Tactic in a Mass Shooting Situation

In any event the shooter will have planned it out and you will.be reacting on the fly not knowing what to do.
The attacker may have the first move, but you do not need to be unprepared.
That is exactly why people train. It is why they study past events. You can have a generalized plan for uncertain events.

For example, pilots do not really expect their engine to fail during a flight, but they have already thought about and rehearsed procedures for engine failure. This training and pre-planning has saved many lives. Active shooter situations are similar--you may not know when/where/how it will happen, but you can plan and train to respond correctly to the general situation.
 
It's hard to know what we would do in a situation because there are many variables and possibilities. My first obligation is to my family. They rely on me for a lot, and I can't afford to take chances with my life and play hero. I'm likely to be in full defense/preservation mode and only fight if cornered.

One exception: If the threat is engaging with others and I'm relatively close with a clear, simple shot, I might just take it. This would be a moment of opportunity where I'd be quite likely to end the threat for everyone. My action wouldn't really decrease my odds of survival. At those distances the threat is just as likely to turn and end me if I choose to run away as I am to miss the shot. Since the shooter may have body armor I'm likely talking about a headshot inside of 20 or so. IOW -- the closer I am to the threat initially the more reasonable it is for me to engage it.

I'd hope to trust my instincts and fully commit to the first notion that pops in my head, but I hope I never have to find out what I'd really do.
 
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?

Well, uhm... YES. Yes, I am. I have to live with myself after this situation, and living with the fact that I could have done something and didn't does not appeal to me.

What difference does it make whether I know them? The hypothetical people I protect might be complete scumbags, but if they're being shot to pieces, their right to live prevails over that of the shooter(s).

And the only person who does NOT enter a shooting situation in "less than ideal circumstances" is THE AGGRESSOR.
 
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

Man, that is well-said and spot-on!

As I posted earlier, Jeanne Assam didn't hide or run and she used her 92FS 9mm to take down a bad guy with an AR, inside a building, at close range WHILE he was shooting at her.

Getting your family out of harm's way first - absolutely, but are you really willing to run away while a lunatic massacres innocent people while you have the tool and the ability to stop, interrupt, derail him/them???

What did 1st Sgt Dan Daly tell his men at the battle of Belleau Wood? "C'mon you ________, you want to live forever?"
 
What difference does it make whether I know them? The hypothetical people I protect might be complete scumbags, but if they're being shot to pieces, their right to live prevails over that of the shooter(s).

Amen.
 
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/10/for-the-record-fighting-back/

I like the above video. Now I know we are all gun people and would rather defend ourselves with guns in such a situation, but the pragmatic reality is that most of us are unarmed at various points in our lives. Some of us must before legal reasons, some for employment reasons, etc. Doesn't matter why. The point is that having the right mindset is important for many people to be able to survive these situations. Often is the case that an unchallenged shooter will simply go on shooting and to be able to choose targets at his/her discretion. Whatever you can do to reduce that shooter's capabilities will improve the chances for survival for you and likely for others, but it will come with risk, but then again, you were already at risk.
 
Jeanne Assam took cover. From her position of cover, she "took him down."

In other words, she did in fact hide. She set up a tactical ambush so that she could stop the attacker with the least amount of risk to herself.

People always want to equate avoiding incoming bullets with cowardice for some reason. I think that's a mistake.

pax
 
San Bernardino . . . people respond to stressful situations in the way they were trained (or have trained themselves) to respond.

I heard an interview with one person who survived the San Bernardino shooting, in which she said that the group had been trained to hide under tables and desks, so that is what they did. The person beside her died using that strategy.

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 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.

I find some irony that this post goes on to complain about false dichotomies. It is not cowardly to save lives by organizing a retreat where it is feasible. Engaging an active shooter who has a good tactical position, when the defender is without cover and/or without a good line of fire is more likely to increase the body count than to resolve the situation. There are lots of strategies besides rushing in that do not constitute being paralyzed by fear. There is a lot to be said for thinking, evaluating, and adapting to what is very likely to be a very fluid situation. That approach would seem much more productive than accusing people of cowardice for not conforming to arbitrary suppositions. There is nothing wrong with taking a good shot when you have it, mind you, but it should not be the only option in your head.
 
Incidentally, here's why I talk about the importance of real training. The video link below was recorded during the Level 4 Handgun class at the Firearms Academy of Seattle in May 2015. It’s a montage of several different strings of fire, a sequence that led students through the following activities:

  1. Draw and get good, A-zone hits on stationary targets (in compressed time frames) at 7 yards
  2. Draw and get good, A-zone hits on moving targets while standing in the open at 7 yards
  3. Draw and get good hits on moving targets at 25 yards
  4. Get behind cover, draw, and get good hits on moving targets at 25 yards
  5. Run 25 yards (to get everyone’s heart rates up) and deal with lots of screaming and shouting while getting behind cover, drawing and getting good hits on moving targets at 25 yards.

Note the sequential development of skills. There are a lot of skills underneath the ones listed, too. For example, I run into a lot of shooters who have no idea how to safely and efficiently draw their guns (although they think they do). When we work with these folks and show them all the wasted motion they're indulging in, they're surprised. When we point out the little habits that could later cause them to shoot themselves under stress, they're really surprised. Getting rid of wasted motion and helping shooters move more safely takes up a big part of early instruction in drawstroke -- and yet, boatloads of people who have never attended a training class think that their time will be utterly wasted if the class description includes, "Learn to draw..." because they think they already know everything there is to know about that.

Similarly, we run into a lot of shooters who can yank a trigger, but don't know how to efficiently press the trigger in a way that lets them get their hits when they're going fast. We can fix that, if we have them in person in a class where we can give them immediate, personalized feedback about what they're already doing well and what they can do to make it better.

Anyway, here's the link to the video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkjrYcn9iak

All too many shooters feel very accomplished when they can manage just the first skill item on the list above -- or, if they're lucky enough to have access to moving targets, maybe the second item on the list. But real life may demand more than that.

pax
 
Practise, practise, and practise some more

My first day here, and what a great forum to start with.

As my title suggests, PRACTISE! Do it at long range, and do it with a round you are comfortable with!

I see so many handgun shooters shooting heavy hitters that can't hit a pie plate more than 2 or 3 times out of 7, and that is at 7 yards.

I say go outdoors, go to the rifle range, stick up a standard rifle target at 100 yards and learn where your rounds hit and how much you need to adjust to get them on target. Then when you go back to a shorter range, you'll be so much more confident and shoot a heck of a lot better.

As for what I or anyone would do faced with any threat, be it mass shooter/s, terrorists, hopped up drug addicts, or just common robbers, who are armed with AR's, handguns, or any combination of weapons, is totally dependent upon that immediate situation.

But, if you have at least thought about what you'd think you might do, and have become proficient with your weapon, you stand a much better chance of effecting a positive outcome.

I've been under fire, and the first thing I learned is that it scared the bejesus out of me, and that Mother Earth is the best place to get behind, and in a hurry. Then do what you can or must!

By the way, I once took a nice buck on my farm with a 9MM Browning High Power that was on the run at 45 plus yards. Two shots through the heart about 1" apart. Where the other three shots went, I can't say, but those two were good enough. Not bad shooting, but as some have said, he wasn't shooting back!

Cotz
 
Practise

Oh and by the way, my 9MM when sighted in at 25 yards required a 9" hold high at 100 yards........
 
I'm kinda neutral on this conversation--partially because besides all the bravado I find the idea of going out to retrieve a weapon and return to a dynamic engagement rather far-fetched--but also I've been around in non-military situations when live fire bullets were flying around me--and once at me--and the adrenaline impulse to take cover was overpowering for me.

I see this not as question of tactics or rationale of "would you save puppies and little children."

I see this as a question of "Are you willing to make a Kamikaze run in the name of greater humanity in face of over-whelming odds."

The implied assumption is that you are a coward if not. My only question to those who think so is: "have you been in actual firefight against overwhelming odds?"
 
are you really willing to run away while a lunatic massacres innocent people while you have the tool and the ability to stop, interrupt, derail him/them???

THAT is the root question to ask. It is a deeply individual question and has NOTHING to do with being a Hero or coward. Its an individual Moral question, that can ONLY be answered by YOU.

I have made my choice. Training and job duties have further enforced the skills. I will (and have) put myself in harms way for others.

Not a Hero complex, just a guy with the mindset and skills to TRY to make a differences and save a persons (or peoples) life.

My Wife and family knows and understands how im wired. We have discussed and practiced for this type of event. They know that once i get them safe. Im going to do what i can to save others.

That means engaging the threat if needed. Rendering emergency trama care if possible. I am trained and prepared for either

My choice is made....
 
If I was actually present at a "fishbowl massacre"--one where people are crowded into confines and where escape was difficult AND it seemed the odds were high that I would get hit regardless of what I did or did not do--as much of a coward as I am I'd probably select the "let's rock" option. Otherwise, I'd likely retreat and see what ways I could help others retreat and provide on-site intel to hasten the efficiency of rescue. I've done intel forwarding at shooting incidents before--it is generally greatly useful and appreciated by responding LE that otherwise may not have a clue what they are heading into other than it's a hostile fire situation.
 
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.

Is talk not a part of training? I can appreciate the benefits of training. I think everybody can, but telling people to stop discussing something and "go get training" doesn't generate much interest in the training, nor does anything to direct someone to the right kind of training for a specific situation. How many many training classes even address mass shootings by terrorists. It comes across as though discussion of scenarios not in the training books are taboo, because the average armed citizen is not qualified to do anything other than retreat, and discussing scenarios that ARE in the training book are taboo, because if we didn't take the training class, we are too dumb to understand. Maybe if people weren't constanty being told to "shut up and go get some more training" it might actually generate some interest in more training.
 
Consider and train all you want, you still doint know what you would do in that type of situation.

I will react in the spirit of how I have trained as I have in many volatile circumstances in my life as well as 30 years occupationally. Scenario discussions and the "consideration" of [what if] circumstances are a substantial part of how tactics, methodologies are developed.

I dont know anything about skydiving but I can tell you that if I trained as a skydiver and had the occasion to jump from an airplane, I would pull the ripcord based on my training. Maybe I pull it a little early or maybe I pull it a little late but I would pull it.. How do I know this? I know it simply because the alternative is not acceptable. Self defense can be said to be a preservation response and that is one of the most powerful emotions known to man.
 
I've had a surprising number of people I know approach me at my cigar club, before and after the SB shooting incident, asking me to consider training them and their wives with their first handguns (bought for family/home protection).

I was talking to a good friend of mine a couple nights ago, another retired LE firearms trainer and armorer, who has been doing some hunter safety ed classes as a new hobby. He said he's been asked by increasingly more people to train them (and their families) with handguns from a personal defense (not hunting or target shooting) perspective.

He and are going to talk some more after the holidays about maybe creating an incorporated entity (to help shield against vicarious liability), and perhaps offer some different levels of CCW & LE-type training, being very selective in accepting students. We have a wide range of LE experience, training and knowledge that might be helpful to pass along.

Not just LE firearms training in shooting, but also insight into tactics, skillsets, mindset and understanding what NOT to do in different situations, since we're able to reference many things gathered over a couple career's worth (approx 60+ years) of experiences.

Lots of things to consider, though, and it's not something we have any desire to rush into without taking prudent steps to make sure we're protected. Time to look into some legal advice, other organizations and the experiences of some long time trainers (outside dedicated LE training). Wanting to share knowledge and experience with other carefully vetted folks is one thing, but creating needless exposure to unnecessary risk when it comes to our pensions, properties and the future well being of our families is quite another thing.

Naturally, among the guys who have recently approached me, not only have the usual "what if's?" regarding home invasion robberies been asked, but a number of questions about what they ought to do if caught in public at a SB-type terrorist event, or if fleeing terrorists are stopped in front of their homes during a LE pursuit.

I've been trying to explain the way CA law works for use of force, including deadly force, in defense of themselves and any innocent 3rd persons (whether family, friends or strangers). Unsurprisingly, most of them didn't have any idea of how the laws work, and would really benefit from learning about the laws involved every bit as much as learning about safely handling, operating and shooting a firearm. (More so, actually, as even though a gun may be possessed, it's not the 'answer' in real life anywhere nearly as often as some folks might wish to think.)

Anyway ...

My point relevant to the thread topic is that it's going to be difficult to try and hypothetically formulate some realistic and practical preparation if someone is lacking at least a minimum level of current knowledge and realistic training in the subject.

Without at least some accurate knowledge and good quality training, it may come down to someone ending up relying on rumor, guesswork, luck and the unknown quality of 'second hand' info gleaned from friends, people in gun stores or within any of the overwhelming montage of opinions to be found online.

Serious about learning how to lawfully, appropriately and effectively protect yourself and loved ones? Think about finding some training. It's becoming mind-boggling to see the number of training classes being advertised at all of the gun stores I've visited in recent months.

Of course, just like it's been with seeking out martial arts or self defense training, it comes down to a 'buyer beware' situation where it may benefit the prospective student to not only consider what it is he/she wants to learn, and needs to learn, but to carefully try and assess the abilities and background of the trainers being considered. Making an informed decision means trying to become sufficiently informed enough to make the decision.
 
1.) Thank you, HIKER 1, for pointing me to the Jeanne Assam article. Pretty timely, even today.

2.) Talking about these scenarios is ONE aspect of training, but certainly not the ONLY aspect. It is a necessary, but not sufficient component. Unfortunately, it's the least expensive and most convenient aspect, which sometimes results in people over-using it to the detriment of other considerations.

3.) I'm not as big a fan of the character "Hawkeye Pierce" as I was in my youth, but I'll paraphrase one of his lines in my characterization of heroism, because he got pretty close to the mark:

"A hero is someone who is too tired, scared, and angry to give a DAMN about anything but killing whatever put him in that state."

I've never heard ANY survivor of an armed confrontation remark later that they drew their weapon and made an advance on an armed adversary thinking, "WOW! I'LL just take out this BAD GUY, and THEN, if I SURVIVE, I'll be a HERO!"

But I HAVE heard a lot of after-action quips about "I had no other safer options", "I was certain I would be dead if I didn't do something", and one or two "I couldn't have lived with myself after, if I didn't try to do something."

I've fired in defense of my life or others' 3 times. I'm not Audie Murphy, Chesty Puller, nor even Beetle Bailey, so my experience in such matter is by no means extensive. At one point, however, it occurred to me that firefights share certain commonalities with housefires. Nobody wants to be in one, most people go out of their way to prevent one, A FEW equip their dwellings with an immediate and disabling response to them, and it's not uncommon for the innocent to be caught up in both. Anyone see where I'm going with this?

An extension of the analogy is that non-professional onlookers can, with minimal equipment and training, but a little planning, substantially alter the fate of those caught in the middle and utterly undeserving of their circumstances.

One neighbor with one garden hose probably will not extinguish a house fire, single-handed. But perhaps he can retard the fire's progress long enough that children, the elderly, or the infirm, may be assisted out of the maelstrom. Yes, the neighbor's actions present hazards to them, but these generally pale in comparison to the odds that others will succumb, unnecessarily, to the tragedy.
 
Thanks for the intelligent discussion everyone.

I feel the following quote best describes my feelings.

It's hard to know what we would do in a situation because there are many variables and possibilities. My first obligation is to my family. They rely on me for a lot, and I can't afford to take chances with my life and play hero. I'm likely to be in full defense/preservation mode and only fight if cornered.

One exception: If the threat is engaging with others and I'm relatively close with a clear, simple shot, I might just take it. This would be a moment of opportunity where I'd be quite likely to end the threat for everyone. My action wouldn't really decrease my odds of survival. At those distances the threat is just as likely to turn and end me if I choose to run away as I am to miss the shot. Since the shooter may have body armor I'm likely talking about a headshot inside of 20 or so. IOW -- the closer I am to the threat initially the more reasonable it is for me to engage it.

I'd hope to trust my instincts and fully commit to the first notion that pops in my head, but I hope I never have to find out what I'd really do.

My wife is 7 months pregnant with our first child and this has changed my perspective in many ways, and this is likely what prompted me to start this topic. Their preservation is first and foremost, but I have to live in order to be there for them. Providing for my own is my primary concern. That is pragmatic, maybe even selfish but I don't see it as cowardice.

I also agree that training is extremely important.
 
My wife is 7 months pregnant with our first child and this has changed my perspective in many ways...

Then congratulations are in order! Macte virtute! Felicitări! Tillykke!

And I would understand completely, your concentrating on the welfare of your wife and child. Indeed, I would be concerned if you acted in any other way.

For the rest of us, with "nothing on the burner", our priorities of who to protect could be a little bit more "general".
 
Back
Top