Run, hide, fight - NY Times

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/u...counter-mass-attacks.html?pagewanted=2&ref=us

This is an interesting piece that thought is changing that in rampages one must be more active than simply hiding. It mentions that folks have managed to tackle the bad guy. Now, we haven't seen the book but I wonder if the report deals with the issue that having a gun is the best way to fight back or it will skirt that issue.

Tackling the BG is possible in close quarters during the reload or malfunction. And do it if you are still standing.

But the logical conclusion - which I told the TX state House committee is to be able to use a firearm. But it doesn't look like campus carry will make it. Yet again, sigh.
 
Glenn said:
Now, we haven't seen the book but I wonder if the report deals with the issue that having a gun is the best way to fight back or it will skirt that issue.
Click to expand...
I doubt that the report will ignore the possibility of fighting back with a gun. But just to play devil's advocate for a moment, I think it's possible to argue that we won't know whether it's the best way until there are more instances in which people do fight back with guns -- are the outcomes actually better than when people fight back by other means? (Not that I think they wouldn't be, but it's an empirical question.)

That said, I thought it was a step forward for the Times even to acknowledge that it can happen:
In 16 of the attacks studied by the researchers, civilians were able to stop the perpetrator, subduing him in 13 cases and shooting him in 3 cases. In other attacks, civilians have obstructed or delayed the gunman until the police arrived. ​
 
You would think people wouldn't have to be told not to sit there and get shot. A sign of the times, I suppose.
 
You would think people wouldn't have to be told not to sit there and get shot.
Click to expand...
The problem is, they've been told many times to hide under desks and not to provide resistance.

In 1999, a day-trader went berserk in an Atlanta office and killed several people. There was a great deal of hand-wringing among human resource types, and the result was (paradoxically) to adopt a doctrine of passitivity in the face of violence.

Couple that with the frequent admonitions from gun-control advocates that the gun-owning employee is a ticking timebomb, and you've got an atmosphere in which people are woefully unprepared for public violence.
 
Our policy is run, hide, and fight back for the last year or so. Being armed to do that is still not an option, but I don't expect I'll just sit there waiting for a bullet. There is a big outcry for "safe rooms" to consolidate targets, I mean provide an option for those without a survival instinct to flee. I can't believe its a consideration, but people want to feel protected and this offers them a false sense of security. Our recommendation is get out!

The campus carry debate needs to take a serious change in direction. Maybe one day before I retire.
 
The campus debate is not going well in TX. Despite what seems to be legislative support, the same chicanery and fair weather friends of the past are active today. There is little faculty support but some campus support depending on the school.
 
Seems campus carry is meeting a similar fate here(Nevada). Last update I saw , was a "no action" update in committee, I think they're just going to let it die there.
 
It's amazing that the antigun forces can launch massive campaigns but the gun world cannot put forward the same energy - even in gun friendly states.

Not that some of us didn't try. :mad::(
 
Oregon's House Higher Education Committee is currently looking at two House Bills. HB 3009 would allow concealed carry on Oregon's college and university campuses, and HB 3114 which basically prohibit it. So doing my part to advocate for concealed carry, I sent the following:

It is unfortunate that the acts of madmen and lunatics who've committed horrible crimes have inspired legislation which on the whole will do nothing to prevent similar acts. House Bill 3114 is this kind of legislation.

Common sense has given way to common hysteria. In the absence of any meaningful action to prevent the mentally ill from obtaining and using firearms Oregon has proposed at least 11 House and Senate gun control bills since January of this year.

There are 56 private and public colleges and universities in the state serving tens of thousands of students and staff.

From 2005 to 2007, more than 100 murders, 16,000 assaults and 10,000 forcible sexual assaults were reported on college campuses – amounting to an average of more than nine sexual assaults a day. - The Department of Post-secondary Education Aggregated Data for calendar Years 2005 - 2007.

In 2010, 92,695 crimes were reported to police on college and university campuses; 97.1 percent were property crimes, and 2.9 percent violent crimes. Of the violent crimes reported on college campuses, 1,425 (53.2 percent) were aggravated assaults, 772 (28.8 percent) were robberies, 485 (18.1 percent) were forcible rapes, and 4 (0.15 percent) were murder or non-negligent manslaughter - FBI Uniform Crime Report 2010, Crime in the U.S. Table 9.

As of July 2012 there were 147,000 concealed handgun licenses issued in Oregon according to the U.S.Government Accountability Office. How many of these belong to daughters, mothers and wives enrolled in Oregon's colleges and universities? H.B. 3114 will put these women, (and many others) at risk with one less means to defend themselves against assault, rape or possible homicide.

By their vary nature criminals have the advantage of opportunity and surprise. The first responder in any attack is the victim, not law enforcement. H.B. 3114 surrenders the right to a legitimate, necessary and effective means of self defense to those who need it the most.

I'm asking that you please consider passing H.B. 3009 supporting licensed concealed carry on colleges and universities and oppose H.B. 3114 which would deny mothers, daughters, sons and wives the best means of self defense.
 
while first responders were “fairly well prepared” to deal with mass shootings, the public was not
Click to expand...

This is the statement that always gets me. Sounds nice but fact is the First Responders are never there during a mass shooting.

I did a search on Police Response times, I get varying answers from 8 - 22 minutes.

The Newton shooting took less then 4.5 minutes. A couple days before the Clackamas Mall shooting took less then that.

The Clackamas County Sheriff's office is about one block from the Clackamas County Mall, the police didn't arrive until it too was over.

I'm not blaming the police, after a 20 year LE career I know we can instantly appear where needed.

Run-hide-fight???? Throw garbage at the bad guy? Seems like that would draw attention to you.

The armed citizen may not be as well trained as the first responder, but he's there, the police aren't.
 
kriagwy said:
I'm not blaming the police, after a 20 year LE career I know we can instantly appear where needed.
Click to expand...
Wow! Can you teach our officers how to do that? ;)

In all seriousness, though, this is one of the things that bothers me about these gun control conversations. I have a great deal of respect for the officers that I deal with, but I know good and well that it will take several minutes, at best, for them to get to the scene of a shooting. That's simple physics. If a police car leaves the station at 7:00 pm, traveling at 60 mph . . . I always want to ask gun control proponents, "Do you have any CLUE how much damage a determined shooter can do in the 6 minutes that it will take LE to respond?!?"
 
It's amazing that the antigun forces can launch massive campaigns but the gun world cannot put forward the same energy - even in gun friendly states.

Not that some of us didn't try.
Click to expand...


Much of that support comes from the "idealistic" educated, young people and people who have never set foot off the campus like so many professors, etc.

They have idealistic and oftentimes unrealistic views of the world if they have never been exposed to the "normal world". Many have this belief in the sanctity of the utopian campus and can't stand to see it profaned and violated by guns, the source of all violence.

These are the same people who are so easily rallied for the cause of the week, whatever that cause might be.
 
Not that some of us didn't try.
Click to expand...
Been trying in Georgia, too. There are two fundamental roadblocks.

The first is the Board of Regents, a government body that oversees the university system here. They don't want campus carry, and they have the money and clout to kill it every session. To get anything passed, we need their cooperation, or at least their acceptance. That's not been easy.

The second is an emotional divide. When a horrible crime happens on campus, there are those who respond that we need tighter laws, and there are those who respond that we need to allow students and faculty more options in defending themselves. Those two groups can't seem to find common ground.

Until those hurdles are surmounted, we won't have progress. It's a tremendous uphill battle.
 
City of Houston TX...

The same topic came up a few months ago.
The city of Houston Texas put out the training video; Run Hide Fight.

It has some merit & it's good for most citizens(untrained or non-first responders).
I'm honestly not crazy about the "hide" concept. If a terrorist or whack-job or "seeded back-up" plants a IED or bomb, hiding may keep you in the danger zone/blast area, :eek: .
You also a simple easy to access target for a active shooter or "tango" to wax. :(

I do agree with the advice to flee(ie: BEAT CHEEKS) & not render aid or stop.

That may sound cold but in the danger & stress it could slow down the SWAT, EOD, fire-fighters, EMTs, etc.

CF
 
At the IDPA/carbine match folks shot the equivalent of 20 people (ten targets - two shots each) in 30 to 40 seconds (that was with moving around).

Show up 6 minutes later. In my testimony - I stressed that all these mantras assume the first 30 are to die.
 
Its not cold to flee at all if its done with a purpose.

1. You could encourage others to do the same. Lead the way and save more lives.
2. Reduce the number of potential targets
3. Provide reliable information to responders from the inside. Number of victims, number of shooters, #weapons, types, ammo, be a good witness.
4. Give info on how to get in to the scene. Public LEOs and even campus LEOs don't have all buildings memorized. They needs resident experts to provide support.
 
3. Provide reliable information to responders from the inside. Number of victims, number of shooters, #weapons, types, ammo, be a good witness.

4. Give info on how to get in to the scene. Public LEOs and even campus LEOs don't have all buildings memorized. They needs resident experts to provide support.
Click to expand...

Sounds good.................in theory, except its over by the time first responders get there. Not to mention the time it takes to stage.
 
That is the point. These are over quickly in most US situations. You do have some where the killer is stalking the locale and info could be useful. However, even with the most reasonable fastest response - 10s of people are shot.

Note also the response time is based on when the call gets through and interpreted. There is not an instant call. A few minutes have passed and then you get the staging and entry times.

The only reasonable fight response that isn't based on sheer luck in a suicide charge is to use a firearm. Yep, if Mister Stupid Killer walks blindly into a crowd, you have a chance and you can rush him or her. That's happened. If they have a malfunction or fumble the reload you can rush him. But that happens after a wave of fire first.
 
AS far as conceal carry on a college campus, you must take into account all of those who would be allowed by law to own a gun in the first place. In some states, you can't buy a pistol until you are 21. So, basically, only college juniors and seniors, and college staff would be capable and permitted to carry in the first place. Therefore, the assumption many use that "18 y.o. kids" would be carrying a gun can definitively be rule out of the equation. Of course you will then get those who will say that they have access to a gun simply by overtaking an upperclassmen who does have one. It is an argument that could go around and around, eachside making real possible points.

I'm an elementary teacher and would conceal/carry if I was permitted to in order to keep both myself, other teachers, and the students in our school safe.
 
US armed forces; reserves/USCG/etc...

Some states like mine offer firearms licenses/carry permits to active duty & reserve service members(US Coast Guard, US Merchant Marines, etc) if they are under 21 years old.
That seems fair. Some young adults are immature & not really able to carry a loaded weapon(see the young USMC Sgt in the recent Camp Pendelton incident) but there are service members who could benefit from a special law or statue.

I'd support it but with the anti-gun/anti 2A mindset in most CONUS military bases I doubt many young active duty service members would do it.

CF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top