Tackling Active Shooters as Self Defense

The proximity issue is the thing.

My concern in the campus carry debate is that certain venues offer high concentrations of people who cannot easily get to the shooter or throw their IPADs at him or her. It was a point I made when I testified to the Texas House.

All the flee, hide, fight videos don't have a charge across a distance of lecture hall for instance towards someone with competence and a large number of rounds available. But such videos are used to argue that we do have a plan for active shooters and don't need carry.

The videos usually have folks hearing shots and then ambushing the shooter at the doorway. As if the shooter never heard of pieing or just didn't shoot through the door (as has happened).
 
The proximity issue is the thing.
Click to expand...


I think you are right. In order to be effective against an armed person, you would not only have to be close but you would have to have enough situational awareness to react immediately to the threat.

I don't know how you really prepare for that.

Many of us think of how we would react to a threat like that. Real life will often throw a curveball.

I hope I never have to find out if my theory is correct or not.
 
I was only saying that if I have the opportunity to tackle someone, I could probably have used that same opportunity to run away.
 
That's your call. Running away is a valid form of defense.

People continually note however, about how they are "defenseless" without a gun and there is no reason to defacto believe that to be the case in every case and even if you are armed with a gun, that it is the most opportune choice to make.

Proximity is or can be a prime issue, and people continually are using it to their advantage.
 
Can't run away if you are in small room or office with one door.

That's what the usual fight scenarios are. Of course, there are the crowd scenes where the shooter is close.

Studies show that 35% of rampage shooters seemed to have planned their attack. Given that the run, hide, fight videos are all over the place - the planners are watching them also.

A large group in a church or lecture hall might swarm the person. The first in get shot. You decide if you are in that first wave. Modern First Responder theories says that they take that risk (wearing armor). Do you as a civilian?

The point of the thread is that in certain circumstances you can fight with improvised weapons or your gung-fu and a pastrami on rye.

But I said before, I don't want such incidents to be used as counter to concealed carry - and they are.

Also, if you do advocate concealed carry - you should have some training before you propose that option.
 
Take unarmed training

Learn how to fight with no weapon first, then you can add capabilities and range with additional weapons and tactics. But if a gun is your only "hammer" , then you'll be looking to apply it to every nail.
 
What happens when people without guns go up against people with guns?....

Best to retreat or hit the deck if you don't have a gun. I prefer to be armed than cowering waiting to be shot, or throwing things at the shooter, making a charge and definitely getting shot. That being said, shooting back is the best option. I see that in a crowded area there could be a chance of hitting others but,it's like the argument against having armed guards at schools because they could miss and hit a kid, Wake up everyone! If people/school kids are being shot worse case scenario has already been reached returning fire cannot make the situation worse when people are already dying.

Do you really want to die for lack of shooting back?
 
I think the big elephant in the room here is this: not every scenario is survivable. Sometimes the question is only: How do you want to die?

So you don't have a gun. You don't think you can win. So… What, then?

http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2006/09/i-aint-goin-out-like-that.html

Even if the police are right there, it might not do me any good. Heck, I might not do me any good. But, dammit, I am going to try. If a 51 year-old nurse can overcome a hammer-wielding psycho with her bare hands, the least I can do is go out on my feet. I'm not going to wait for the coup de grace under a desk; I'm not going get in the abductor's car; I'm not going to comply with their demands; I'm not going gently.
Click to expand...

pax
 
And sometimes when objective analysis of a situation tells you, "Yep, you're going to die," if you pick your moment and fight back with fury and ruthlessness you may yet win. This old world is full of people who sometimes stop what they're doing at odd moments and just laugh because they never expected to live through what they lived through. Yet they did.
 
Sierra 280,

If you ever take out a mass murderer actively engaged in running up the score with a shot that kills an innocent bystander you will face a public fury from the liberal elements of our society far greater than anything they would direct at the mass murderer. After the Va. Tech shooting the Roanoke Times ran an essay that what happened was not a worst case scenario. The worst case scenario would have been had an armed private citizen intervened.(I can't quote date of publication and name of the writer because at the time I had no reason to remember those details.) If you do kill one innocent to save the life of multiple victims, or even more devastating yourself, your life as you know it is over. I expect you already know this. It's just rough to realize that at any moment any one of us could turn a corner and face a decision between ugly and uglier.
 
^ my first mentioned, preferred option in the given situation is to look for an exit.

Things can always get worse. Since we are talking in hypotheticals, (as it appears the times article was). I'm afraid I still have to chose figuratively having my life be over than actually having my life be over.

The worst case scenario you describe is actually probably only worse for me. From an objective stand point allowing the shooter to continue on a rampage is far worse.

I worry much more about situations that have a much more viable chance of actually taking place (vehicle collision I don't even see coming, chiefly)
 
Last edited:
Sure, the most likely way to die is in something like a vehicle accident where there is no possibility of evasive movement, or on a commercial flight that hits bad weather or mechanical problems. Life throws at us innumerable possibilities where we could die without any opportunity to respond. Most of us don't spend energy anticipating these events, and when one does come our way and we survive intact by pure dumb luck, we don't think about it much later. When I consider the amount of response to this thread, I think I am not alone in being interested in a situation where the possibility of influencing the outcome exists. I don't think I dwell on these possibilities but I think about them, and I think considering these possibilities makes good sense. If you are caught coldly by surprise in a situation you never considered possible, I can almost guarantee your reaction. You will react in the normal human fashion: you will hesitate, then you will panic.

If nothing else comes out of the recent, I suppose sociological, trend toward indiscriminate public shootings and bombings, I find myself looking at gatherings of peacefully assembled unarmed people as a place to avoid, and I find myself asking the question, "Do I absolutely have to be there?" My instinct for avoidance kicks in even harder if the event is staged in a place where being armed is against the law.
 
well my 300pound frame probably wouldn't arrive in time for a tackle, but I hope I have the presance of mind to atleast attempt it. I work in a school so I must do it. atleast I could soak up some bullets.

Even if we could have guns for SD/CCW here I probably couldn't because I work with special needs children, I wrestle with them daily
 
Husqvarna, many of these folks involved in taking down shooters or attempted shooters aren't traveling significant distances. They find themselves right next to the shooters when the shooting starts, or the shooters manage to come to them. In some other cases, the distances traveled are just a few feet. So the notion of "arriving in time" is relevant to distance from the event.
 
I don't think this tactic 'tackling an armed assailant' is really that effective or prevelant, the media just really plays it up when it happens, just like they downplay stories where armed force stopped or prevented the 'mass' shooting.
The shooters generally commit suicide when confronted with armed force. Thus negating the likelyhood an armed citizen might even have to fire and miss. It should be noted Leo's only connect with about 1/3 of their shots.

Yes, panic is a standard human response, so is irrational paranoia. Now if you'll excuse me, all this talk has made me think of other scenarios that i might find myself in. So i need to go bury some more spam cans of ammo and coffee cans full of gold in my back yard.
 
No, the rampage shooter usually commits suicide after shooting many people. It is when the law arrives. Also a third don't.

As DNS has documented, shooters have been taken down quite a few times in close quarters.

At longer distances, like VT, tacklers get shot.

Folks want an guaranteed solution - there isn't one. It is situational. All you can have is abilities and mindset. Then take an action that may or may not work.

However, if you cannot carry a gun you are missing a major tool that may negate the need for a suicide charge at a gun man.

If you want to prowl the halls of a school against a gun man with an AR or Ak and body armor with your J-frame, that's your decision. There is no correct answer.
 
I could probably have used that same opportunity to run away.
Click to expand...

Many people act instinctively in ways that often are counter effective to the scenario.

The biggest example is when faced with a possible collision in a car. Most people instinctively hit the breaks without having an escape route or a way to avoid the collision by something predetermined.

How many people are always aware of what is around them such as the next lane on a four lane or if someone is behind them. How often do you see someone on the cell phone without any knowledge of your existence much less your position on the road? How many have taken defensive driving classes with scenarios?

How many people prepare for scenarios? How many people have compared their reasoning in a scenario with experts or from real life scenarios that have already taken place? How many people panic and how many have instincts to do the right thing?

A lot of questions, but weighing the options properly and having an idea of what to do in a scenario that could include tackling MIGHT be something that should come from training in a classroom.

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting everybody go take a class because I have met many people who would have the instincts and knowledge to make the right decision in the given scenario. It's just that many don't and I hope for one that they make the right move when the stuff hits the fan.
 
I don't think this tactic 'tackling an armed assailant' is really that effective or prevelant,...
Click to expand...

Wow, nobody claimed it was prevalent. I take it that you didn't read the thread or the examples. Same for the issue of effectiveness, though it has been used VERY effectively and can be used effectively, it is at considerable risk. Familiarize yourself with the material. Then, I think you will have a better understanding of the issues being discussed.
 
I just don't get this whole "tackle" thing... If I cant get away and need to fight someone in order to protect others.. why would I tackle them? Why not physically attack them if the situation calls for it. Why end up on the ground where its a toss up or where my abilities are negated by the floor or rolling around on the floor. Yeah yeah, I have been through ground fighting training back in the 90's [ARCON] they called it- and even then, that's the last place I want to be with a badguy.
 
Simple, taking your opponent to the ground negates a whole myriad of advantages the opponent has. His mobility and abilities to manipulate his weapon including his choices of direction of fire, vision, target, selection, etc. are immediately and significantly reduced once you take him/her to the ground. The opponent is left trying to defend his gun more so than trying to continue shooting people. An opponent on the ground can be more controlled than an opponent that is on his/her feet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top