - IIRC, this is where Sandy Hook went very wrong. The substitute teacher did not have the classroom key to lock the door.
Inform (realtime information on shooters location)
Counter - Fight. Ever get beaned with a flying laptop?
Evacuate - self explanatory

For reference and giggles
http://www.wrbl.com/story/27832442/valle...school-shooters
Posted by: haertig

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/21/15 06:26 AM

Yeah, getting hit by a can of beans might smart a bit. But it sounds like a Saturday Night Live skit for people to actually be recommending this as a valid self defense move, and expecting others to take them seriously. I think it must be the same group that recommends racking your pump shotgun and saying "that noise alone will scare them away!" Rrriiiggghhhttt... Maybe they're well meaning individuals giving this advice, but they're also stupider than a stump.
Posted by: Phaedrus

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/21/15 06:59 AM

Originally Posted By: chaosmagnet
Originally Posted By: Phaedrus
a USAF bike MP engaged an active shooter armed with an AK-47; the shooter had already killed a few people when the officer reached him. He engaged at a distance of 60 yards, firing four rounds from his Beretta M9, killing the perp. Very recently a Canadian RCMP officer killed an active shooter with one shot from his handgun at a distance of 105 yards, while holding the reins of some horses in the other hand!


In November 2014 an Austin PD officer used his pistol to stop an active shooter on the street. One shot into the X-ring. At over 100 yards. One handed while holding HIS HORSE with the other hand.



Ah, thanks! I mixed up the specifics. It was still a helluva shot no matter which country it was made in! grin
Posted by: Phaedrus

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/21/15 07:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Montanero


I am not a fan of taking wisdom from Hollywood, but this one is right on. You lose 100% of the fights you give up on. In an active shooter situation, or an airline hijacking these days, if you can't get out, you are likely to die anyway. Take the chance on removing the threat.

As for the shooting a pistol at range, it just takes practice. I can consistently hit a man sized target at 100 meters from the draw, on double action, with a pistol. Yes, I have had considerable training. But it takes practice. If you are carrying a weapon, and you don't practice with it, you might as well not carry it. Whether it is a stick, a knife or a gun. Or even your hands and feet. If you don't train, you will not react well if the situation arises.


Well said. I think that if you're "outgunned" the best chance is probably to attempt to surprise the perp with a ferocious counter-ambush. Get inside his OODA loop and throw him off.

It's good to practice at many different distances. As a kid my dad had an FFL and dealt guns through our sports club. I was involved in hunting of all types (small game, birds on the wing, big game) and shooting sports. I especially liked silhouette shooting with rifles and bowling pin shooting with handguns. I was fortunate that we had a 100 acres we lived on in the country and a progressive reloader! cool I must have went a good 15-20 years shooting an average of 500 rounds per week.

I wouldn't call myself an expert or anything but I'm pretty competent with a wide range of firearms. Still, I hope to get more training, too.
Posted by: LesSnyder

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/21/15 01:59 PM

for fun trigger time... try USPSA pistol and especially USPSA multigun (3 gun)
Posted by: Am_Fear_Liath_Mor

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/21/15 02:08 PM

Quote:
To me the scarier situation would something like the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris. In that scenario the shooters were trained, armed with AK-47s (and according to one report, an RPG!) and may have been wearing armor.


The only thing that stops a bad guy with a RPG is a good guy with a Charlie G wink
Posted by: ireckon

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/21/15 11:54 PM

I know people are well-intentioned here. However, a problem with some of the advice given is that these analyses have to be performed in about 2 seconds during total mayhem. People are screaming and running, and your heartbeat went from 60 bpm to 170 bpm instantly.

What if you're dealing with a gunman situation like the recent France attacks and you're up against people who know what they're doing? You won't know it at the time you make your analysis. You won't be equipped with enough information until afterward.

Shooters seem to be getting increasingly more sophisticated. The Batman movie attack would have been a crap shoot for me. Be honest. Who would have known what to do in that situation, without using hindsight? Whenever I imagined a movie theater attack, I never imagined what happened in that attack.

I'm not saying the solution is to give up. I just would appreciate it if people use their full logic abilities, which I know you have. Along with the solutions, let's also talk about everything that's PROBABLY going to go wrong if you get involved with a CCW.
Posted by: Mark_R

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 12:44 AM

Originally Posted By: haertig
Yeah, getting hit by a can of beans might smart a bit. But it sounds like a Saturday Night Live skit for people to actually be recommending this as a valid self defense move, and expecting others to take them seriously. ....


It's a desparation move to be sure, but you're probably hosed at that point anyway. A couple of nice baseball sized rocks would be better, but it beats a suicide charge with a #2 pencil. Kind of like going after a moose with a shovel, or a bear with a zuchini.
Posted by: chaosmagnet

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 12:45 AM

Originally Posted By: ireckon
I know people are well-intentioned here. However, a problem with some of the advice given is that these analyses have to be performed in about 2 seconds during total mayhem. People are screaming and running, and your heartbeat went from 60 bpm to 170 bpm instantly.


Are you trained for that? I am.

Quote:
What if you're dealing with a gunman situation like the recent France attacks and you're up against people who know what they're doing? You won't know it at the time you make your analysis. You won't be equipped with enough information until afterward.


You're right that you won't ever be acting on complete information. You're also right that going up against people who are well trained and better equipped than a concealed carrier makes things harder.

Quote:
Shooters seem to be getting increasingly more sophisticated. The Batman movie attack would have been a crap shoot for me. Be honest. Who would have known what to do in that situation, without using hindsight? Whenever I imagined a movie theater attack, I never imagined what happened in that attack.


I train for that specific scenario (for all that I don't go out to the movies often). Maybe I've got my hands full of popcorn and small child when the first shot goes into the back of my skull. Maybe, though, me or someone like me could be in a position to stop the shooter.

Quote:
I'm not saying the solution is to give up. I just would appreciate it if people use their full logic abilities, which I know you have. Along with the solutions, let's also talk about everything that's PROBABLY going to go wrong if you get involved with a CCW.


The statistics do not support this position.
Posted by: haertig

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 03:35 AM

Originally Posted By: ireckon
I know people are well-intentioned here. However, a problem with some of the advice given is that these analyses have to be performed in about 2 seconds during total mayhem. People are screaming and running, and your heartbeat went from 60 bpm to 170 bpm instantly.

Inevitably. So what point are you trying to make with that?

Quote:
What if you're dealing with a gunman situation like the recent France attacks and you're up against people who know what they're doing? You won't know it at the time you make your analysis. You won't be equipped with enough information until afterward.

True. What point are you making?

Quote:
Shooters seem to be getting increasingly more sophisticated. The Batman movie attack would have been a crap shoot for me. Be honest. Who would have known what to do in that situation, without using hindsight? Whenever I imagined a movie theater attack, I never imagined what happened in that attack.

Nobody can imagine every possible situation. What point are you making?

Quote:
I'm not saying the solution is to give up.

This sounds like exactly your point. Give up. Don't try to respond. Because you can't know everything, thus you couldn't have pre-planned the perfect response. If that wasn't your point, what was it?

Quote:
I just would appreciate it if people use their full logic abilities, which I know you have. Along with the solutions, let's also talk about everything that's PROBABLY going to go wrong if you get involved with a CCW.

That's called training and practice. You try to imagine scenarios, possibilities, and all that. Then you try to plan for, and practice a response to meet those threats. It you run up against something that wasn't exactly what you envisioned, your training/practice is going to help, never hurt. You may have to wing it or improvise based on your experience. "Winging it" does not include giving up and not attempting some response because your weren't briefed on the exact details of the assault in advance. Note that your response may be to "do nothing at this time". That is perfectly valid if it appears the best course of action at the time. That's why you practice, which includes mental practice to think on your feet. But pre-planning to do nothing, and going in unprepared for any kind of response, is a pretty bad plan IMHO.

You appear to be implying that if you are not able to say with 100% certainty, "I can win any situation I am thrown into", that you shouldn't even bother trying, since you become too much of a danger yourself. I respectfully, but totally disagree with that mindset.
Posted by: Russ

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 05:45 AM

Mental Mechanics of Shooting, How to Stay Calm at the Center [Hardcover] may be worthwhile to pick up and read before you train. Generally speaking, you fight the way you train. Train calm, shoot calm. If you can be calm during chaos, you will avoid panic and perform better.
FWIW
Posted by: Tom_L

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 10:47 AM

Respectfully, I don't think anyone is suggesting that giving up and letting yourself get killed would be a good option. But it's a whole different question just how much an average Joe could do to help in that sort of situation.

A shootout in a crowded theater, mall, wherever? I don't know about everyone's training and background, but I doubt we have that many SAS and Navy SEALs here either.

Are you really capable of taking headshots at 50 feet under extreme stress? When was the last time you've done that before? Can you really guarantee that your response won't endanger an innocent bystander?

YMMV but I reserve the right to my doubts.

Anyway, I don't think this sort of discussion does much good. Lots of places online for armchair commandos already, no need for that on ETS. cool
Posted by: Phaedrus

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 11:27 AM

I don't think training with and carrying a firearm is "armchair commando" territory. The site is ETS; different equipment is needed for surviving different situations. Certainly I don't advocate "going Rambo" or inserting yourself willie-nilly into situations you don't understand. But the fact remains that in an active shooter situation you're likely to be your own first responder. Your response could be to freeze, to run, to shoot back, etc. Having a firearm on you doesn't require you to use it but if you're unarmed several options are removed from the table.

In some active shooter situations the only goal of the shooter is to kill as many people as possible. It's hard to imagine how you could make that situation worse by resisting short of actually shooting innocents yourself. It should go without saying that you're responsible for ever bullet in your gun.

Ultimately it's a personal choice to CCW or not to. Some problems can be solved with a firearm, others can not. Resistance carries risk as does meek compliance. The risk is never zero.
Posted by: chaosmagnet

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 01:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom_L
Are you really capable of taking headshots at 50 feet under extreme stress? When was the last time you've done that before? Can you really guarantee that your response won't endanger an innocent bystander?


I am no commando, armchair or otherwise -- the use of that phrase appears to be an attempt to be offensive. I'm a network security engineer who shoots in a couple of local leagues, with a side business teaching concealed carry. I'm middling good among my shooting buddies, probably the bottom of the top third for members of the leagues I shoot in.

It isn't particularly challenging to make a headshot at 50 feet with a handgun under simulated stress. I've done it in competition too many times to count.

What I suspect is happening here is a divide between those who train and practice and know their own limitations, and those who do neither and have made an assumption that civilian intervention in a violent attack will usually lead to more harm being done than good. The statistics in the USA say otherwise. You're more likely to be shot accidentally by a police officer than by a civilian concealed carrier, on a per-shooting basis.
Posted by: hikermor

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 03:11 PM

Let's say I am the unarmed"innocent bystander"in this situation, also at risk from the bad guy. I would much prefer for you to draw and fire in this hypothetical situation. I will also fling whatever is handy...
Posted by: Russ

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 04:05 PM

I'm no SEAL, but having been on active duty in SD and working here now as a contractor, I've met my share. If there's one thing SEALs are good at it's TRAINING; it's what they do. Whether that training is running, swimming or shooting, they train, they train a lot. A few of them have abilities they've been honing since childhood, others only since they decided they wanted to be a SEAL. I've watched BUDS classes dwindle in numbers as the weeks go by and candidates fall out. I've watched as a group enter the Pacific for a 5 mile swim in full gear. The point being they don't run, swim or shoot as well as they do without training. Yeah, the movies make it out to be easy for these guys to do superhuman stuff, but they are just humans who train hard. There's no trick to what they do, they train.

Believe it or not there are a lot of CCW folks who train and shoot competition. They might not shoot as much as SEAL, Delta or SAS, but we don't have their ammo budget. I used to shoot a lot of .22LR with a Ruger 22/45, then at the end of the session I'd break out Colt Gov't .45 ACP and shoot a magazine. Building good form with lower cost/recoil ammo, then shoot a magazine of full power. A 17 yard shot is very doable, but a headshot is not necessarily required. First it's more difficult to hit a head and second, unless the shooter is wearing body armor, center mass is usually a better target. But that is very situational. Before attempting that though you need to train.

But that's just my opinion and I don't train enough.
Posted by: Tom_L

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 04:07 PM

Absolutely no offense meant or implied on my part. It's a highly personal topic and difficult to discuss online. Which is why I seem to have a little trouble with this thread in the first place. cool

I do think some of the notions expressed here are questionable. For one, there is a lot of difference between the simulated stress on a competition and the real thing. Etc. etc. It all gets pretty complicated when you have to deal with the actual, real life consequences of the infamous SHTF.

Given the situation described in the first post - man gunning down his wife and unknown male/possible friend. I kind of fail to see how an armed civilian would be able to do much good. Just as likely a split-second shooting incident turns into a prolonged shootout with more fatalities.

BTW, even if the bystanders themselves don't mind taking some friendly fire, how do you think their families and laywers are going to react? And anyway, are you the kind of person that could live with that for the rest of your life? (All rhetoric questions obviously, something we can only answer for ourselves.)

Another situation referred to here - Charlie Hebdo. Two men rush an office room with about a dozen people inside, including a LEO specifically tasked with protecting them, probably a highly trained individual. We all know how that turned out.

I'm sure there is a time and place for anything, including CCW. Then again, it *could* do more harm than good in a given situation, particularly if compounded with unrealistic expectations. Like maybe trying to rappel down a cliff with paracord. blush

If TS really HTF you do what you have to do. If you're a sensible person you will prepare and train accordingly, though always keeping your limitations in mind. I still believe it's best to be honest and realistic about it and I don't think an online forum such as ETS is the best place to discuss self-defense. So many people talking the talk on survivalist and combatives websites already it's not even funny.

Now, I don't mean to put anybody down. Please take this for what it's worth, one guy's experience and 2 cents. So peace to all and a good day... smile
Posted by: haertig

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 04:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom_L
Are you really capable of taking headshots at 50 feet under extreme stress? When was the last time you've done that before?

Why do you think that would be the required response, or even a preferable response? You see that in movies, not so much in real life.

I imagine this is what untrained and knowledge lacking people associate with a typical response, because that's what they see on their TV. They are uninformed, and wrong. Besides, those head shots are usually taken from more like 50 yards out, weak handed, instinctively aimed (no sights), while riding on a horse going in the opposite direction. The impact of the shot usually throws the bad guy back through the air 30 feet, bursting through a one inch thick plate glass window that suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Then he explodes. Then the good guy proceeds to make 34 more of those same awesome shots, using a handgun he never reloads. That makes slide racking and brass ejecting sounds, even though it is a revolver. Then he pulls out his knife for more carnage, which obligingly goes "zzziiinnnggg!", apparently because he simply touched it.

Unfortunately, people believe, and base their opinions on stuff like this.
Posted by: chaosmagnet

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 04:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom_L
I do think some of the notions expressed here are questionable. For one, there is a lot of difference between the simulated stress on a competition and the real thing. Etc. etc. It all gets pretty complicated when you have to deal with the actual, real life consequences of the infamous SHTF.


It's not clear to me where this opinion of yours comes from, but having trained under stress and having had to draw my pistol in public twice, I'm here to tell you that I don't agree.

Quote:
Given the situation described in the first post - man gunning down his wife and unknown male/possible friend. I kind of fail to see how an armed civilian would be able to do much good.


Without knowing the specifics of this incident (which nobody on this thread has offered to date) you really do not know. If there was even a second and a half between recognizance of the threat (viewing the weapon being drawn or hearing the first shot) and one or both of the victims being shot, it's quite possible that a civilian concealed carrier would have been able to save one or both victims.

Quote:
Just as likely a split-second shooting incident turns into a prolonged shootout with more fatalities.


As I've said before in this thread, that's not what actually happens in the USA, in the vast majority of the time that a civilian concealed carrier intervenes in a violent assault. Almost invariably when a civilian concealed carrier intervenes, lives are saved.

I'm basing my opinions on training and statistics. Where are yours coming from?

Quote:
Another situation referred to here - Charlie Hebdo. Two men rush an office room with about a dozen people inside, including a LEO specifically tasked with protecting them, probably a highly trained individual. We all know how that turned out.


Where did you get "highly trained individual" from? Have you ever gone shooting with cops? Gone to classes with them?

One of the unfortunate consequences of wearing a uniform is that bad guys will frequently target police officers first.

Frankly, we're talking ourselves in circles here. You've made up your mind based on whatever you've made it up on. I'll continue to carry, and train, and study the subject. You do what feels right to you.
Posted by: haertig

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 05:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom_L
Given the situation described in the first post - man gunning down his wife and unknown male/possible friend. I kind of fail to see how an armed civilian would be able to do much good.

What if that armed citizen happened to be the intended victim? He would have been right there in the middle of things as they went down, and there may have been a possibility that he could have responded. You seem to be thinking of uninvolved citizens rolling in to the rescue in the middle of an event. That is NOT what I train for. That is a job for the police. I hate to inform you, but if I were to see someone attacking you from 50 feet away, I most certainly would NOT draw my firearm and attempt a head shot on the bad guy to save you. That seems to be a fantasy held by non-gun people of how gun people would react. At the point of your attack, my priorities would be to protect my family, myself, my friends, other bystanders, and then you in very last place. Chances are high I would not get around to the "protect you" part. That sounds harsh. But you are not my priority. I am not in law enforcement and I do not train to actively insert myself into a violent situation. I train to get my family and myself OUT of a violent situation. You only get to ride along on my coattails on the way out if doing so doesn't involve putting my family and myself in additional danger. Once my family was totally out of danger, then and only then would I consider other things I could do to permanently put an end to the violent situation (and no, that wouldn't include any headshot attempts from 50 feet away).

Quote:
And anyway, are you the kind of person that could live with that for the rest of your life?

It would be hard to live with, yes. But it would be harder for me to live with having cowered in place, totally submissive to the bad guys, simply watching my family, friends, and bystanders being murdered.

Quote:
Another situation referred to here - Charlie Hebdo. Two men rush an office room with about a dozen people inside, including a LEO specifically tasked with protecting them, probably a highly trained individual. We all know how that turned out.

So, if you cannot guarantee that you will win each and every time, that means you shouldn't even try. Is that what you are saying?
Posted by: hikermor

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 05:54 PM

Allusions have been made to analyses of actual shooting incidents involving CCW intervention. I place high value on such (reasonably unbiased)studies. Any references?
Posted by: Russ

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 06:03 PM

Is it even known if the LEO in the room at Charlie's was armed? The LEO's out on the street were unarmed, why would a LEO inside a room in a private security role be armed if the regular LEO was not. I don't know for certain, but my thought is that the LEO was essentially a bouncer with a uniform and badge, which was enough to get him shot first.
Posted by: chaosmagnet

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 06:23 PM

Active shooters are stopped by armed civilians in 3% of cases, according to the most recent FBI study. Unarmed civilians stop the active shooter in 13% of cases. (http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/sep...n-2000-and-2013).

NYPD's research concludes that shooting an assailant is the most effective countermeasure in stopping an active shooter (Active Shooter: Recommendations and Analysis for Risk Mitigation, NYPD, 2012; http://www.nypdshield.org/public/SiteFiles/documents/Activeshooter.pdf)

A Purdue professor's research shows that all but two active shooter events since the 1950's occurred somewhere that concealed carry was illegal (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/...uns-in-schools/). Only one active shooter incident in recent years occurred somewhere that concealed carry was legal (Rep. Giffords) (and in this case, a concealed carrier came upon the scene immediately after the shooter was subdued by unarmed bystanders).

Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings fall dramatically after right-to-carry legislation is passed. Multiple-victim shootings decrease in states that have concealed carry (Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement, Lott John R., Landes William M.; University of Chicago – covers years 1977 to 1995).
Posted by: Tom_L

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 06:39 PM

Lots of emotion out here. I would appreciate it if we could keep this civil.

The headshot at 50ft idea was brought up earlier on and it caught my attention, hence my comment:

Originally Posted By: Phaedrus
With either of those guns I'm probably going have a very high percentage chance of a head shot within 50 feet and I regularly practice out to 25 yards with them.


Do I think it's a realistic proposition? Not so much.
Posted by: Tom_L

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 06:56 PM

BTW, why the disparaging tones regarding the police?

As a matter of fact, I have had some training with the police (and military police). I have met several LEOs and MPs that I would absolutely trust with my life in a confrontation. I wonder how many people posting here have anywhere near their experience and skills? Anyway, I have not met very many civilians with a comparable set of skills.

I have a few friends who are very good shots. They do well at competitions and on hunting grounds. I am not so sure how they would handle themselves under fire. There's more to it than marksmanship alone, the battlefield is not quite the Olympics.

Again BTW, the police officer inside Charlie Hebdo was a veteran, currently serving with the Service de la protection. They are not just your average street cops. Was he armed? I don't know. But again, I suspect he had more street experience than most people here.

What makes me a little uncomfortable about this thread is that some forumites are making pretty bold statements. Yet the people who I know personally can handle themselves in a difficult situation do not generally talk about about their skills online. Makes me wonder.

And no, I don't agree for a second that competition or training for the most part, other than the really hardcore military/law enforcement style comes anywhere close to a real confrontation. Drawing a gun on somebody is one thing. Being in a fight with someone actually trying to hurt or kill you is a little different.

Or maybe not, what do I know. Time to sign off...
Posted by: Am_Fear_Liath_Mor

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 07:16 PM

Quote:
Believe it or not there are a lot of CCW folks who train and shoot competition. They might not shoot as much as SEAL, Delta or SAS, but we don't have their ammo budget.


You probably do if its the SAS! Most who join the SAS have never even fired or handled a Pistol before. As for the 50' head shot, well there's not much bullet drop at that sort of range even for 9mm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55zawUndP50

Access to ammunition for Training is more readily available in the US than even for the SAS in the UK.






Posted by: Russ

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 07:26 PM

That may be true, but availability of ammo and funds to pay for that ammo are two different things. The last 5 years have seen a big increase in cost and a reduction of availability. Seems like it's easier to find 9mm than quality .22LR. Neither are inexpensive.
Posted by: chaosmagnet

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 07:47 PM

We've strayed too close to the line regarding advocacy here, if we haven't crossed it outright. I am as guilty as anyone of that, and for that I do apologize. I will work to do better.

Moving forward in this thread, let's stick with discussions of how to survive an active shooter event.


chaosmagnet
Posted by: Am_Fear_Liath_Mor

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 08:02 PM


I think you can get 1000 9mm FMJs for around $225 in the US, that is more than enough ammunition for the SAS Pistol shooting course. The MoD are and have been very stingy when it comes to training ammunition. That is about the same price as a morning round of Golf at St Andrews and a few pints of beer in the Afternoon. wink
Posted by: LesSnyder

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 08:21 PM

I've offered before, but if any of you are classroom teachers, or have significant others that are, I have a couple of suggestions on how to harden you classrooms, and couple of ideas that we incorporated at my high school after the Columbine, Co tragedy...
Posted by: chaosmagnet

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 08:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Am_Fear_Liath_Mor

I think you can get 1000 9mm FMJs for around $225 in the US, that is more than enough ammunition for the SAS Pistol shooting course. The MoD are and have been very stingy when it comes to training ammunition. That is about the same price as a morning round of Golf at St Andrews and a few pints of beer in the Afternoon. wink


I can't speak to the golf and beer costs, but the best price I'm seeing for brass-cased 9mm target ammo is pretty close to that. Ammoman.com (no affiliation but highly recommended) has Blazer Brass for $244/1000 delivered. You can get steel-cased ammo for cheaper, and ammoseek.com (again, no affiliation but highly recommended) shows another site I don't know selling it for $210 before shipping.
Posted by: LesSnyder

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 08:38 PM

the long term solution... it's painted blue

Posted by: Russ

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 09:04 PM

LOL smile Mine is painted green.
Posted by: hikermor

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/22/15 11:29 PM

The references provided by CM are most informative - recommended reading

Here is a key paragraph from the FBI report:

The study identified 21 (13.1%) of 160 incidents where unarmed c
itizens made the selfless
and deeply personal choices to face the danger of an active shooter. In those instances,
the citizens safely and successfully disrupted the shootings. In 11 of those 21 incidents,
unarmed principals, teachers, other school staff and students confronted the shooters to
end the threat. In 10 incidents, citizens, working or shopping when the shootings began,
successfully restrained shooters until police could arrive. And in 6 other incidents, armed
off-duty police officers, citizens, and security guards risked their lives to successfully end
the threat. These actions likely saved the lives of students and others present
Posted by: UTAlumnus

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/23/15 03:19 AM

Progressive reloading press?
Posted by: LesSnyder

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/23/15 04:38 AM

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
Posted by: Robert_McCall

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/23/15 05:34 AM

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.
Posted by: ireckon

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/23/15 06:02 AM

Originally Posted By: Robert_McCall
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.
Posted by: chaosmagnet

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/23/15 06:20 AM

Originally Posted By: ireckon
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?


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.
Posted by: ireckon

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/23/15 06:27 AM

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...
Posted by: Bingley

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/23/15 08:09 AM

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.
Posted by: Phaedrus

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/23/15 09:41 AM

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.
Posted by: Russ

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/23/15 01:14 PM

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:
Quote:
Learners or trainees tend to begin at stage 1 - 'unconscious incompetence'.

They pass through stage 2 - 'conscious incompetence', then through stage 3 - 'conscious competence'.

And ideally end at stage 4 - 'unconscious competence'.
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.
Posted by: chaosmagnet

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/23/15 04:07 PM

Originally Posted By: ireckon
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.


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.
Posted by: haertig

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/23/15 07:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Phaedrus
I think the crucial thing is to not fall into thinking of a firearm as a talisman that can ward off evil.

That is true.

Upon further review, more advocacy redacted.
Posted by: haertig

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/23/15 07:49 PM

Originally Posted By: ireckon
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.

Who said any of us don't agree with this? I do. You asked for "even better". Well, I think even better would be it the attacker offed himself BEFORE attacking anybody. Advocacy redacted. I, for one, would be glad to hear of an attacker who did themselves in before attacking anybody. I consider that a plus, not a minus. It's sad when it happens, but it's better than the alternate that could have happened - the attacker killing innocent people. Not related to active shooters and thus redacted.
Posted by: hikermor

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/23/15 07:55 PM

It is surprising how many of these incidents end with attacker suicides, which suggests mental issues. The very resolution of these incidents would be early detection and treatment of this problem which is difficult to achieve. But nobody dies and productive lives proceed.
Posted by: Bingley

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/23/15 08:40 PM

In some cases the shooters had been in therapy before they massacred people. In two cases I can think of (Virginia Tech & Navy Yard), the soon-to-be shooters attempted to seek medical help and were turned away. I pity these men who surely knew things were going terrifyingly wrong. We really can't afford to let people slip through the crack anymore.
Posted by: chaosmagnet

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/23/15 09:59 PM

Folks,

We need to stay strictly on tactics and equipment to avoid or survive an active shooter scenario, or I will have to lock this thread.



chaosmagnet
Posted by: AKSAR

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/23/15 10:20 PM

Advocacy redacted.
Posted by: clearwater

Re: Active shooter scenario - 01/23/15 10:36 PM

Advocacy redacted. Thread locked.