Tackling Active Shooters as Self Defense

mobuck said:
The best time for the physical defense is BEFORE the first shot. Before the shooter works up to actually shooting there's some indecision and possibly some confusion that can allow a successful physical attack. A physical attack from multiple points will often confuse an inexerienced shooter allowing contact to be made.
Click to expand...

Sure, that is the ideal time to stop them, but that option is rarely apparent in social situations. Unless you catch them reaching for a gun, (or wallet, or handkerchief, or keys, or smokes, or nose picker), you aren't going to stop them preemptively. And of course, planning for the worst situation may be a fantasy as much as expecting the best situation, but as long as you're sticking to a general plan you are better off.

Personally, I don't think enough people practice to respond to the sound of a gun shot and people yelling and panicking.
 
Unless you have a trained unit, you really can't expect a bunch of folks to jump up and charge under fire in some organized fashion. Yes, that's a nice internet fantasy but it's not going to happen.

Also, having studied this - the shooter can pick a spot that is a fatal funnel choke point and immediately open up. Yeah, maybe they are going to make a speech first but maybe not.
 
Glenn, that is correct, but nobody is suggesting that we expect people to operate as a trained unit. Heck, even as armed folks, the majority of the gun community cannot even respond as trained individuals with their firearms, in part because of their lack of training. So no, you can't expect a group of people to respond as a trained unit or in any sort of coordinated fashion, yet there have been numerous instances of multiple folks responding simultaneously where such sequential or en masse hits have resulted in a cessation of firing. In other cases, it has only taken a single individual to effect a tackle that resulted in the cessation of firing.

Numerous active shooters do not pick fatal funnels. In fact, many don't seem to have much of a plan beyond shooting people. Many are out in the open or in a confined space for which they cannot control their surroundings.

The best time for the physical defense is BEFORE the first shot. Before the shooter works up to actually shooting there's some indecision and possibly some confusion that can allow a successful physical attack.
Click to expand...

The problem is, almost nobody ever spots the shooter before the shooting and are in a position to do anything about it in the time frame before the shooting starts.
 
I didn't say it was easy, I was actually meaning the time between the displaying of the weapon and the first shot. Some of the nuts have something to say leading up to the shooting or brandish their gun for a short period prior to the actual event-some don't. The threatening/brandishing period is when they're building up and could possibly be taken down. The pull it and shoot it ones would be hard to predict but the one thing they have in their mind is that everyone will run, hide, or fold. Something happening counter to what they expect might throw them off their premeditated plan.
While it would be unsettling to have a miss or pass through hitting an innocent, stopping the possibilty of a larger number of people dead or injured would seem to be preferable(minus the liability lawyers lining up like buzzards on a possum carcass).
 
I'n a situation where you may not have a gun, it's a loved one or someone elses life at stake. You may have to try anything, it may work out. It may not. As far as practicing rushing. You're wasting your time or on a pipe dream. Time spent better at the shooting range
 
The death rate from handguns is only 20% depending of course on the bullet placement, but in general, the FBI stats show an 80% survival.

Understanding that fact, playing dead while a weirdo walks up to you and puts a couple of bullets in your brain with exceedingly high mortality makes the option of going for a tackle a much better statistical chance. I hope I never have to put these stats to the test, but I believe I would be moving either away or towards the shooter depending on the situation.

I was actually surprised that the Fort Hood soldiers did not mount an attack in some manner against the Islamic terrorist now on trial. Besides tackling, there are objects you can throw as a distraction/weapon to help with the attack. Doing nothing and just letting the weirdo walk up to you and kill you is just not an option in my mind.
 
Used only as a last resort, Great but other than that you just may be a statistic. Got the same mind frame. At the end of my shift i plan on going home unless the Lord is ready for me to come home.
 
Double Naught Spy,

Thank you for a thought-provoking thread. I've actually given this some thought, especially after the Tacoma Mall incident. Here's this humble pilgrim's take. I'm no warrior, no "operator," just an average guy. But I do know that confronted with this situation, I'm looking for an opportunity to rush the shooter. I played rugby here in the states for twenty years. So, I also know how to tackle.

Assuming I'm alone and not responsible for loved ones, I'm going after that bastard, and I'm going to try to break his spine (which won't happen, but hey, you have to have a target!). Once down, I'm going to dash his brains out on the floor. That failing, I'm going to gouge his eyes out and beat him until he desists. Or I'll die or be maimed. There are worse things than that.

Bob James
 
Last edited:
Thanks DNS, great link. I guess that article gives the odds on success in this situation. Not good. Force on force like that, you need equal force to make it even. That makes the Ft Hood shooting even scarier when reading all those that tried to intervene but failed. One more example of why you need CCW in this nation.
 
Thanks DNS, great link. I guess that article gives the odds on success in this situation. Not good.
Click to expand...

Actually, most of the other articles show very good odds for success. The same can be said for CCW self defense as well. CCW folks get killed on occasion as well.

You don't always need equal force to be successful. Going up against an active shooter is inherently risky whether you are armed or not.

Thank you for a thought-provoking thread. I've actually given this some thought, especially after the Tacoma Mall incident.
Click to expand...

Great example of a CCW guy at Tacoma mall, Brandan "Dan" McKown, one of at least two who did not stop the shooter. Having a gun didn't help Danny-boy one bit because his tactics sucked. He is one example where an armed CCW person might have just been better of trying to rush the shooter across the mall. He stated that he carried a gun to protect others in just such an incident and when the time came, he didn't know what to do and got shot multiple times as a result.
 
Interesting thread and food for thought.

I think it is also social conditioning. Going back to Glenn's comment on people making a coordinated charge for the attacker, I'm sure I recall that being exactly the case in the relatively recent gun attacks in either India or Pakistan (can't for the life of me remember where it was) where the death toll was far lower than might have been because the people near the shooter turned on him and charged rather than turning and running.

Either way, I think for 99% of people in that situation their reaction will be instinctive rather than reasoned.

I must say I have no idea how I would react, only how I hope I would react...
 
Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but many environments are actually fairly rich with improvised weapons. Yet I can't recall reading of an incident where people have thrown hard objects, swung hard objects, etc when rushing a shooter.

I knew guys in high school and college who'd start a fight by throwing car keys in somebody's face, or flicking a cigarette lighter towards somebody's face. The distraction usually let them land a few good punches and/or kicks before the other person could react.

(I'm not advocating this for normal social encounters; just saying that there are all sorts of things out there - from pots full of hot coffee, to ketchup bottles, to car keys - that could be put to use in a pinch, with the right mind-set.)
 
When things go bad, all the choices you might have left could be bad, worse, worstest, and somewhere beyond that is "where I am now."

Do the best you can with the adrenaline pumping. If you can't find a tool, go to God using what God gave you.

It's kind of like if you are camping and a bear invades your tent b/c your kids have saved a snicker's bar for a midnight snack (happened to my wife's sister while camping). You're out of good scenarios and options: do the best you can. (In that case, the bear seemed to be completely taken by surprise by 3 howling, waving primates in the cramped space and decided that it was not worth fighting about.)
 
A father killed a black bear that was going after his son last year, by throwing a small log at it. Crushed its skull, IIRC.

I believe the father got cited for improper storage of trash, but not charged with anything.

Of course, the trash could well have been what attracted the bear in the first place.

But back to the main point - a thrown log stopped a bear. Odds are, the father grappling the bear would not have gone so well for the family. If any weapon is available, it probably beats bare hands.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Unless you have a trained unit, you really can't expect a bunch of folks to jump up and charge under fire in some organized fashion. Yes, that's a nice internet fantasy but it's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's not likely but I'd like to think mans inherent hunting instincts would kick in. If one person steps in and goes for his right side trying to control the weapon, anyone who notices may instinctively go for his left side or back. It's a simple predatory action that is seen in most animals. I may be expecting a bit more from the human race than I normally would but it's a possibility. It may not be organized, but it would increase your chances of success.
 
I support, of course, reasonable efforts to save your life and using improvised weapons.

I fear though that such emphasis weakens the case for campus carry as there are DVDs, etc. full of such.

A planned shooter as compared to a random, irrational person can choose a venue that minimizes such.

I did a little experiment with the flying laptop of death. Two conclusions - you can't throw it that far. Next, in the time it takes to close it, and assume a reasonable throwing posture - a shooter can get off about 7 aimed shots. One will be you when you stand up.

Thus, we should push for carry and training for intensive incidents. Yeah, maybe in the moment - your group will become the 300. Better to have carry.

Yes, it worked in tight spaces with nuts who get into melee distances. Guns are needed for those who are not so irrational.
 
Yeah, I would argue that unless an object has clear utility as a bashing or stabbing weapon, you are probably better off forgetting it, if about to be shot at (from rushing range). If you are holding something of little utility as a weapon (keys, wallet, half-empty water bottle, etc), you may want to throw it as a distraction. Reaching for something to throw as a distraction probably wastes more time than it is worth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top