You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Tactic in a Mass Shooting Situation
- Thread starter Overkill777
- Start date
It is obvious you haven't been shot at with an ak47 on full auto
MORE obvious is the fact that you haven't the slightest clue as to my background, nor am I inclined in the least to discuss it with you.
Nonetheless, we rarely get to fight back with the weapons we WANT, unless they happen to be the weapons we HAVE, at the moment. I CAN attest to the difficulty associated with continuing to think in situations so stressful as these, but the capacity to reason almost never completely leaves us. One solves such problems by taking them apart, piece by piece (albeit hurriedly, and preferably while the other team is reloading), and where possible, fixing the most resolvable aspect of the problem, first.
Engaging an aggressor 100yards away with a sidearm probably won't yield a dead bad guy on the first shot, but just getting close to them simply MUST make them reconsider their position. If you do no more than signal that they cannot fire on you with impunity, their next move may be slow or tentative enough to afford you an avenue of escape. To just sit there and get sprayed, while armed is non-sensical. Additionally, even if you CAN evade, others with you might NOT have that luxury. A missed shot that lands anywhere NEAR the "Full Auto Firing" creep will likely make them reassess their firing position long enough for you and others to flee.
Last edited:
I think that on this forum and at least one other I frequent that there is a sort of glamorization of cowardice going on. I don't mean to cast aspersions on any of my fellow posters in particular, but I detect a certain sentiment from a certain base of posters that anyone who would prefer to engage an active shooter rather than run for the hills is a bad person and perhaps even a danger to themselves and others. It sort of seems like some among us are attempting to create a groupthink where anyone who isn't completely paralyzed by fear is a chest-beating savage stirring for conflict. It's quite a strange wedge to see driven amongst members of the firearm community by staff here and at another popular green & brown forum I frequent, and I think it's a completely false dichotomy. It's absolutely possible to be interested in the defense of yourself and also the body politic but not be a danger to anyone. I think there are grave philosophical implications when one suggests that a member of the public should not engage in the defense of said public as matter of course, or alternatively that a member of the public is not qualified to engage in the defense the public.
We often draw comparisons between guns and other more common culprits of catastrophe on these forums, such as cars. If you saw a flaming wreck on the side of the interstate would you pull over and attempt to render aid? Some wouldn't, but I would. If you saw a burning house and heard a crying baby would you stop to render aid? Some wouldn't, but I would. If I EDC'd a firehose I wouldn't wait for a "professional" before I got that hose to work, that's for sure. I don't meant to glamorize myself and perhaps if I had a wife and kids I wouldn't care so much about others relative to myself, but I do care and I really have a problem with the suggestion that not helping is somehow as noble or even more noble than helping. I don't care how good your reasons are if you see danger and run there is a word for that and it's not prudent.
Often I hear the same phrases repeated verbatim, such as "I only care about me and mine" or more specific to this thread "Run, Hide, Fight". I personally believe in Freedom and so I don't think anyone who doesn't want to should have to carry a gun, but if you do carry a gun for protection you ought to extend the aegis to your fellow countryman. If you care about the sanctity of life, which I think is implied by carrying a gun to protect your own life, then you are obliged to care about more than the end of your own nose (in my opinion).
ED: A whole separate firearm specific line of argument is that an unskilled shooter is completely ineffective. Have you ever seen someone with less than 100hrs shoot a rifle? they're terrible. These San Bernardino shooters had like 25 hours of experience, and I bet any argument of "oh it's so scary to be shot at" would apply equally to them. When the police started shooting back I notice the terrorists didn't score a single hit. I could have shot back...
We often draw comparisons between guns and other more common culprits of catastrophe on these forums, such as cars. If you saw a flaming wreck on the side of the interstate would you pull over and attempt to render aid? Some wouldn't, but I would. If you saw a burning house and heard a crying baby would you stop to render aid? Some wouldn't, but I would. If I EDC'd a firehose I wouldn't wait for a "professional" before I got that hose to work, that's for sure. I don't meant to glamorize myself and perhaps if I had a wife and kids I wouldn't care so much about others relative to myself, but I do care and I really have a problem with the suggestion that not helping is somehow as noble or even more noble than helping. I don't care how good your reasons are if you see danger and run there is a word for that and it's not prudent.
Often I hear the same phrases repeated verbatim, such as "I only care about me and mine" or more specific to this thread "Run, Hide, Fight". I personally believe in Freedom and so I don't think anyone who doesn't want to should have to carry a gun, but if you do carry a gun for protection you ought to extend the aegis to your fellow countryman. If you care about the sanctity of life, which I think is implied by carrying a gun to protect your own life, then you are obliged to care about more than the end of your own nose (in my opinion).
ED: A whole separate firearm specific line of argument is that an unskilled shooter is completely ineffective. Have you ever seen someone with less than 100hrs shoot a rifle? they're terrible. These San Bernardino shooters had like 25 hours of experience, and I bet any argument of "oh it's so scary to be shot at" would apply equally to them. When the police started shooting back I notice the terrorists didn't score a single hit. I could have shot back...
Last edited:
Jeffrey Snyder was right but I'm surprised to hear it here:
http://jim.com/cowards.htm
And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality and incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants.
http://jim.com/cowards.htm
johnelmore
New member
I was robbed last year and it was surreal to have a pistol stuck in my face. When it happens the truth is you really dont know what to do. The person I was with smartly ran away, but I stood there frozen. Hard to say what the correct reaction would be at the time, but I came out alive. Now that I have that scenario out of the way I will tell you what I would do is run as fast as I can in a different direction. That would be my initial reaction, but it all depends. In any event the shooter will have planned it out and you will.be reacting on the fly not knowing what to do. I guess making a run for it from the time you realize its happening might be a sound strategy. If we all run in a different direction at full speed chances are they wont get us all. If we stand there frozen yes they will get us all. If I was with a group of people and something went down I would instantly yell at everyone to run and I would run too.
Why not? A human target is larger than a 9" dinner plate. That AR/AK the creep is holding doesn't make that dinner plate any smaller. You may not have as much time to carefully aim at them as you did the unarmed paper plate, but that's why you practice. To get faster at shooting better.
Stress degrades ability. Its a simple fact of human physiology. It happens to athletes on the playing field. It happens to shooters under attack.
Having been on the wrong end of guns being fired on more then one occassion and seeing the effects of those angry bees whipping past, i can attest that you are not anywhere near as good under stress as on any range during training.
A 9" plate at 100yds is good shooting with a pistol. A human at 100 yds that is shooting at you is another story all together
Dont misunderstand..train hard and practice for those long shots. Just dont think its anything like the range
zincwarrior
New member
I understand everyone's different impulses.
1. While one never is sure what they will do in a circumstance, thinking about some of the major ones ahead of time can be helpful (and if its not, it doesn't hurt).
2. If there were a mass shooter in a mall or restaurant I have thought about those scenarios and how I would want to react, which could be different than robbers in the same circumstance. But it all depends doesn't it and I don't believe there is either a right or moral answer.
1. While one never is sure what they will do in a circumstance, thinking about some of the major ones ahead of time can be helpful (and if its not, it doesn't hurt).
2. If there were a mass shooter in a mall or restaurant I have thought about those scenarios and how I would want to react, which could be different than robbers in the same circumstance. But it all depends doesn't it and I don't believe there is either a right or moral answer.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I think there is a difference between suggestions that a civilian might do their best to get out of the fire fight as compared to the attitude of some that you are, a priori, helpless and worthless in the fight.
The other attitudes that gall me are that:
1. You don't need to train
2. You can't make the shot even if you do train
3. No handgun can be used successfully
The other attitudes that gall me are that:
1. You don't need to train
2. You can't make the shot even if you do train
3. No handgun can be used successfully
I think that on this forum and at least one other I frequent that there is a sort of glamorization of cowardice going on. I don't mean to cast aspersions on any of my fellow posters in particular, but I detect a certain sentiment from a certain base of posters that anyone who would prefer to engage an active shooter rather than run for the hills is a bad person and perhaps even a danger to themselves and others.
I have to agree. Kind of the whole concept of the 2nd Amendment with the citizen being armed in order to serve as a citizen militia. Seems to me the security of the free state implies an obligation beyond protecting myself and my family despite the personal risk. I'm really glad for all the regular Joe's out there who pulled victims from a burning car or building, rendered first aid, rescued, protected, or otherwise preserved lives they were not responsible for, when "a trained professional" wasn't handy.
Would seem to me a better discussion would be how one might recognize opportunities, and how to reduce the chances of adding confusion or being mistaken for another bad guy, and recognizing when to engage, and when to retreat.
Let me repeat something I said very early in my first post on this thread:
"... 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."
I'm not really into calling people cowards for making informed decisions.
I'm not really into calling people bloodthirsty for making heroic decisions.
I am very much a fan of helping people understand the important variables they might need to consider, so that they can make their own decisions based on their own moral codes.
As for the bit about "all it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" -- I very strongly agree! But I think sometimes people who own guns and carry them think that escorting others to safety, or protecting the people immediately around us, or setting up a tactical ambush to take down the attacker from a safe position (as Jeanne Assam did), all somehow counts as "doing nothing." I don't agree. Only doing nothing is doing nothing. There are many different things we can do that are moral and even heroic. Those things don't always involve the gun, although sometimes they do.
Yeah, that's why I suggest meaningful training. Talk talk talk about all that stuff does very little, in the absence of immediate and realistic feedback about what one can actually do -- on demand, in the presence of others who know what they're looking at and who know how to help you learn to do it better.
pax,
Kathy
"... 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."
I'm not really into calling people cowards for making informed decisions.
I'm not really into calling people bloodthirsty for making heroic decisions.
I am very much a fan of helping people understand the important variables they might need to consider, so that they can make their own decisions based on their own moral codes.
As for the bit about "all it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" -- I very strongly agree! But I think sometimes people who own guns and carry them think that escorting others to safety, or protecting the people immediately around us, or setting up a tactical ambush to take down the attacker from a safe position (as Jeanne Assam did), all somehow counts as "doing nothing." I don't agree. Only doing nothing is doing nothing. There are many different things we can do that are moral and even heroic. Those things don't always involve the gun, although sometimes they do.
TimSr said:Would seem to me a better discussion would be how one might recognize opportunities, and how to reduce the chances of adding confusion or being mistaken for another bad guy, and recognizing when to engage, and when to retreat.
Yeah, that's why I suggest meaningful training. Talk talk talk about all that stuff does very little, in the absence of immediate and realistic feedback about what one can actually do -- on demand, in the presence of others who know what they're looking at and who know how to help you learn to do it better.
pax,
Kathy
One more thing. It's about the definition of "hero." And it's an important one.
A hero is someone who risks their own life to save other people's when it's not really their job and when the odds are not in their favor.
The expected outcome of heroism is that the hero dies. That's what makes them a hero.
It's wrong and bad to demand that other people die for us. It's good and right to make our own private decisions about what we will do and what we're willing to risk for ourselves. But to demand that others willingly lay down their lives -- that's not a call that any of us gets to make for someone else.
pax
A hero is someone who risks their own life to save other people's when it's not really their job and when the odds are not in their favor.
The expected outcome of heroism is that the hero dies. That's what makes them a hero.
It's wrong and bad to demand that other people die for us. It's good and right to make our own private decisions about what we will do and what we're willing to risk for ourselves. But to demand that others willingly lay down their lives -- that's not a call that any of us gets to make for someone else.
pax
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
If I was with a group of people and something went down I would instantly yell at everyone to run and I would run too.
johnelmore
-----------------------------------------------
Lol! John the above sure sounds reasonable and wise
The one time I did it, wasp attack, the folks froze!!! And got stung.
If ya hear run - move!
johnelmore
-----------------------------------------------
Lol! John the above sure sounds reasonable and wise
The one time I did it, wasp attack, the folks froze!!! And got stung.
If ya hear run - move!
Remember the University of Texas clock tower shooting? Back in the day when a percent of the population had a rifle on a rack in their truck, a few got some shots off which helped keep the shooter's head down.
An excerpt from Wiki:
Students and university staff worked to assist and move the wounded to safety, risking their lives. One student later recalled, "That was the moment that separated the brave people from the scared people ... I realized I was a coward." Medical personnel used an armored car and provisioned ambulances from local funeral homes to reach the wounded.[63] A 30-year-old ambulance technician named Morris Hohmann was shot in the leg on West 23rd Street as he tried to evacuate the numerous wounded. The wound severed a major artery. A fellow ambulance technician gave him first aid before he was taken to Brackenridge Hospital, the only one with a local emergency room. The Brackenridge Hospital administrator declared a state of emergency. Medical staff raced there to reinforce the on-duty shifts. Numerous volunteers donated blood at both Brackenridge Hospital and the Travis County Blood Bank.
The shootings and news of the sniper caused panic in and around the University. All active police officers in Austin were ordered to the campus. Off-duty officers, Travis County Sheriff's deputies, and Texas Department of Public Safety troopers also converged on the area.
Approximately 20 minutes after first shooting from the observation deck, Whitman began to encounter return fire from both the police and armed civilians. One Texas Ranger used a student as spotter to help locate the sniper. At this point, Whitman chose to fire through waterspouts located on each side of the tower walls. This action largely protected him from gunfire below, but limited his range of targets.[63]
An excerpt from Wiki:
Students and university staff worked to assist and move the wounded to safety, risking their lives. One student later recalled, "That was the moment that separated the brave people from the scared people ... I realized I was a coward." Medical personnel used an armored car and provisioned ambulances from local funeral homes to reach the wounded.[63] A 30-year-old ambulance technician named Morris Hohmann was shot in the leg on West 23rd Street as he tried to evacuate the numerous wounded. The wound severed a major artery. A fellow ambulance technician gave him first aid before he was taken to Brackenridge Hospital, the only one with a local emergency room. The Brackenridge Hospital administrator declared a state of emergency. Medical staff raced there to reinforce the on-duty shifts. Numerous volunteers donated blood at both Brackenridge Hospital and the Travis County Blood Bank.
The shootings and news of the sniper caused panic in and around the University. All active police officers in Austin were ordered to the campus. Off-duty officers, Travis County Sheriff's deputies, and Texas Department of Public Safety troopers also converged on the area.
Approximately 20 minutes after first shooting from the observation deck, Whitman began to encounter return fire from both the police and armed civilians. One Texas Ranger used a student as spotter to help locate the sniper. At this point, Whitman chose to fire through waterspouts located on each side of the tower walls. This action largely protected him from gunfire below, but limited his range of targets.[63]
Most people consider ahead of time what they would do in the event of a fire, car accident, tornado, home invasion, cardiac emergency and many other crisis events.. this discussion is no different.
Consider and train all you want, you still doint know what you would do in that type of situation.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
However, we do know from training programs that the number of freezes and poor responses does decrease with training.
Sure, a trained person as an individual might still freeze up. However, the overall success rate shown in police and military programs says that saying someone might fail doesn't help.
For instance, firing rates of soldiers in WWII were seen to be low as folks froze. Advanced weapons training in today's armed forces has increased the rate three times.
Sure, a trained person as an individual might still freeze up. However, the overall success rate shown in police and military programs says that saying someone might fail doesn't help.
For instance, firing rates of soldiers in WWII were seen to be low as folks froze. Advanced weapons training in today's armed forces has increased the rate three times.
stagpanther
New member
How are arriving LE going to know whether or not you're a good guy or bad guy if you're engaging with drawn weapon?
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Well, they will probably think you are a good guy if you are shot full of holes with your body shielding a coworker.
This has been discussed before. Unless you are actively under attack, you secure the gun and comply.
This has been discussed before. Unless you are actively under attack, you secure the gun and comply.
I think that on this forum and at least one other I frequent that there is a sort of glamorization of cowardice going on. I don't mean to cast aspersions on any of my fellow posters in particular, but I detect a certain sentiment from a certain base of posters that anyone who would prefer to engage an active shooter rather than run for the hills is a bad person and perhaps even a danger to themselves and others. It sort of seems like some among us are attempting to create a groupthink where anyone who isn't completely paralyzed by fear is a chest-beating savage stirring for conflict. It's quite a strange wedge to see driven amongst members of the firearm community by staff here and at another popular green & brown forum I frequent, and I think it's a completely false dichotomy. It's absolutely possible to be interested in the defense of yourself and also the body politic but not be a danger to anyone. I think there are grave philosophical implications when one suggests that a member of the public should not engage in the defense of said public as matter of course, or alternatively that a member of the public is not qualified to engage in the defense the public.
It's not a binary choice. Some responses are personally wise, but not heroic. Some options are heroic and tactically stupid. Others may be personally sound and heroic. ADDITIONALLY, whether certain responses fit any of these descriptions depends on the situation faced and capabilities of the person responding.
You (and everyone else) has the right to life. It is not unwise to remove yourself from a dangerous situation. In fact, from a generalized perspective, that is your best bet for survival. The more people who optimize their survival chances, the lower the casualty count may be.
Confronting an armed criminal, especially one actively trying to murder as many people as they can is incredibly dangerous. I applaud all those willing to do so (and mourn many who did at the cost of their lives). It can be done successfully, and even a failed attempt may buy time for others to evacuate and live. It is the heroic thing, but making that decision is a personal one for the average citizen. I won't criticize people who decide to remove themselves from the situation--they have a right to live.
My decision factors are situationally dependent. If I do not know the attacker's location, my plan is to evacuate as many people as possible. That keeps a potentially large group of would-be victims safe. It is tactically sound, as well. If I should know the attacker's location AND have an opportunity for a counter-attack, I intend to make it. However, I realize that in any "even fight" I will likely take a bullet. Some of my criteria for counter-attacking are tactical advantage or a lack of other options!
I suggest everyone consider their own capabilities and moral decision-making in order to "pre-game" those situations where they will counter-attack vs. evacuate.
Fight or Flight decisions can factor in many things: your own right to life, duty to protect family/friends, duty to protect society in general, care-giving obligations, tactical advantage/disadvantage, individual capabilities, etc.