As we get details of what the media is calling the "mass shooting" outrage and tragedy at the island summer camp in Norway, what lessons can we learn? How could we prepare our kids, and ourselves, to survive the situation?

you mean besides packing a pistol and wearing a bullet proof vest?

I don't think there's any good way to prep for it. You can either choose to live ultimate safety and become a recluse, or go into society and be subject to the whims of those around you. Situational awareness only gets you so far, and all the FAKs, SAKs, pocket tinder and BOBs won't help when EIGHTY people are shot around you.

I know it is early days and still shocking. I also know there are folks in this community who can suggest some ideas for what to do, and what you want your kids to do, to better chances of surviving "shots fired" situations.

As a parent in a country that mirrors Norway (minimal civilian armed response), my only thoughts are to drill / condition / hope that your kids respond promptly by running and hiding - I suspect when the full timeline of the attack is mapped out a lot of the kids stayed still and froze - pretty much a natural reaction.

For all sorts of crises, one of the major problems is people (not just kids) not recognising it and acting early.

Otherwise my thoughts go out to all victims and their families

I don't think there is a lot you can do.

One thing I've read is that worried parrents calling their childeren on their cells actually give away their positions. So it would be probebly be a good idea to shut it off.

Alse make sure you are in a good physical health, to maximize your escape chances.

Packing a pistol is maybe a vialable option in some US states, but almost illegally in Western Europe

The only things are to run and hide. AKA "Cover and concealment."
I know this sounds overly simple minded and was joked about in the famous Monty Python bit "How not to be seen" but it doesn't make it any less true or effective.

This was the only option on the island and the survivors all apparently survived this way, including in at least one case, by playing dead.

My heart and prayers goes out to the parents and families and to the people of Norway.

OK, here you go...
1. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away (90 long ones in this case)
2. Don't bother dialing 911 (it doesn't do any good)
3. Shoot first (unless you're in a heavily gun controlled country like Norway)
4. Don't trust uniforms (it could kill you)
5. Don't live in a left wing anti-self defense locality.

I think an aggressive campaign aimed at individuals contemplating such types of activities should be started at once. The focus should be for such persons to "Be the first step in a sea of change" and put the first round through their own heads. After they see how that works for them, they can move on.
I feel my idea has a lot of merit and could gain traction.

The real tragedy about the mass shooting in Norway is that even ONE person responsible for the safety of those children had a gun, they could have stopped it. But they didn't and they couldn't.

instill in your kids the mechanics of the OODA loop:

Observe a perceived threat
Orient yourself to the threat
Decide on course of action
Act on your decision

teach them the difference between cover and concealment... cover will stop a bullet, concealment just hides your location

teach them that distance is your friend, especially if confronted with a pistol shooting threat... secondly, once distance has been reached...it is much harder to hit a moving target traversing laterally than directly away, and for inexperienced handgun shooters at distance, the muzzle is typically pulled off target away from the shooting hand... for right handers, it is typically pulled to the left, so teach them to run to the right

Excellent comments! Spot on.

I'm not sure how far my comments can go without stepping on this forum's rules, and certainly I hope not to do that, but ...

To be honest I never thought too much about having/carrying a self-defense weapon until a few years back when I had an encounter (assault? - he grabbed me by my shirt just under my head) with an angry newspaper delivery person on the street within sight of my home. We live in a rural area - not in a city, and called the county sheriff. We went outside to wait for their arrival, and waited, and waiting. Finally I went back inside to find a voice message from the sheriff asking for directions to my home. They finally arrived.

This led me to a realization that local law enforcement (the sheriff) does NOT protect me and my family. They simply can't be there when/if something happens. Their job would be to take evidence AFTER the event and look for offenders.

Now I'm a strong believer in the need of people to be able to defend themselves and their family - to carry a weapon (a gun) to protect themselves, since law enforcement (police) simply will not and can not do it real time.

Unfortunately, I live in the ONLY state in the United States that does not allow it citizens to carry a concealed weapon. Some have told me that I can carry a weapon unconcealed, but that brings with it obvious problems.

I'm a regular person. Not a fanatic. I'm a Boy Scout Leader, a Girl Scout leader, and father of two wonderful kids. Every time I see on the news where someone or several people are killed I have to think that had the victims been able to carry a gun things could have been very different - lives could have been saved.

What can you do? A percieved "helper", a policeman, opens fire on your group.

Beat feet. Get cover/concealment between you and the shooter. Continue to move, tough to hit a running target, and move in a way it keeps you off the central line of fire of the shooter - try and stay in back of him or to the sides. I wouldn't hide and remain static if there is a chance he will find you/get to you. Lock doors behind you if in a building, slow him down. Never go up if you can help it, boxes you in. Pull a fire alarm if in a building. If low enough, 1st or second floor, break a window and get out.

Not going to get into the discussion about police being minutes away at best - not their fault they are spread thin. Nor am I going to talk about improvised weapons - the dude has a gun, he can kill you in an instant. Don't give him that instant.

Simple - Don't be there when it happens.

And if you are, and have no other response, hide as if your life depends on it.

True. I would add as a counterpoint though that firearm based homicides in countries like England (0.07 per 100,000)and Norway (0.3 per 100,000) are much lower than the USA (7 per 100,000)* and whilst tragedies like this focus the mind, overall you are safer from firearms in these countries than much of the rest of the world (and as I speak as a pro-firearms Brit)


[*Source is wikipedia - may well be more robust data elsewhere on the internet]

I am seeing a lot of victim mentality here. Why was one person able to kill 85 persons with a firearm and wound others on a small island which contained about 650 persons in the first place? I can understand the first few, depending on how quickly it took place, due to the police uniform. Run and hide and you will only die later, unless you are retreating and regrouping with a plan. Did those brave few on flight 93 run and hide or cower in the corner? Situational awareness is how you will identify the event you are part of. Next, you need a plan to remedy the threat. Every situation is different, but the death count would have been a lot lower if the folks on that island would have taken direct action to stop the gunman.

Why do these arguments always only include "firearm based homicides"? Homicides take many forms, but the anti-gun types are only concerned about the people killed by guns, as though the other victims were not relevant; who are they, chopped liver?

In this case one camper who happened to have brought along his bolt action hunting rifle could have ended this. Police took 90 minutes getting to the island.

I do not think we should assume we know the facts well enough to reach any final conclusions beyond knowing this was a shocking and deplorable event that involved people pretty much just like us. But I do think and hope we can profitably hear from those who can suggest what can be done if we find ourselves in such a situation, and what we might consider to prepare kids.

My point wasn't that armed citizens wouldn't have been useful - they would. Just trying to make sure we put things in balance - the usual repsonse this side of the pond is to further restrict firearms access to civilians (which is generally useless but satifies the politicians need to be seen to do something). In the wake of this shooting someone in Norway will almost certainly be suggesting 'banning guns' - increasing armed access in reponse to this might seem sensible but will go against the flow of pereceived opinion, and there is little that debating online will do about that.

Let's not forget, these were kids, no adults. The kids had to face an automatic weapon, not an knife.

The brave people from flight 93 allready had knowledge of the intention of the hijackers and knew that if they didn't do anything they surely were going to die, where the people on the island had to hide untill the real police arrived.

In Belgium, a politician has just launched his idea to restrict firearms overhere. And it's not easy to get a permit overhere.

Not that the real criminals give a damn about it. It also won't stop a lunatic.

I saw an overhead picture of the tiny island. There is one building and 50% trees cover. He could roam the island with little impunity for quite a while. He choose his killing field well for his purpose. And because of the short distance to target and no real shelter he could get away with lower accuracy by using high frangible bullets that cause a lot of internal injuries and bleeding. He wanted those kids to suffer as much as possible.

No, in this situation, there wasn't much they could do. A few of them played dead or covered themselves with another body but other than that it was basically wait for help to arrive. Some tried to swim away from the island and he shot them in the water. Some kids barricaded themselves in the one building and put up mattresses against the walls. The killer also wore some sort of police uniform which confused the kids as they thought he was there to help them.

The killer also didn't resist with a fire fight when the police showed up. I think he wanted to remain alive so that he can have his 15 min. in court and "EXPLAIN" his extremist views. I don't think he should be given his pulpit.

The mystery seems to deepen. I may have missed it in the US press, but the Russian press is reporting that there was a police officer who was supposed to be on the island, and that he is "missing." The Russians are relying on a report from Sky News.
Russian story (in English)
http://en.rian.ru/world/20110724/165368453.html

Are the police in Norway armed, or are they like the police in England?

It seems to be a very bizarre story. Today for example heading back down Glen Esk near the bottom of the Glen near to Dalbog, there was huge police activity (Grampian Police) with at least a dozen marked police vehicles and police helicopter activity performing a search pattern at Glen Lee (so a major incident). A police land rover was observing us coming down of the hill in Glen Lee. More police vehicles (sirens on) heading up the glen passing through the very sleepy village of Edzell later in the afternoon. We had noticed that there was a large scout camp out the previous day where the police had been called to. Yet there appears to be nothing being mentioned in the local or national media so far.

Like any news stories on events such as this, there are always conflicting reports. In regards to the police officer, other reports on Google News suggest that the officer was off duty and hired out as a private security guard on the island and was killed by the gunman.

Authorities revealed Sunday that one of the attacker's first victims on the island was an off-duty police officer who had been hired by the camp directors to provide private security in his spare time.

There is also some excerpts of the gunman's 1500 page manifesto here. Very chilling, graphic and sobering...

XT, please give the source for your info, you seem to be much better informed than me. I am using Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/24/us-norway-idUSL6E7IN00C20110724 , which does not indicate use of any automatic weapons and states "mostly young people attending a summer camp", which makes me think there were adult victims, also.

If you see someone shooting everyone he can, that should be a pretty good indication of their intent. With that, you should know that if no one stops the shooter, more will be shot... more will die.
If you think you have to run and hide because someone starts killing folks, you are not helping to end the problem. I understand it, you want to save yourself and you might want to get family or friends to safety, you are fearful about the outcome, but if you give up taking an active part in your security because you believe someone not at the scene can help you in an active shooter scenario, well, may others learn from your mistakes.

Just a reminder to everyone that this forum isn't dedicated to arguing gun rights. So far this discussion has been pretty good, let's keep it that way.

As for lessons learned, I'm thinking from here on out teaching my kids that if they find themselves in a situation like this that they need to hide and not come out until LOTS of police are on the scene rather than go running to the first police officer they see.

-Blast, horrified by this event.

It takes a lot of training and courage to fight a shooter in such a surprise attack. Are there group tactics against a single shooter? Perhaps, but anything that has any chance of success would require quite a bit of preparation (training, setting up traps in the terrain, stocking projectiles like stones, etc.) That leaves us with a spontaneous mass charge, which would have a high casualty rate with very little chance of success. You will need a huge suicide squad. Boys or not, the situation does not seem comparable to Flight 93.

Besides, we had a shooting on an army base. Did the unarmed soldiers fight the shooter?

Situational awareness works for the "rational" sorts of crime. In fact, it is often more valuable than a concealed firearm, since some criminal tactics leave you with no chance of drawing the gun when the threat presents itself. Only situational awareness will keep you safe from danger. This type of mass shooting is a new form of crime, possible only with modern firearms. We may have to start catching people before they get to carry out the massacre. This seems like an almost impossible task.

Da Bing

In the event of children locking themselves in a room and surviving, they should be taught they do not open the door for anybody except a person who knows the "Safety" word. It may delay getting them home, but they will get out alive.

Anders Behring Brevik plagiarized 'Unabomber', The Telegraph

Da Bing

This guy did his homework. Unfortunately.


AND he knew they didn't have guns, weren't likely to fight back.


Thinking is no longer in fashion. 'I want to know' supercedes 'What is best for the situation'.




I'm sure there were adults there. But with just one person shooting, I always tend to think HE HAS TO RELOAD SOMETIME! Was it so inconceivable that someone might have the idea to get around him and bash his head in with a chunk of wood or a rock?

Gun control won't stop a lunatic, but it sure can stop the people who can stop the lunatic.


Well, someone kicked a pretty good hole in those figures, didn't they?

Sue

Reloading takes only maybe three seconds for trained people. Breivik had a Ruger Mini-14, which has 30-round magazines. Let's say in a comparable scenario, the shooter shoots each person twice. That's around 200 rounds. He just needs 6-7 magazines, which can be carried neatly in a vest and in a tactical bag. If he has some training, he knows how to transition from rifle to pistol, which can stop the brave head bashers (Breivik also had a Glock).

What punishment can we invent that would give us justice in a situation like this? I am horrified.

Da Bing

Don't publish a word he says. Don't play any recordings.

With an ego like that, it might well kill him. Pity, hmmm?

But the media will see that that doesn't happen. He will get his satisfaction through them.

Sue

So in this horrible situation, what looks like best practices?

Are there some reaction strategies that offer higher chances of survival? Should any be taught and practiced?

My ideas for punishment are bouncing through many ghastly fantasies, but I do not think there is any deterrence value in making this sick person a martyr.

This whole thing feels way above my pay grade.

Edit: I am thinking of buying a pistol, which I know is an irrational reaction to my frustration that there is nothing I can do about this nightmare.

Just so that you know, owning a pistol is useless without the knowledge and the conditioning to use it. As for additional expenses, you're looking at:

-- Defensive pistol courses, often at $600-$1,000 a pop, plus travel and lodging, in addition to ammunition, extra magazines, etc. This is a perishable skill, so if you cannot find ways to maintain it (and it's often hard to maintain it, because ranges often do not allow anything but standard target shooting for safety reasons), you will have to retake these courses regularly.

-- A new wardrobe, so you can carry concealed. You will have to get larger pants (usually two sizes larger), plus jackets, shirts, etc. to help prevent the print through.

-- Naturally, there is a whole range of accessories, starting with a good concealed holster.

-- I'd also recommend some sort close-quarter combat training, or at least weapon-retention training, so someone can't disarm you easily.

You can get a decent compact gun for $500, suitable for concealed carry. But there are many other things to consider. There are generally administrative expenses, assuming you live in a state that allows concealed carry. If you want to carry in more than one state, you may have to get a non-resident license from Utah or Florida, which is a non-trivial recurring expense.

You may also need to consider a backup gun. If you have a semi-automatic for the ease of use and the higher capacity, you might want a more mechanically robust "six for sure" revolver than works even when not entirely clean.

You will also have to change your behavior patterns. There will be some places that you may not be able to to go without your gun. So you will have to figure out where to deposit your gun while you go there. You may not hug people anymore. You may lose friends. You may scare colleagues. You will have to learn all about gun laws. There are many people in jail who had thought they were justified in self-defense, and the jurors disagreed with them.

So don't just run out and buy a gun, unless you are willing to make yourself informed, trained, and well-equipped.

Da Bing

One of the early articles I read about the attack said that if he's convicted, he could receive about 25 years in jail, making him eligible for release before he's 50. So fantasize all you like, but the Norwegian justice system has it under control.

If it is scientifically possible, I'd like to hook him up to all the survivors and the families of the victims, so he can feel exactly all the grief, fear, anger, and pain they feel. In other words, he will be in the shoes of those he harmed. Then he will have to feel the contempt that the entire world has for him. Maybe if he feels these emotions and reflects on them every single hour for the rest of his life, he will be able to begin to regain his humanity in some small ways. He will begin to understand what he has done, and how many families he has destroyed.

I, for one, can't imagine how one's mind won't blow up under the weight of such suffering, and that's not what I want.

Da Bing

I've got this from a Belgium newsite.

It's the link I post under this.
http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/10756/Bloedbad-...Noorwegen.dhtml

All their articles

http://www.hln.be/hln/article/pagedList.do?language=nl&navigationItemId=10756&navigation=

They are in the Dutch language so you might use an online translation

+1. Life in solitary bread and water confinement with no books, magazines, TV, and no chance to communicate with a living being.

The so called 'freedom of the press' (actually freedom to profit from the miserary of others) needs to be suspended by a court on this issue, with a crippling fine and lengthy imprisonment to the 'journalist', the editor, and the outlet that tries to profit from this.

We know what would be punishment for us, but are we sure we know what this guy would consider punishment? Putting aside for the moment whether we care.

What is the purpose of punishment? Is there really a punishment that really works as a deterrent for someone who might do this kind of thing?

I am not fond of the idea of having my tax dollars support the daily needs of this type person unless it somehow is making a difference that is more positive than "voting him off the island."

After quickly reading through the 1500 pages of this Walters? manifesto, there is little I suspect that the perp would considered punishment as according to the document he considers himself perpetrating a martyrdom operation. The document contains very highly detailed counter intelligence and terrorism operations (probably plagerised from counter terrorism manuals being the son of a Norwegian diplomat.)

What is really disturbing about the document (assuming that the document is attributed to the perp), is the cultural symbolism appeal he makes to American right wingers/Christian fundamentalists, such as the so called 'Knights Templar' US marine uniform and SEAL emulation photo opportunity publicity shots. Hopefully this is the work of the lone nut or even a localised Norwegian/pan European cell of right wing extremists and not Alex Jones analysis of his accurate prediction of current events and is not a pysops operation perpetrated by even darker forces during the current looming financial crisis.

Several have voiced similar thoughts and I'm inclined to think this is about the best the kids could be expected to do. The suggestions to turn off cell phones are good. IMO picking up an improvised weapon on their way to cover shouldn't be completely ruled out if we are talking about kids that are in their very late teens.

I did read about the shooting of the off-duty police officer but what I read made no mention of whether or not he was in uniform or armed. I know a single armed responder may offer little protection in some scenarios but they have a much better chance than an unarmed officer. Around here any gathering of that many kids would almost certainly have at least one armed officer on duty. I hate to say it but this would be particularly true if the kids were from politically well connected, upper middle-class or better families.

Apparently a former PM was the primary target on the island: Norway shooting: killer 'confirms Gro Harlem Brundtland was main target' .

It doesn’t take any training, just presence of mind and a desire to live… sometimes just fear of death. That may substitute for courage in this situation. Of course, any training or study you may have done along these lines would most likely help, but it’s not required.


Yes, as a matter of fact, training for an active shooter has been going on pretty regularly since JeffCo.


No training or traps required, just use the environment to your advantage and use what you’ve got. What’s the alternative?


650 to 1… hmmm
The actual results were about 160 or more shot, 93 or more dead. If folks charged, the numbers would have been worse? I really do not believe that.


Do or die? … close enough …


No, how did it turn out for them?


It works for any situation, crime or not. It puts you in a better position to handle any situation you're in.


No, situational awareness does not keep you safe from danger, it improves your reaction time, minimizes loss and heightens your chances of survival.


History shows mass attacks happen, no matter what the weapon. You are getting into typical political mindset here.




3 seconds would be considered slow. I don’t have the info on how he was armed, and it seems like more info is coming out.


Even if he had a 100 round magazine… he shot over 160 people!

I would think he could have been stopped before that number was reached.

News is reporting he may have had other help… still don’t know…

Lots of Monday morning quarterbacks in this thread. We are talking about children. You want a group of untrained teenagers to charge an active shooter? Really?

I shudder when I think about this. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. I don't know what I'd do. Instinct is going to take over. I've been at Scout camps with 300-400 youth plus leaders. No armed guards and nowhere to hid but the forest. I'm sure there are a few adult leaders that would try to take him out but the thought of the kids trying to do that sends shivers down my spine. Of course, the alternative is equally scary.

Untrained is the operative word here. I do remember mugging an adult instructor with 2 other buddies (one went on to become a Paratrooper and the other a Rock ape) in the army cadets aged about 14 or 15. But this was in sand dunes at dusk, so there was an element of surprise, which we later got in trouble for because he lost his Enfield bolt rifle, assuming that we had run off with it. We did receive CQB training for the 3 star qualification aged about 15, which was a team activity i.e. a battle formation of 3-4 working together. Organising a response of untrained teenagers would be virtually impossible and dealing with/killing/disarming the assailant would be virtually none existent, especially if the camp had a no knifes rule in force.

+1 Untrained. And unequipped. It takes trained and properly equipped professionals to effectively go up against a determined shooter using a semi-auto (or auto) rifle. Look what happened when the LA Police, only armed with side arms, went up against 2 determined shooters at the Bank of America shoot-out in LA in 1997. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

The LA police are no pushovers. Two guys did it to them. Unarmed untrained teenagers? No way. Run and hide was the only option; not a good one, but the only one.

I think I answered my own question.

Norwegian police do not carry firearms on a daily basis; they keep them locked down in the patrol cars, and if need arises they have to get permission by the police commissioner or someone authorized by him or her. If there is no time to contact a superior, a police officer may arm himself and anyone under his command.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Police_Service

This is not an answer to only your question and point, but you address the thought or mindset in the most brief way.

The thread starter:


We, you and I, will never know all the details of this shooting. We may read every article about it and see every T.V. report. There are facts and indicators we will never have access to.

I can remember my teenage years, which included playing high school football, other sports and other physical activities. Yes, it is a freightening thought of teenagers facing an armed, determined gunman. But this gunman is actively shooting those teenagers, and we see some of how this incident turned out.

What it looks like is that they (news reports) have dropped the number killed by gunfire to 68. The number shot still looks to be around 160 or more. So, I ask, do you want an active shooter to gun down 160 or more teenagers... is that alright with you? No, I don't want my children to have to charge and attempt to disarm an active shooter. That would be a terrible and dangerous thing to do. But what would you rather they do, what is the alternative, to teach them to be murdered?

What took place didn't turn out too good for those kids in my view. I think there was a better thing to do. Monday morning quarterbacking? Maybe to some.

Let's say that some of them together, or even individually, started charging the shooter. Let's say 30 of them were killed and another 60 were shot. Is that a good thing? No, it is a terrible thing. If that did happen and we looked at it, I am sure most would now be saying "They should never have done that, they should have ran and hidden and waited for the trained, armed police to take care of it".

But, if we want to learn something from this, it would be that terrible things happen, and if we don't take action, they will continue to happen. We are looking at what the outcome of running and hiding was in this situation. Every situation is different. Awareness of what is going on around you is a start. Knowing the world you live in is a start. Running from the situation or ignoring reality in most situations won't get you killed, but in an "active shooter" situation, it is not the solution.

A 26-acre island with six buildings and 600 kids. That had to be like shooting fish in a barrel.

But one unarmed man did what he could. He wasn't on the island, but... German tourist rescues teens

Although he can only get a maximum sentence of 21 years, it is my fond wish that the other prisoners there see him as prisoners here view child molesters/killers.

But it does offend me that his 'manifesto' *gag* is being distributed.

Sue

It doesn't really matter what you or I draw from the tragedy in Norway, we're Americans, fully armed, with a higher incidence of armed assault, and I submit a fair higher incidence of crazy people on the loose. I can't even begin to imagine what my response would be as a Norwegian - but probably it wouldn't involve massive changes to anything I do. Its a different place than the US - I was there for their Constitution Day a few years back, I marched in the annual parade which took me past the Royal Palace and 40 feet from their royal family. NO bullet proof glass. NO metal detectors. It was nice, and I felt a little Norwegian that day. I gather they don't live in fear for their lives or the lives of their children, and there's the tragedy here, in that sense so many have lost loved ones in an insane man's assault on children. what a meaningless, insane, cowardly act.

Engineer to prepare for a similar act in your own locale if you want, it really doesn't matter - the key fact is that in Norway, I don't think they count it a sign of weakness to say 'we'll do no more than exact justice from this person' as a way of responding to a terrible tragedy.

Susan -- Between the German tourist and other campers (see Hero Camper Rescued Teens Fleeing Norway Massacre) campers on the mainland pulled "about 150 people from the water"; that's 25% of the number reported on the island and significantly reduced the target pool. It seems that getting off the island was a fairly successful tactic.

Teaching your children to swim well in open water would seem to be a good lesson to be learned; useful skill in any situation involving a lake, a river, the ocean, sailing, et al.

IMO charging the shooter would be a far less survivable tactic.

Any skill that could possibly save your life or the lives of others is a useful skill.

Sue

answering the question about the guard:
Norway Suspect Ordered Held...

First, Basecamp, do not edit my post down to soundbites and then respond to the individual sentences. That takes them out of context, and constitutes an act of rudeness to fellow forum posters. This forum is based on a respectful discussion of ideas, giving your discussants a fair shake no matter how much you disagree with them.

As for your claim that there are "mass attacks" in history -- I assume you mean massive casualty from one or two attackers -- please cite me some good examples from the 5th century. Don't call anyone political if you can't. The fact is modern firearms increase tremendously our combative power, in a way that even 19th c. firearms do not. If there are any doubts, please ask the numerous Japanese soldiers who, having run out of ammunition, charged at American machine gun nests with little more than naked bayonets. As Colonel Cooper said, bushido is fine, but it's no match for 30-06.

As for my mention of the Fort Hood shooting, the point is that even people who were trained for combat could not successfully resist a prepared, trained attacker. They had the desire to live as much as anyone else. Why did it take armed people to take him down? You seem to be underestimating the typical chaos of combat, which includes psychological confusion. Knowing what to do to improve your chances of survival is one thing. It's quite another to gather up the psychological resources to carry it out.

Basecamp, if we are confronted with a shooter, I'll charge with you, along with anyone else. We'll be right behind you every step of the way. Will you still run towards him to take the first bullet, to certain death, so that others will have a better chance of survival? Or will you be like the others, hoping that it would be someone else, and not you, to take a bullet, and that you will be among the survivors behind this brave man? What makes you KNOW that you will actually walk the walk when the time comes? What can you say to convince us that you are not just talking big behind the safety of the keyboard?

You haven't said anything to dissuade me from the belief that it's best to catch the criminal at the source. I believe the same strategy for airport security: don't catch things, which can always change and be hidden, but catch the people who would use the things. I don't think we're having a useful discussion. If you know effective tactics to deal with Breivik situation, please share.

Da Bing

Bing, wasn't trying to edit down to soundbites. There was a lot to address and I was trying to take it one idea at a time. If I was rude, I apologize.

I would like to know how you stop a criminal before he commits a crime, if you figure it out, there are a lot of LE agencies who would like to hear from you.

I guess you won't know about me til it happens, then. If you want to check out my responses, discuss it with anyone that you personally now who has the responsibility to respond to this type on incident. What I have mentioned is more effective than running, hiding or trying to swim away in this situation.

If you get a different answer, I'm interested in hearing it, along with that person's contact info.

I'm not real familiar with the 400's. You got me. I guess you must not be political.

By the way, If you know of a society who benefitted from being disarmed, please let us know.

Was it 600 Japanese who charged the single American with a semi-auto rifle?

Folks are asking for learning points. I see problems with the outcome of the incident and know how some folks are trained to handle it for a better outcome. It is not the things you want to think about every day, but we really can't live the way we used to.

There have been occasions, where bayonet charges have proved decisive even in modern warfare such as the up hill night time attack by the Scots Guards on Mount Tumbledown during the Falklands war in 1982.

How did the police know to go to the island?

Tactic list:

evade: run, hide, swim
counter: swarm attack

Available "weapons": rocks, sticks, dirt, sand

From an excerpt I just read:

After receiving an alarming call from his daughter attending a summer camp on Utoeya, Geir Johnsen rang police but said he was met with a wall of incredulity.

"What happened is that I was absolutely not believed when I explained what my daughter on Utoeya had told me. I was told if that was the case, the children had only to call the police themselves. Even when I begged them to take me seriously," he told local newspaper Fremover.

After two or three minutes of "frustrating" conversation, "I think I said something like, 'you really aren't being much help, you old [censored]' and she told me not to call her a [censored]," Johnsen said.

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/worl...l#ixzz1TJW3vjeo

Lessons?

*Teach your kids to use 911 properly
*Try to work with the authorities. Insuliting someone isn't going to help.

If reporting a terrorist incident and you are having trouble reporting the incident ask the dispatcher if an anti-terrorism exercise was currently being held or still ongoing. Then inform them that the report you are making was real world and not part of the exercise. And that it might be a good idea to inform the dispatcher to ensure that the responders have live ammunition when they respond.

The primary lesson is that 9-1-1 operators need to take the information and act on it even if they don't believe it. When I heard the first report of an aircraft flying into the WTC on 9-11, I didn't believe it, but I turned on Fox News anyway and watched the replay. 9-11 operators are people and they have a right to disbelieve. But they do not have a right to use their judgment to disregard a citizen's report.

Telling a father that his "children had only to call the police themselves" is lame -- very lame. In CA, a cellular call to 9-1-1 is handled by CHP. Be prepared for a long wait while they get around to answering. Calling a third party who can call 9-1-1 on land-line is more efficient.

Calling a female dispatcher an old B*tch will probably not get you very far as it will fire up the emotional part of the brain. Calling a male dispatcher an expletive probably would help somewhat to get your point across more effectively.

Again if this doesn't get you to far. Then a couple of questions to the dispatcher need to be asked;

'What is your name?'
'What is your Manager's name?'
'I need to speak to your manager, immediately'

Personally, I think the best defense is to instill children with a few basic tenants at an early age.

1) Bad things happen. Boats sink. Cars and planes crash. People try to kidnap kids.

2) In the end, you are solely responsible for your life and safety. Your parents, the firefighters, the police, the SAR will all try to help you, but in the end, it comes down to you.

3) Think. Problem-solve. Plan. Your mind is your strongest asset.

4) When your (and other's) safety is involved, anything many be considered.

5) Prepare/act. Do what you think is the best thing to do (including doing nothing).

6) Follow through -- leverage your advantage/success. Don't be the idiot in the movie that knocks the bad guy with the machete down and then runs away instead of keep hitting him with the rock till he doesn't get up.

7) Your parents love you and support you. They shouldn't be afraid of acting because they think they'll get in trouble.

Have what-if discussions. They don't even have to be survival oriented. Follow up with "why?". Talk about things you see in the movie and "what would you do differently" and "why?".

We can't tell them *what* to do. Every situation is different --

In the case of the shooting, if you happened to be behind the guy when he starts shooting, clubbing him over the head with a rock may be a viable option. But if you are 30 feet away and he is facing you, is most likely is a poor tactic.

But we can teach them to do their best to survive be it hiding or running or clubbing the attacker with a rock.

-john

Latest news here indicates the kids ranged in age up to the mid-twenties, that many had cell phones and were using them to report and ask help, emergency dispatch for a time refused all calls except those related to the bombing, that the police boat that finally was used broke down on the one minute trip to the island, and the police had to rely on civilian assist to get to the island [civilians were already working to rescue children from the water].

In Norway, really dangerous people can be sentenced by the court to be "contained". (Sorry, don't know the best translation). The purpose of containment is to protect the society from the worst criminals. There is no time limit to cointainment - the court will make you rot in jail for as long as it is deemed necessary.

The most likely outcome is that Breivik will be sentenced to 25 years and when those years are gone (minus a few years, 25 years sentence equals 17-19 real years or so) he will not be released - he will be contained for as long as he lives.

Face it, friends - there is absolutely no way a civilized society can punish a man so that the punishment is in proportion with Breivik's actions. But we feel pretty confident he won't be a free man again. Ever.

Question: What is the best tool that can be used to stop a madman from killing others?

To survive: Do not live in, or visit, places that ban honest citizens from having and using this tool for their own defense. If you do go, then you are knowingly increasing your risk level, so don't complain if something bad happens.

In the case of groups of children, responsible adults should be supervising things, and responsible adults generally have ready access to tools they may need.

People with objections to tools can put their trust in others to take care of the situation, and their safest course of action is to run and hide while things are being handled.