How to survive a shooting incident...

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Stressfire

New member
Attended a conference yesterday and one of the presentations was about how to survive a critical incident, such as a rampage shooter, in the workplace.

Tactics presented were the ALICE method, devised after Columbine by two of the officers. Personally, I would prefer the "draw and return fire" method, but as I work in what is technically a state agency - it would be a felony to carry even if our employee policies did not prohibit it.

Anyways - I spent most of the workshop cringing at every mention of hunkering down, barring doors, and....sigh....throwing things at the shooter.

Would this even work? Heck, the first words from the presenter were "Ohio has recently passed concealed carry, and license holders know the rules." Gah! Yes, and they won't be there to save out butts because we don't allow guns!

As I told my coworkers "Sorry, guys, but if this happens, I'm out the back door. I love you, but you're on your own and I'll be in my car with my phone and my gun, because I'm not comin' back in"

More a mini-rant than anything, was just so frustrating....
 
Would it be any kind of crime for you to carry a taser? I realize this is hardly an even substitute for a firearm, but whenever you can avoid death AND breaking the law I recommend it:)

The best way to survive any dangerous situation is to not be in it in the first place, or get out of it as soon as you realize you're in it. So I agree with your instinct to leave the situation and get to your phone and gun in your vehicle.

My first rule of combat is this: The best defense is a solid offense. But, since your workplace won't allow a personal sidearm, then skip to rule number two: If a responsive offense is not possible, establish a solid defense. In short, it may seem cowardly, but barricading yourself (and possibly others) or hiding has been keeping thousands of animal species alive on this planet since the beginning of the world. Engaging a superior enemy with inferior strength should only be done in one instance and one instance ONLY: when your morals or conscience absolutely require it, such as when defending your loved ones, or the ideals of your country in battle. Otherwise, engaging such an enemy is simply heroistic stupidity.
 
I've discussed this at length. The training courses emphasize hide, flee and fight.

All quite reasonable. Each has risks.

In some rampages, the shooter has looked for hiders, shot through doors, etc.

Fleeing if you don't run into the fire zone works, even under fire it might be hard to hit you in a pack. Go for it.

Fighting with improvised weapons just depends on the venue. In some close quarters it has been done successfully but some took rounds.

If the killer sets up to do a large venue, like a theatre or lecture hall - getting to the shooter will be very, very hard. Some bluster that everyone should group into the 300 and charge.

Throwing things is not viable given the distances. We tried a simulation and you just can't throw in lecture room distances. Some charges have been shot down as at VT, IIRC.

The fight part always avoids firearm responses as they are not acceptable. Institutions don't want guns for political and libability issues.

Gotta go.
 
My first rule of combat is this: The best defense is a solid offense. But, since your workplace won't allow a personal sidearm, then skip to rule number two: If a responsive offense is not possible, establish a solid defense. In short, it may seem cowardly, but barricading yourself (and possibly others) or hiding has been keeping thousands of animal species alive on this planet since the beginning of the world. Engaging a superior enemy with inferior strength should only be done in one instance and one instance ONLY: when your morals or conscience absolutely require it, such as when defending your loved ones, or the ideals of your country in battle. Otherwise, engaging such an enemy is simply heroistic stupidity.
Click to expand...

Well stated.
 
Well, like I said, this was intended more as a mini-rant than anything. Maybe it's because I refuse to be victimized where it can be helped, or maybe just because I'm a gun person and one who carries whenever I legally can.

It was just so frustrating to spend an hour being told to run, hide, and throw things when all of my instincts were screaming Draw, Aim, Fire, Reload if necessary

Now, I realize that (in my state at least) I am bound by law to be unarmed while at my job. But it just makes no sense to me whatsoever.

So, as I said - shooting incident at work, I'm out the back door or diving through a window, whatever's faster:confused:

Interesting article, Glenn. Another question we were asked during the presentation was how many of us knew what gunfire sounded like - not from TV. I was the only one who had my hand raised....was a bit depressing.

A chair fort....well, better than nothing I suppose, but staying stationary or hiding under tables does not seem like it would do much good. As to throwing objects to disorient the shooter - I can't see any way that doing so would not make the thrower a target.
 
Last edited:
Stay close to whoever was responsible for the no gun rule and use them for a shield.
Click to expand...

I don't think the AG is likely to visit my workplace:rolleyes:

Even if we pulled the signs down, the law barring carry in government buildings (and libraries) will still stand. Actually, it's my own fault that they are still up. My boss wanted to pull them down figuring that CHLers already knew that they couldn't carry here - they remain posted on my recommendation to at least give a fair warning, no need to create unwitting felons out of law-abiding people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top