Tactic in a Mass Shooting Situation

O

Overkill777

New member
With the recent attacks in the news like the one in Paris and the one in California I have seen a lot of discussion on which weapon/caliber/ammunition to use to defeat these attackers. I have seen comments like have a bigger gun in the car, or use a weapon that penetrates body armor, etc.

It makes me wonder because it seems like a lot of these people are talking like if they are in the vicinity of a mass shooting they will go towards threat to try to stop it. This is troubling to me. When people say things like they are going to go to their car and get their rifle or get their magnum revolver to make a 100 yard shot on the perpetrator, it makes me think they are just talking fantasy and probably have not really thought this through.

Me, personally, if I'm near a mass shooting and I make it to my car, I'm getting in and driving away. My purpose for carrying is to protect the lives of myself and my family. Going towards the threat is not my job, and counter to the reason why I carry. I am not trained or qualified to fight determined attackers, my goal is to evacuate myself and my family safely.

In this type of situation if the threat is in my immediate vicinity (or a family members) and I'm cornered, that is probably the only time I would use my weapon. Otherwise I'm going to evacuate. Is that an appropriate or inappropriate mindset?

It's easy to talk about what you would do in a situation like this but there are so many unknowns and it's much different when fight or flight kicks in. I think its important to try to have a realistic mindset though.
 
In this type of situation if the threat is in my immediate vicinity (or a family members) and I'm cornered, that is probably the only time I would use my weapon. Otherwise I'm going to evacuate. Is that an appropriate or inappropriate mindset?
Click to expand...

First: I like the way you think.

Second: asking whether it's an appropriate or inappropriate mindset is probably the wrong question. Not because the question itself is bad, but because it's a question that only you can answer, for yourself alone. We are talking about some deeply personal subjects that affect whether you live or die, after all. Nobody else can tell you what's appropriate or inappropriate by your own moral code. We can only discuss what's practically possible, what's legally defensible, and what's tactically sound.

We've done a lot of thinking, exploring, and role play on these subjects. Lots of conversations with the family, lots of analysis of different mass shooting events (including the ones that didn't work out well for the attacker as well as those that did).

After an event, there's always a lot of coulda-woulda-shoulda from both people who were there and from people who were not. It's very easy to get caught up in the idea that we know what would have happened if this or if that. But we really don't. Hindsight is every bit as limited as foresight. It only does (and only can!) tell us what actually happened, not what would have happened if things had been different.

But even with that, we can figure out some very broad principles based on what has happened at multiple events. For example, we know that most of the time, the attacker will quit (often killing themselves) at the first sign of effective resistance. We also know that this is not always true -- and that when it is untrue, it can result in the death of the would-be hero who has rushed in to save the day.

We know that hesitation kills or sometimes cripples the would be good guy. (Google "Dan McKown" for one example.)

We know that most survivors of any mass event are the ones who simply left at the first sign of trouble. They didn't wait around to indulge their curiosity, they didn't wait to meet up with friends or family, they may have grabbed others on their way to safety but they didn't stay to argue if others wouldn't come. They simply left.

We know that many survivors hide from trouble and don't get found. We know that some "play dead" so the attacker will shoot other, living people and leave them alone.

We know that would-be survivors who are hiding and are found are often sitting ducks for the attacker. We also know that sometimes, attackers repeatedly shoot the fallen bodies of their victims, to make sure they are really dead.

We know that most experts recommend: Run. Hide. Fight. -- in that order. There's a reason for that. There's also a reason why I suggest setting up a tactical ambush if you must hide and if you can reasonably do so, so that you are prepared to fight from your hiding place.

We also know that in open areas such as shopping malls and large stores, the victims may be able to see the killer actively murdering people from a LONG way away.

For me, I'll take the "run, hide, fight" thing. But I'll also carry a weapon that I KNOW I can use effectively at up to 100 yards, to hit a man-sized target at that distance. And yes, I'm talking about my everyday carry gun, my little Glock 26.

It's not about the guns we carry. It's about the skills we have to use those guns.

I'd hate to be in a place where I could see murders happening at a distance, but couldn't trust myself and my equipment to take that shot if necessary.

I'm not going to run to the sound of the guns; I'm going to leave. But if I'm there, if I can't leave, and if I can see what's happening well enough to gamble everything I own and everything I am on getting it right -- I will do whatever it takes to stop that threat before it gets close enough to kill me and the people I love.

pax
 
One more thing. Here's a video of a disturbance at a mall in Tacoma a couple of years ago. It's not a shooting, just a very angry man throwing things around.

Notice the very different reactions from people in the crowd. There were people who left the area immediately. And there were also people who really, really wanted to know what was going on.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMA4zYs83Lo

Curiosity kills.

pax
 
couldn't say it any better.

the Israelis learned over time how to deal with repeated attacks. they learned that they couldn't put an absolute stop to them, but they could make the attacks far less 'profitable/deadly' for the attacker. they report stray boxes and bags. they liberally allow concealed carry of firearms. so the attackers can't depend on their bomb just sitting there to go off when they decide. they can't depend on being the only one with a gun. yeah, they still kill innocent people. but the odds have greatly been evened.

any of this sound familiar? we are having the same type of debate now. the current administration seems to be favoring more 'intelligence' and 'surveillance' and depending on the police to prevent these attacks from happening, and less to allowing law abiding people to lawfully carry concealed firearms to both protect themselves and to serve as a deterrent to attackers.
 
1-DAB said:
...the Israelis ... liberally allow concealed carry of firearms......
Click to expand...
I have to digress slightly to correct a common misconception. It's important that we always preserve our absolute credibility. But the Israelis do not liberally permit the concealed carry of firearms.

A lot of people in Israel are legally carrying a gun in public, but they are not "just plain folks" like the gun owners in the United States. If you are legally carrying a gun in public in Israel you are (1) active duty military; or (2) a police officer; or (3) one of the select few licensed to carry a firearm.

Israel has very restrictive firearms laws.

Some new rules make only the few, minor changes noted the article in this article:
...Issuing permits will be done responsibly and with scrutiny and discretion, and in keeping with the approved criteria.”

As opposed to the United States where gun ownership is a right, in Israel it is a privilege given to people who meet certain requirements.

The licenses have only been issued to those who work in security or law enforcement, or who live in settlements or other places where the state has an interest in them being armed.

As of earlier this week, criteria included that the applicant be over 21, an Israeli resident for more than three years, have passed a mental and physical health exam, background checks by the Public Security Ministry and shooting exams and courses at a licensed gun range. If given a permit, the holder is allowed to order a single firearm with a one-time supply of 50 bullets from a licensed dealer. He is required to retake the licensing exam and undergo testing at a gun range every three years. He also has to prove he has a safe at home to store the gun.
Click to expand...
 
I know how to fight and I train to protect myself.. If I cannot escape then I am going to fight. A bad guy is a badguy is a badguy, I have no intention to change my current personal self defense strategies due to some recent evils in the world.
 
Thank you pax. Very well said. You eloquently described what I was trying to get at without getting too hypothetical.

I need to reflect on your point about being able to actively engage targets at a distance with your everyday carry pistol. I think it's time to broaden my handgun training.
 
overkill - ever shot an IDPA match? great good fun, it will challenge your skills, you might even learn new ones.
 
Overkill -- I agree with 1-DAB about an IDPA match being great fun and a good way to stretch your shooting skills. Among other things (and not the least important of these), shooting any type of competition forces you to shoot to solve problems other people have set up. It gets you out of the habit of just shooting the things you're already good at and already enjoy, and drives you to practice skills you're not already good at. That's good stuff.

But don't look to IDPA to help with distance shooting. The rules prohibit anything past 25 yards (and most clubs avoid even that distance).

pax
 
If I'm trapped in a building and my pistol is in the car,
will use anything and everything at hand to get out,
including fire extinguishers, alarms, phone/computer cords,
plan the use of each and every doorway/window between me and OUT,
use cover & concealment as best as one can & haul butt to safety.

Once pistol is retrieved, will probably go back and try to get more folks out.
Was a firefighter for too long, hard to leave folks to burn, as they say...

At the worst, will set up in the parking lot to prevent BG's from leaving.
When the Blue Lights appear, let them handle it and stay out of the way.


Most folks plan out how to leave due to fire, few think about tactical retreat
from terrorists of workplace violence...but in this day & time,
one had better start planning how to get out of ANY place they enter,
and a plan for defense...
not surprisingly, many folks are disobeying their company rules on firearms now...
everyone I know with a CCW is now carrying at work, using deep concealment,
even though the company forbids firearms on property...
they're rather survive to be fired, than filled full of lead.
 
Run. Hide. Fight. is a sensible order for these situations.

Those going "hunting" for bad guys are usually the LEOs or those who don't seriously contemplate the issues they would face (those who don't understand the complexity/danger of one-man CQB).

My personal theories tend to focus on evacuating people from the area. Active shooters are MUCH less effective with no people around to kill! Engagement would likely only occur if the event started in the same area that I was in, or if I found myself in an advantageous position to initiate an attack on the criminal. I have a personal beef with active shooters (a friend was murdered by one), so I would hope I could use past training/experience to win if I saw an opportunity to stop them.
 
Are you willing to risk your life to protect people you may or may not know in a situation you didn't expect and in less than ideal circumstances?

A lot of good people have decided to do just that. What happens next is what happens next.
 
Overkill, in my opinion,your thinking is very intelligent. Just because we have a license to carry does not obligate us to perform as law keepers.

I believe that the best way we can help the police in such scenarios is to run and escape from the area along by helping anyone else needing assistance so that there is no confusion for the police.

If I ran towards the gunfire just because I have my ccw with me, and see you with a gun in hand, with all the chaos going how am I able to establish who is the good guy and the bad guy. Remember you only have seconds to react and I end up shooting you. Situations are not always clear.

Run , hide, and fight is a great strategy.
 
When I got my carry permit, in Oklahoma, I was told my permit did not give me authority to intervene in any crime, except defending myself, my close family, friends and coworkers from potentially deadly attack. Nothing was said about stopping a terrorist attack or mass shooting. So the run, hide and seek cover response is the correct, legal act.

Having said that, I don't think I could face my maker having turned my back on evil.
 
I often make cynical remarks here (because I'm a cynic) but I don't mean to offend anyone. After the theater shooting, I suggested people need to hit a target in the dark, shooting uphill (having dropped the requirement that the target was on horseback). The new requirement is to be able to hit a coworker at the office party if the event anyone leaves the room.

The worst thing that ever happened at an office party where I work is a young woman showing off her tattoo is a place that usually isn't displayed. But maybe that was the best thing that ever happened.

Probably the worst thing that happened was an employee breaking their leg while walking across the lobby. Perhaps we would be better off preparing for other emergencies besides shootings, unless there are guns around.
 
Bob Pincus' (I believe a member of TFL) Personal Defense Network, put out an excellent DVD on civilian reactions to Active Shootings.

Well work getting a copy and viewing it every now and then.

Great work on Flee, Hide, or Fight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top