You don't know how it is going to go. This is true in many ways. You don't know how far away the police are. You don't know how long it will take them to enter the building to confront the shooter. You don't know if anyone has called the police. You don't know how many bad guys there might be in an active shooter situation.
Tactically, the correct response is to wait for backup to cover rear/flanks as the police do. Can't fault them for this.
Strategically, allowing the opposition to consolidate their position unopposed would be a mistake.
Is acting solo in an active shooter scenario tactically sound? No, it definitely violates the first of the two rules above. It would be wiser to secure your position (and family members/others) and effect an escape using your limited resources.
That said, before 9/11, pretty much all airline hijackings ended after several days/weeks on a lonely strip of tarmac and some long negotiations. Since 9/11, some attacks are aimed indiscriminately at citizens b/c they are citizens; the latest example would be the attack on the Nigerian mall.
If I saw the shooter and he was a guy in a polo shirt and a revolver, I might step away.
If the shooter was in a tac vest with zip ties and multiple drum magazines, it might be stoopider (yes, that is doofus spell check approved) to confront the shooter, but it might ultimately save lives. Maybe other peoples lives, but that's a question that the "good guy with a gun" will have to answer for him/herself. I think Pax already gave great examples of possible questions one might ask oneself, hopefully before one found oneself in a real scenario.
I don't know the full details about how the Nevada shooters were kitted up. I would assume that at least the wife was looking like a citizen as Mr. Wilcox overlooked her as a threat (maybe he never saw her?), but maybe the shooter was looking like he was there for the long term and to do big damage, so Mr. Wilcox decided to press on and follow the strategic goal of rule 2.
I can't say. He did his best to stop unlawful shooting and terrorism in a public space.
Tactically, the correct response is to wait for backup to cover rear/flanks as the police do. Can't fault them for this.
Strategically, allowing the opposition to consolidate their position unopposed would be a mistake.
Is acting solo in an active shooter scenario tactically sound? No, it definitely violates the first of the two rules above. It would be wiser to secure your position (and family members/others) and effect an escape using your limited resources.
That said, before 9/11, pretty much all airline hijackings ended after several days/weeks on a lonely strip of tarmac and some long negotiations. Since 9/11, some attacks are aimed indiscriminately at citizens b/c they are citizens; the latest example would be the attack on the Nigerian mall.
If I saw the shooter and he was a guy in a polo shirt and a revolver, I might step away.
If the shooter was in a tac vest with zip ties and multiple drum magazines, it might be stoopider (yes, that is doofus spell check approved) to confront the shooter, but it might ultimately save lives. Maybe other peoples lives, but that's a question that the "good guy with a gun" will have to answer for him/herself. I think Pax already gave great examples of possible questions one might ask oneself, hopefully before one found oneself in a real scenario.
I don't know the full details about how the Nevada shooters were kitted up. I would assume that at least the wife was looking like a citizen as Mr. Wilcox overlooked her as a threat (maybe he never saw her?), but maybe the shooter was looking like he was there for the long term and to do big damage, so Mr. Wilcox decided to press on and follow the strategic goal of rule 2.
I can't say. He did his best to stop unlawful shooting and terrorism in a public space.