for fun trigger time... try USPSA pistol and especially USPSA multigun (3 gun)

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a RPG is a good guy with a Charlie G

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.

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.

Are you trained for that? I am.



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.



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.



The statistics do not support this position.

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


True. What point are you making?


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


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?


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.

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

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.

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.

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.