Double Naught,
I appreciate the time you put into that post and the information contained within it. It is of value, but I think it also over simplifies many different scenarios into the one being specifically discussed here, active shooters in schools.
If you go along with the FBI definition of mass shooting, then lot of acts that aren't what people think of when they hear the phrase get thrown into the mix.
In other words, you don't like the data because they don't fit your preconceived notions. Got it.
Okay you have deviated here from Active Shooter to Mass Shooting, but I will play along. Yeah, if you go with THE FBI definition, as opposed to making up alternative definitions to fit one's preconceived notions, then the FBI definition may not fit the preconceived notions. I see this repeatedly when folks try to minimize the tally of mass shootings by redefining what a mass shooting is so as to be exclusionary. It is a silly game. The people involved in the shootings are not making decisions as to whether or not their particular shooting falls into some sort of definition one way or the other. The definition is in place by the FBI. No reason to change it.
I am glad you brought up the FBI and their definition as they also did a neat study of 2000-2013 incidents of active shooters. In only about 40% of the cases did the active shooters commit suicide, regardless of whether they faced armed resistance or not. In fact, they committed suicide over 23% of the time BEFORE police arrived. That would leave roughly 17% of the time that suicide was committed after police arrived and some of those happened before the shooters were ever actually directly engaged by the police.
What is really interesting and prudent to the discussion of ACTIVE shooters is that in over 28% of the cases, the shooter and law enforcement engaged in gunfire. By the FBI's data, Sharkbite's notion that active shooters don't fight back is wrong.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf/view
The ISIS related attacks feature different motives.
So you want to not include ISIS attacks in the mix of active shooters because they have different motivation? Are you suggesting all the other shooters, or even all the same school shooters have some sort of unified motivation? I know you haven't looked into it much, but if you take the time to read about the histories of these events, you will find motivations are all over the board. At the time of the shooting, motivation is irrelevant as it almost always unknown to the first responders. They don't have the luxury of querying, "Excuse me Old Chap, but what is your motivation for this shooting so that we may respond in the appropriate fashion?" So by your own admission that these responders don't know the motivation, then Sharkbite's ill conceived statement that "active shooters" will surrender or commit suicide at the first sign is armed response instills a false sense of security and perceived anticipation of a riskless victory to responders.
Sharkbite's wording may not have been 100% clear, but I believe the sentiment that the shooters generally stop attacking once engaged is true, especially in school shootings.
No, here is where you are wrong. Sharkbite's wording was exceptionally clear. That was the problem. He said the
statistics are irrefutable, that at the first sign of armed resistence (not sometime later, but at the first sign), the shooter stops killing and that there is
NOT a single occurrence of fighting back against armed resistance and upon meeting armed resistance the shooter either gives up or commits suicide. I don't know how he could have been more clear. I only need one example to refute the absolutist statement. I provided many.
I understand you don't like the examples I provided and wish to discount them by your criteria of things like different motivation, not what people think of as mass shootings, and the subject being discussed here is school shootings, or in the case of Columbine, you called it an "anomaly" because Klebold and Harris were better prepared, but I provided multiple examples of school shooters who fought back, not just Columbine. However, for Columbine, we are again left with the issue of, "Excuse me Old Chap, but are you an anomaly active mass shooter or a standard active mass shooter?" First responders don't know. That you or anybody else thinks it is an anomaly after the fact is irrelevant to what it was at the time of the event, an active shooting event.
I only included 2 examples of school shootings where the shooter fought back and did not give up or commit suicide immediately after encountering armed resistance. Here are more examples.
Umpqua Community College 2015 - shot it out with cops before committing suicide
Florida State University 2014 - Active shooter event, 3 downed before shooter killed in battle with cops
Reynolds HS, Oregon 2014 -Active shooter, 1 killed 1 wounded before gun battle with police and then the shooter committed suicide
Millard HS Nebraska 2011 - Active shooter engaged responding police, later fled and committed suicide
Amish School Shooting 2006 - Took hostages, school surrounded by armed resistance (law enforcement), then he shot numerous hostages before committing suicide
Active School Shooter where incident did not start at school...
Santa Monica 2013 - Active shooter, spree shooter, ended up at a school after shooter engaged numerous people and vehicles including cops and was killed at the school in a shootout with cops.
So yeah, Sharkbite's irrefutable statistical claim that active shooters (even at schools)
never fight back after encountering armed resistance is just plain WRONG. Armed People who respond (cops or citizens) are very much in danger by these school shooters, which is not what Sharkbite's statement would indicate.
Also, it's not that hard to figure out who to shoot when that person is trying to kill your kids, maybe that requires West Point or SEAL acceptance, I don't know.