Tackling Active Shooters as Self Defense

Wow...Pax, that took me a while to read most of that. Takes ones mind into a dark gloomy place. Sad to read all of those...

Bad guys always have the drop on the good guys. They prepare for the bad deed they're doing with the most serious intention of harm to others resulting in death.

All we can do is prepare for the worst the best we can.

In the book "Force Decisions" by Rory Miller he states that even the most highly decorated veteran can tense up and freeze at a time where he/she needs to act to stay alive or save a life. Gives examples of one way and the other. Meaning an average Joe going above and beyond and a highly decorated officer freezing and vice versa.

So all this training is amazing and great. The more you have the better. However one never really knows what he/she will do when they cross that bridge until they get there.
 
I'm not a martial artist, nor a boxer, nor a wrestler. In two different police academies I've taken very short courses in disarming others. Twice in my career I've taken a gun away and once taken a knife away from a subject. I've never been taught to tackle an adversary. I suppose there are places/courses that do teach to tackle someone down and then go for the weapon. But in my limited experience and training it's been to focus on gaining control of the weapon in their hand, get it pointed in a safe direction, twist it out of their grip or apply a sharp blow to the forearm to cause them to release it and THEN immediately gain space between me and the adversary.

Again, there may be other ways to teach disarming. I personally don't see myself at any advantage having thrown my body weight at an adversary and ending up on the ground. I feel I'd be at more of a disadvantage on the ground with a bad guy than if I were standing and thereby more mobile.


Sgt Lumpy
 
Then you must be one hell of a striker, because I have met few who could strike their way out of getting shot, stabbed, or slashed using strikes alone.
Click to expand...

I did not mean to suggest Strikes alone... My point has always been ( in this thread) and within the context of what the original poster layed out, if a person finds themselves in the middle of an active shooter event and "if" they decide to take action against the badguy.. strikes should be first if that's all you have.
 
Only if that weapon is being pointed at me.. if not, I would stand a better chance at removing the weapon following a hard attack. If I just run up behind someone and grab at their weapon while they still have 100% of their faculties, my odds are less. But yes, I agree if a person in close proximity has a weapon on you... that is the fist priority ( to control it ). I took this thread to suggest that what is being discussed is attacking a badguy who may be unaware of you but is actively attacking others. I guess we can simply agree to disagree. We have all made out points and I respect that but the debate is no longer fruitful. As I said in the very beginning, I would likely go the other way if escape was available which to me is the preferable option.
 
Last edited:
Now it seems we are reaching more of a consensus. I would suggest, though, that controlling the weapon can also be approxated by controlling one's relative position to the weapon.

This would be easier to show than describe... May have to try a short video demo when Sixer gets back from vacation.
 
I'm not a martial artist, nor a boxer, nor a wrestler. In two different police academies I've taken very short courses in disarming others.
Click to expand...

So you are a highly trained professional with a lot of experience. Good for you! Most of the people present in active shooter situations, ironically, are not highly trained professionals, MMA fighters, don't attend multiples of courses on disarming, open hand, closed hand, edged weapon, handgun, carbine, or shotgun fighting, etc. They are ordinary people. They include a subset of ordinary people who are gun owners and who can legally carry, but for some reason don't carry on a regular basis and don't even usually go to the range more than once or twice a year, if that often.

For some reason, the super fighters don't seem to be present in a timely fashion at these sorts of events with any sort of regularity. That leaves the situation in the hands of the ordinary people.
 
I know it did not work out well for the civilian contractor on Ft. Hood. He charged the shooter with a chair. He was shot, and killed. If I remeber correctly the shooter shot him in the head.

A disarm worked in the Kip Kinkle (sp?) school shooting. Kip Kinkle killed his parrents. He then took a 10/22 rifle, and a hand gun put them in the family car. Drove to school. Walked in, jumped on a table, and started shooting people with the rifle. A teacher jumped on the table, grabbed the rifle. He managed to get it free of the shooter's hands.

Myslef I would probably go for cover. If I had the elements of concealment, and surprise working in my favor I would possibly try a disarm, and take down.
 
I suggest that everyone make their own decisions on what they might do. For me, My 200+ lbs applied with violent force TOWARD THE WEAPON is a better use of force than me tackling them, hitting them with a chair, punching them in the nose etc.

Focus on the threat.

The threat is the weapon.


Sgt Lumpy
 
I know it did not work out well for the civilian contractor on Ft. Hood. He charged the shooter with a chair. He was shot, and killed. If I remeber correctly the shooter shot him in the head.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are saying here other than charging with chairs doesn't work.

A disarm worked in the Kip Kinkle (sp?) school shooting. Kip Kinkle killed his parrents. He then took a 10/22 rifle, and a hand gun put them in the family car. Drove to school. Walked in, jumped on a table, and started shooting people with the rifle. A teacher jumped on the table, grabbed the rifle. He managed to get it free of the shooter's hands.
Click to expand...

You left out the part about Kinkle getting tackled by students, led by Ryker, who waited until hearing that his gun had run dry. No disarming by a teacher mentioned.

I suggest that everyone make their own decisions on what they might do. For me, My 200+ lbs applied with violent force TOWARD THE WEAPON is a better use of force than me tackling them, hitting them with a chair, punching them in the nose etc.

Focus on the threat.

The threat is the weapon.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a long post, Sgt. Lumpy, but long enough for you to contradict yourself. First you suggest they make their own decisions, then you tell them that they need to focus on what YOU define as the threat.
 
This is a really good topic. Can I just tweak the verbiage a bit?

The "threat" and "weapon" go hand in hand. If you can take him/her out, do so in whichever way possible. You won't know how unless its happening before your own two eyes.

Also, the threat is a whole. The weapon being a gun or knife is inanimate and can be taken away. Placed in good hands and used against the threat.

The "weapon" can also be the person being a nut job and killing random people.

However you see it in your eyes. Everyone varies.

Whatever poison you prefer, going for the weapon or person...you'll be generally going for the threat. Period. It's just verbiage.
 
The weapon is NOT the threat. The actor is the threat. Focus on the weapon to the point you disregard the actor, and things are not likely to go well.
 
Considering that there have been many cases where an active shooter came with multiple firearms, focusing on disarmament alone is very risky. (I realize that most posters here who say "disarm" probably intend to disarm first, then detain/disable.)

To me, the preferred solution in the scenario would be to disable the shooter WHILE preventing them from employing a weapon against you. Since I am often in places where weapons are banned, my best bet would be on multiple disorienting/disabling strikes, stabs, or slashes in quick succession (bonus points for getting the shooter off-balance and taking them to the ground). Ideally, this would be done from an angle that would provide good targets for strikes, etc and would surprise the shooter while being difficult to defend against.

From my, albeit limited, experience, keeping a sustained attack going severely reduces an opponent's ability to respond effectively. It's a lot tougher to fight back when taking hits.
 
The weapon is NOT the threat. The actor is the threat. Focus on the weapon to the point you disregard the actor, and things are not likely to go well.
Click to expand...

Right, "Active shooter" does not refer to a gun that is being fired, but to the person firing the gun. The person is the threat. The gun is just a particular tool.
 
If you "tackle" a gunman you still have a gunman you are both just horizontal and the gunman still has a gun.

I think a disarm would be the preferred strategy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top