Dealing with the active shooter

How would you deal with the active shooter?

  • Make a run for it as soon as you see the weapon

    Votes: 12 9.3%

  • Stay in place, freeze and be silent

    Votes: 4 3.1%

  • Hit the ground

    Votes: 4 3.1%

  • Try reasoning with the active shooter

    Votes: 1 0.8%

  • Go for cover

    Votes: 53 41.1%

  • Whip out your concealed carry 1911 and open fire

    Votes: 55 42.6%
  • Total voters
    129
  • Poll closed .
J

Jt1971

Moderator
This was an interesting video:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/14/official-gunman-killed-fla-school-meeting/

The moment you see someone with a pistol in a place where there should not be one, what do you do? Do you try to talk with that person like in the video above? Do you simply make a run for it as fast as you can? Do you just sit there silent?

You can cover a lot of ground in a few seconds and it seems like there was plenty of time to make a dash for it. Once I see someone produce a weapon, then I am going to run and not hesitate. A few seconds of hesitation means all the difference between life and death.
Jt1971 is online now
 
The scenario is way too broad to give a general answer.

Proximity to the shooter is the key factor for me in determining what I'd do. If someone surprised me and is holding me at gunpoint within 2 feet from me, I'd use a technique that I've learned and practiced to disarm him. I would not consider drawing my concealed weapon at this point - too slow and dangerous.

If I see someone approaching me in, lets say, a parking lot, I'd seek cover and be prepared, and have my hand on my holstered weapon.

If someone is 3-4 feet from me, holding me at gunpoint, I might just do whatever he asks, might try to close the gap in a "non-threatening" manner and disarm him, might jump for cover if possible, I might draw my weapon and fire, if I thought I had enough time, or any combination of these things.....whatever I thought was best under the circumstances.

If someone someone is waiving a gun around more than 10 feet away from me, and is not yet threatening me or my family - I'm getting the heck out of there as fast as I can.
 
Last edited:
Not a clear question.
Define your use of the term "active shooter".
BTW, if the "active shooter" is already shooting, you may already be dead and have no options.
 
"Active shooter" to me means a shooter ... who is shooting. If this is what the OP had in mind, I will be moving, seeking cover AND pulling my weapon all at the same time.
 
Rifleman is right, the poll doesn't match the context of the movie. In the movie, bystanders try to negotiate with the shooter before any shots are fired. At this point he is just a man with a gun. Only when he starts shooting is he an active shooter.

As much training as Skans (or anyone) has, no one is going to willingly engage an active shooter in hand to hand unless it is their last and only option; it's simply too dangerous. But before the situation gets that far, hand to hand is an option if someone is trained. the point is that when the first shot is fired the situation changes.
 
the point is that when the first shot is fired the situation changes.
Click to expand...

Yes, I would completely agree with that - maybe I misunderstood the OP - my answers are based on a the BG pointing a gun, maybe making a demand, but no shots fired up to that point.
 
Honestly, if this "Pre-Active Shooter" was in my proximity, I'd move quite slowly and calmly into a safe flanking line of fire behind his line of sight, with no bystanders in the path. I'd draw my weapon, train it COM and wait. If he raised his weapon, I'd fire. If he turns to me with anything other than his head, I'd fire. If he drops his weapon I move closer to order him to the ground. Either way, with me behind his center line at a range of 10-20 feet, and my weapon trained on him ready to fire at an instance, I win 98 times out of 100.

If there is an active shooter, your most immediate goal should be to get to cover. Go somewhere where it'd be difficult to shoot you. Draw your weapon on the way. If you stay and try to fire, but get killed, you're no good to anyone including yourself, and you've possibly given him another weapon. Get away, assess, decide, then act.

That wasn't one of your options.

~LT

And just think...
"What if that woman who ran up and hit him with her purse (stupid) was a CCW Citizen with a 5-shot snubbie in that purse? Could have ended it right then.
 
No one answer. My suggestion is to take a quality FOF class and see the ways you get shot or save the day.

Anyone who suggests there is one answer as compared to having a set of abilities and well thought out heuristic procedures to evaluate the situation and act automatically doesn't know squat.

Like that - it's from the literature on emergency training?
 
Don't be a hero, you'll end up a statistic. No reason to engage unless the shooter engages you.
Click to expand...

I feel like this is just as much of a cop out. If the shooter isn't engaging me, but IS engaging good innocent and unarmed people; meanwhile I have the ABILITY to act... I have more moral RESPONSIBILITY to act to prevent the continued loss of life.

Responsibilities gravitate to the person who can shoulder them.

~Tom Stoppard
Click to expand...

At least... that's how I see it.

~LT
 
Don't be a hero, you'll end up a statistic. No reason to engage unless the shooter engages you.

vs.

I feel like this is just as much of a cop out. If the shooter isn't engaging me, but IS engaging good innocent and unarmed people; meanwhile I have the ABILITY to act... I have more moral RESPONSIBILITY to act to prevent the continued loss of life.


This is a personal choice - not the kind of thing anyone can really give good advice on, other than, whatever you do, make sure you don't hurt innocents.
 
if I felt I could stop innocent people from getting killed without further endangering anyone I would most likely engage the threat if I were close enough to do so. if I'm on the opposite end of the mall and the guy is a ways off I'm probably going to try and get people moving towards the exit instead of trying to maneuver to get a shot.

it would depend very heavily on the exact circumstances of the individual incident but I'm going to try and help as many people as realistically possible. if I had a family I'd be more focused on them and myself and less with others but since I'm single I'm more willing to chance my safety if it means helping someone else.
 
My responsibility is first and foremost to my family. That responsibility includes not just keeping them safe but also in keeping myself safe.

I am not responsible for other people choosing not to prepare to defend themselves.

In regards to inserting yourself into a situation when you have a choice? Ask Mark Wilson how that turned out.

If it happens when I'm right there and can or have to do something then I'll do something. There is NO WAY I'm inserting myself into the situation unless those "in my charge" are in danger.
 
Don't be a hero, you'll end up a statistic. No reason to engage unless the shooter engages you.
Click to expand...

Do you know what an active shooter is? It's not a hostage type scenario; rather it's a merciless person who shoots till he/she is either stopped, commits suicide or runs out of ammo.

If you're not willing to use self defense against an imminent threat-which in this case is an active shooter; see description above-then you're not helping yourself and you WILL be a statistic.

If it were me, the active shooter gets stopped dead in their tracks before another human life is taken/harmed.
 
We've had the moral debate over and over again. I might suggest people search on that before simply saying you have a moral responsibility.

With no offense, it's a cliche to say you would act. There are many factors to go into deciding to act in a pro-social manner. It's in other past threads.

Take a breath and read those before you post on that topic. I'm too busy now to search for all the debates. If someone wants to find the past threads - that would be a big help.

You don't charge Godzilla with a J frame to save Dr. Lecter if the latter is at the mall in Tokyo. That's a joke.

Do you put your kid under cover and go join the fight. That's happened. A bad guy ran by and killed the kid. The GG could have got out of there.
 
I'm more or less impressed by the woman who apparently went to try and pursuade this man to stop trying to kill people by beating him in the arm with her purse. She apparently felt a similar moral imperative (as agreed is her own personal/moral response to the precipitating event) and felt that she HAD to act. But what an almost laughable attempt to disuade a murderous attacker. Honestly there is no reason in the world I would have expected her to survive the attack.

Now had she been armed and properly trained, this could have taken another turn. Or at least a similar one, considering the shooter was wounded by an armed security guard before he hit anyone anyway.

~LT
 
I'm more or less impressed by the woman who apparently went to try and pursuade this man to stop trying to kill people by beating him in the arm with her purse. She apparently felt a similar moral imperative (as agreed is her own personal/moral response to the precipitating event) and felt that she HAD to act. But what an almost laughable attempt to disuade a murderous attacker.
Click to expand...
I don't think she tried to pursuade him as much as possibly knock the gun out of his hand. She wasn't pursuading him to strop trying to kill people as he had not yet attempted to try to kill anyone. She wasn't disuading a murderous attacker as there was no murderous attack at that time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkFMrAMI9SM

She might have done much better stabbing the guy with a pencil or pen, letter opener, scissor, etc. or hitting him in the head with a stapler. She had some time. In the youtube video of the event, she is behind him for several seconds as his attention is directed elsewhere.

Honestly there is no reason in the world I would have expected her to survive the attack.
Click to expand...

That makes 2 of us.

Now had she been armed and properly trained, this could have taken another turn. Or at least a similar one, considering the shooter was wounded by an armed security guard before he hit anyone anyway.
Click to expand...

Well, had anyone been armed and trained, things might have been different. The security guard was armed and trained. He apparently shot the guy in the leg after the shooting started. The police showed up in time to still be able to order the board members to the floor, but not in time to actually be helpful.

Most people, even those who own guns, are not properly trained. Look at the people getting their CCW permits. How many are regular shooters? How many attend gun schools? How many shoot more than 1000 rounds a year? How many shoot less than 100 rounds a year? How many haven't shot since the qualified with their CCW or bought their pistol?

It is hard enough getting people to be armed, but getting them armed and trained is an entirely different matter.
 
Shot him in the leg because of a stress flinch or premature trigger pull as he was bringing the gun up. No follow shots on a downed but still armed and active risk.

Of course, all of us, even without training, would have done better - I suppose.

And that would translate into competent performance in the rampage mall incident - such as happened at the Tyler courthouse and Tacoma mall.

The assumption is always that we win. Is that the case?
 
The Board members had nowhere to go; their backs were to the wall and it was a long way to either end of their table. I guess they could have made a run for it, but they had no idea how good a shot he was and ran the risk of being picked off one at a time if he was a decent shot.

Since they were unarmed, they had few response options under the circumstances once he drew the gun. When he was busy painting the Vendetta symbol on the wall before he started shooting is when they should have moved out of his area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top