Active shooter response

Status
Not open for further replies.
Personally, my carry is a S&W 642, and I'd only expose it briefly to take a shot. My truck rifle is a Winchester 94 lever, and I always have a cowboy hat on hand. I'm also 65 years old and have a beard halfway to my belt. I figure I'm a lot less likely to draw police fire than many.

I'll say, since I mentioned it and I live in TX. In the chaos of a rampage shooting, that outfit will not inspire confidence that you are not the crazed dirtbag. In urban TX or suburban TX, the police forces are quite diverse and some might easily evaluate you as from the more racially intolerant set of rampage shooters.

We have had rampages from the right, the left, the religious intolerant Christians and Muslims, the homophobes, the crazed environmentalists, the professional and neatly dressed workplace avenger, the tactically dressed plain old nuts, etc. No office of the will assume that dress makes you less of risk. The gun in your hand makes you a risk to start with..
 
I merely stated "if you look like a dirtbag, you're more likely to be shot", and that my own appearance likely reduced this possibility. This is not "fantasy", it is merely common sense, and is substantiated by psychological tests. I offered graphic substantiation of the phenomenon earlier, but a mod deemed it racist even though both examples were white. This is of course assuming that LE and others involved are exercising common sense, a factor that is admittedly less likely today than in years past.

If you think for one minute that during the chaos in an active shooter incident that the responding officers are going to initially key in on anything but the gun in your hand you're completely wrong. If one of these teams encounters you with your weapon raised and it looks like you are firing or preparing to fire you most likely will be shot down without warning. The mission is to stop the shooter from shooting anyone else. It's not to arrest the shooter. That is completely secondary to stopping the carnage.

The point here is that appearance DOES matter, and a sensible man accounts for it.

This goes against decades of officer survival training where it is emphasized that anyone regardless of appearance can pose a lethal threat. In this situation the decision to shoot or not shoot is going to be based on actions not appearances. The responding officers are going to see a man with a gun in his hands in a place where a man with a gun has been shooting people. They are going to know that man isn't one of them because he's not wearing a uniform and they are most likely going to do what they are trained to do in that situation which is to stop that person from shooting anyone else.

Your profile says you are 64 years old. I'd be interested to know in what era you received your extensive LE experience because your knowledge of training and procedures is about 40 years out of date.
 
I merely stated "if you look like a dirtbag, you're more likely to be shot",...
What is your basis for that assertion?

Have you ever seen undercover police officers working to infiltrate "dirtbag" operations?

...and that my own appearance likely reduced this possibility.
Sounds like extremely wishful thinking, based entirely on fantasy and naivete, to me.

The point here is that appearance DOES matter, and a sensible man accounts for it.
It may matter when officers have to decide which persons in an area may bear watching more than others in a not-very-dynamic scenario, but it will have no meaningful effect when an arriving officer, or an armed citizen, observes someone with a firearm in a rapidly unfolding, violent active shooter situation.

You're assuming way too much from my statements in your zeal to "correct" me.
I'm not trying "correct" you, and the only thing I am assuming from your statements is that your level of understanding could be greatly improved.

Have you ever trained in realistic simulations to address active shooter situations? Are you practiced at looking for the accomplices ("tail gunners", in Ayoob's words)? Are you practiced at moving to ensure a clear shot and to avoid injuring anyone downrange? Do you instinctively think "backstop" before firing? Are you skilled enough to shoot as rapidly as necessary and with enough precision to be effective without endangering innocents in the area? Based on your skill an on your knowledge of handgun wounding mechanics, how many shots would you expect to fire at the first evil-doer?

There is a facility not far from where I live that can help with all of that. My neighbor works there. But it is costly, and you have to go through an awful lot of training before they will let you try that level.

I'm mo longer up to it physically. I am no longer sufficiently confident in my skill to even think about shooting a gun in a crowd or frightened people.

I'll let trained personnel who are financially supported by their agencies do the intervening.

I carry for self protection. And I retired my 642 long ago.
 
I'm seeing a lot of ego in these posts, not uncommon on gun forums but honestly unexpected from their "staff". I too think your level of understanding - and social skills - could be greatly improved. If you were sincerely interested, I don't think I'd be seeing all these comments about "foolish" and "naive", nor would I see the unnecessary expounding of your alleged vast and inerrant knowledge on this topic.

Your thinly veiled aspersions on my weapon of choice have not gone unnoticed either, they further demonstrate your "my way or the highway" approach. You continue this attitude in your exposition of tactics, ignoring the fact that everyone is different, with different life experiences. Had I lived my LE career with your standards, there would be several dead perpetrators who in my opinion didn't deserve that sentence. I took some chances that I was willing to take, and I wouldn't change a thing. I don't believe in your "shoot anyone with a gun" philosophy, and I never will.

I frankly wouldn't engage you on this topic were you not a moderator, but I personally believe you should be setting an example, not belittling members.

Regardless, no offense taken. I'll try to avoid your deadly serious and heavily moderated "Strategies" section in the future, and concentrate on other sections where I've already experienced some very friendly and useful interactions.
 
As another forum member, it seems to me that the staff has been pretty patient, cordial and even congenial in their efforts to try and help point out some things in some of your postings that might benefit from some re-examination. Isn't this the point of engaging in polite discussion?

Nobody has cast 'aspersions', thinly veiled or otherwise, when it comes to your choice of weapons, but they've seemingly tried to point out that you may be making unwarranted assumptions about what the appearance of your choice of weapons ought to communicate to someone else, from your perspective.

How can any of us guarantee that everyone else is going to see such things the way we like to see them? When the S&W M10 was the most commonly used and recovered crime firearm used by criminals (of the Top Ten firearms of that period, used and recovered from criminals, nationally), that obviously didn't mean anyone police saw carrying one was presumed to be a criminal. Didn't mean they weren't, though, either. If a lever rifle is among the type of firearms sometimes stolen in some geographical area, guess what might be found in the hands of some criminal at some point?

Don't take umbrage at me asking about your length and type of LE service. It's common (and common sense) that one retired cop would ask someone else who mentions they're former LE about their type of service. It's typically one of the first things asked and shared among retired and/or former cops. I'm asked about my length of service all the time when meeting other retired and former cops. For that matter it's been one of the first questions I've been asked by non-LE people who meet me, if they find out I'm a retired cop. (Since some of the guys & gals at my cigar club know me from my LE days, they often introduce me to new members or guests as a retired cop, dammit.)

All of us who have served in LE realize that our familiarity with tactics, procedures and techniques (to say the least) can eventually become out-of-date over time. (Sure, some are essentially 'timeless', but politics, a changing society and evolving tactics to meet newly evolved threats can also impose changes.) Also, some former LE may have had a longer time in the field than some others, which common sense indicates may have allowed for more experience and knowledge to have been made available to us. The type of agency (urban or rural) and location in the country where we served might have had a significant impact on our breadth of knowledge and accrued experience, too. Common sense.

If I'd not continued serving as a firearms instructor and armorer after I'd retired from my regular career, I'd not have been able to keep my training and familiarity updated and current. As it is, since I've taken a sabbatical from teaching and haven't actively updated some of my own training for the last couple of years, unless I decide to return to serving as a trainer next year (I've been asked), and continue to keep abreast of things and return to staying current on training and events in the LE training field, my own knowledge is going to begin to go out-of-date as training evolves in the field. Not my personal skills, so much, as I invested too many years learning and refining them to ignore them and allow them to totally deteriorate. (I hope, at any rate ;) )

Naturally, nobody is asking (I'm definitely not) for the specifics of where you served, but some general idea of the length and depth might make it easier to discuss things. I did 27 years full-time and 8 years of subsequent reserve time in a medium-size agency (less than 600 back before I retired) that saw a wide variety of enforcement activities. My 19 years of serving as a firearms instructor before retirement was an additional responsibility outside of my primary assignments. (We didn't have the budget for an exclusive full-time training staff, as is often the case with agencies of a thousand or less members.) After retirement I continued to serve in a reserve capacity as an instructor and armorer for another 8 years. I was fortunate that I managed to attend my fair share of training for a variety of things in my primary and secondary assignments, including serving on a state committee for one of my interests and responsibilities.

I'm certainly not anybody's 'expert', by any stretch of the imagination, but I've had some opportunity to gain some small amount of knowledge and experience.

In the meantime, why not lighten up and sit back and expect some general questions from members (and staff, no doubt) so other members may better decide how they wish to engage you in discussion? It's human nature. Nobody is asking for specific details about anyone's personal life (nor should they), but a little insight into someone's general life experience and familiarity with some topic of discussion can help foster a better discussion.
 
I'm seeing a lot of ego in these posts, not uncommon on gun forums but honestly unexpected from their "staff".
I see no "ego". Frank Ettin has taught with Massad Ayoob. and is himself highly trained. GEM is a college professor with extensive tactical training and extensive education in important relevant psychological matters. Jeff has a lot of law enforcement experience. I have a little training, but it has been under the best.

We try to share what we have learned from many others, with those who will find it helpful.

I don't think I'd be seeing all these comments about "foolish" and "naive",
I hate to put it quite this way, but there is really no other way to describe your belief that your beard and hat will reduce your risk in a situation of the kind under discussion.

We have all tried to explain that.

It would be better for you to learn it yourself.

Find a good interactive laser training facility, preferably 180 degrees, and have them run you through a couple of dozen "shoot/no-shoot" exercises- - the kind where a delay means you dead, and a bad shoot means you are out of there. See how much attention you pay to the "appearances" of the subjects. See what you think after the experience. It will be worth your time and money, and the milage and lodging.

Your thinly veiled aspersions on my weapon of choice have not gone unnoticed either, they further demonstrate your "my way or the highway" approach.
I don't care at all what you carry, but several really good training sesaions made me well aware that I cannot successfully use a small five-shot D/A revolver in serious defensive drills. Those drills require putting three to five shots into the upper chest area of a moving target in the time it takes a man to move fifteen feet--about a second or a second and a half--and not missing the target.

Let us know what you think after the exercises. You will not find an "I told you so" attitude here.
 
Regardless, no offense taken. I'll try to avoid your deadly serious and heavily moderated "Strategies" section in the future, and concentrate on other sections where I've already experienced some very friendly and useful interactions.

This isn't an airport dude there's no need to announce your departure
 
Find a good interactive laser training facility, preferably 180 degrees, and have them run you through a couple of dozen "shoot/no-shoot" exercises- - the kind where a delay means you dead, and a bad shoot means you are out of there. See how much attention you pay to the "appearances" of the subjects. See what you think after the experience. It will be worth your time and money, and the milage and lodging.

I don't care at all what you carry, but several really good training sesaions made me well aware that I cannot successfully use a small five-shot D/A revolver in serious defensive drills. Those drills require putting three to five shots into the upper chest area of a moving target in the time it takes a man to move fifteen feet--about a second or a second and a half--and not missing the target.
I don't expect to change the mind or even slightly influence those I'm jousting with here, but I'm compelled to post for the benefit of civilian lurkers. All these hopefully well-meaning admonitions that I (and you) need "more training so we'll understand" are not necessarily useful, and though instruction is fine no one should feel inadequate just because they don't have "professional" training. Often LE and ex-LE see the world only through a police lens, and sincerely believe they have all the answers. They don't.

Here's some facts: Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

I won't attempt to address all the material covered in this article, but bear in mind it's compiled from actual FBI data. Here's an excerpt:
"Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life."

My point is this: Armed citizens are significantly more successful at stopping an active shooter than police, and one might also note they killed NO innocent people. This same pattern holds true throughout all statistics involving citizens compared to LE in all armed encounters: civilians have a much higher hit/ammo expended ratio, and a much higher overall success ratio.

I'm not saying the retreat/avoid advice isn't good, I'm merely saying that it isn't the only option. Any use of deadly force involves risk, and only you can decide what is acceptable for you. While taking a life in any circumstance is a huge burden, failing to save a life when you could have might be a burden too... Train as much as you can, prepare mentally as much as you can, know your capabilities, and act accordingly. And don't ever think that you have to have to be able to place five shots on a moving target in less than 2 seconds before you're qualified to carry a weapon. You don't.








 
So the link to get the whole report resolves to: [email protected] sales?? I’m sorry but just because they took some data from an FBI report doesn’t mean that their conclusions are valid.

In my first post in this thread I stated that if the shooter was right in front of you it was your choice to engage of not. That stands.

Where you potentially become part of the problem rather then the solution is when you start looking for the shooter to save the day. This is situationally dependent, in a rural area where you might have a 20 minute response time you might be the response available to stop the shooter. However in an area where the first officers are arriving in 2 minutes or less all of the things I mentioned in my earlier posts kick in. Let’s not forget the armed citizen who was tragically killed by responding officers in a mall not that many months ago.

If you think that carrying a gun makes you some kind of superhero charged with standing for truth, justice and the American way then no amount of talking will change your mind.

If you want to believe that wearing a cowboy hat and a long beard will identify you as one of the good guys I sincerely hope that you never have to learn how wrong you are the hard way.

I’m still interested in your extensive LE experience. Odd how you’ve avoided talking about that once you mentioned it. All I want to know is what years you worked and if it was urban or rural LE and what kind of assignments you had.
 
If you want to believe that wearing a cowboy hat and a long beard will identify you as one of the good guys I sincerely hope that you never have to learn how wrong you are the hard way.

If identifying good guys was this simple, wouldn’t bad guys dress this way to confuse the police?
 
I don't know where you got that "sales" link, it's not on the page anywhere. Here's all the links:

Original article: https://www.concealedcarry.com/news...-95-of-the-time-at-active-shooter-events-fbi/

Link to pdf of article and data download, requires email address:
https://sales.concealedcarry.com/active-shooter

Research report pdf, direct link:
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...+94%+Of+The+Time+At+Active+Shooter+Events.pdf

Raw data pdf, direct link:
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...uccessful+94+of+the+time+-2018+-+Raw+Data.pdf

Where you potentially become part of the problem rather then the solution is when you start looking for the shooter to save the day. This is situationally dependent, in a rural area where you might have a 20 minute response time you might be the response available to stop the shooter. However in an area where the first officers are arriving in 2 minutes or less all of the things I mentioned in my earlier posts kick in. Let’s not forget the armed citizen who was tragically killed by responding officers in a mall not that many months ago.

If you think that carrying a gun makes you some kind of superhero charged with standing for truth, justice and the American way then no amount of talking will change your mind.

If you want to believe that wearing a cowboy hat and a long beard will identify you as one of the good guys I sincerely hope that you never have to learn how wrong you are the hard way.

I’m still interested in your extensive LE experience. Odd how you’ve avoided talking about that once you mentioned it. All I want to know is what years you worked and if it was urban or rural LE and what kind of assignments you had.
At no time did I suggest that one should "start looking for the shooter", this presumption was made with no foundation. Equally, the presumption that I claim some "superhero" status is patently absurd.

If a case were to be made for anyone claiming extraordinary ability, it would fall to those relating their vast training and experience who advise others to do likewise before professing the slightest competence with a firearm. This sort of braggadocio is very telling.

The intense interest in my personal history is just bait for a pissing contest that I won't enter. I could claim anything I wanted - as could anyone else - and it would mean nothing. An online forum is a public exchange of ideas and opinions that one is free to accept or reject as they choose. Such forums always include a few members who insist on "winning" a thread, but these posts are generally among those I count as the least useful.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm posting in this thread mainly for the benefit (or perhaps entertainment) of lurkers who may (or may not) agree with my statements. Listening to the viewpoints of others is, to me at least, one of the great benefits of online forums. I have no need to "win", but my posts are absolutely serious. And I am having fun. :D
 
You claimed “extensive LE experience” I assume to bolster your arguments. You brought it into the discussion and now it’s time to put your cards on the table.

If you don’t want to say when you worked in LE or what you did in LE in the public forum you can PM that basic information to myself of one of the other mods.

Your continued participation here depends on it. The ball is in your court.
 
Seems like this thread is past due for being locked. It sure ain't feeling High Road.
Agreed. If I'm in violation of some "rule" that my continued participation in this Forum requires providing personal information, one would expect I would have been warned long prior to this. I am unable to find any such rule, nor have I claimed that my LE experience provides inerrant support for my opinions.

I'm having a great time in other sections, lots of good responses and info. But frankly I'm appalled with what's going on here. This doesn't seem like an environment that encourages open discussion. :uhoh:
 
Last edited:
All these hopefully well-meaning admonitions that I (and you) need "more training so we'll understand" are not necessarily useful,
Haven't noticed those. I did say that you should test your hypotheiis RE: "dirtbags" with some shoot/no-shoot exercises. I do feel that you will find that helpful.

though instruction is fine no one should feel inadequate just because they don't have "professional" training.
Agreed.

...from actual FBI data. Here's an excerpt: "Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life." My point is this: Armed citizens are significantly more successful at stopping an active shooter than police, and one might also note they killed NO innocent people.
Even if the data sample were large enough to tell us anything, we could not draw any conclusions relevant to what a person should do in any particular active shooter situation.

And don't ever think that you have to have to be able to place five shots on a moving target in less than 2 seconds before you're qualified to carry a weapon. You don't.
No one has suggested that.

If I'm in violation of some "rule" that my continued participation in this Forum requires providing personal information, one would expect I would have been warned long prior to this. I am unable to find any such rule, nor have I claimed that my LE experience provides inerrant support for my opinions.
There is no such rule. You did mention your experience as a basis for your belief in some opinions that are, to be frank, not at all widely accepted among knowledgeable people.

I'm having a great time in other sections, lots of good responses and info. But frankly I'm appalled with what's going on here. This doesn't seem like an environment that encourages open discussion.
You have been offered a lot of good information here , but you seem loathe to accept its validity.
 
The discussion has been open, though going downhill.

Hale, as the mods were saying earlier, there are some people on THR in general who could be considered subject matter experts. There are some people posting here who are highly trained in stopping an active killing. You have been given good information on the topic. When you are less than accepting of the information and posit ideas that are less than mainstream in this realm of tactics, it is recognized as being what it is by those of us who are trained in the field on this topic.

You said you were former LEO, when and where?

I am trained to stop active school killings. I do other things, but that is what my primary job is. Tactics have changed so much since the 90s, and are still evolving. I'm just telling you, and others are as well, that if you have a gun out during an active killing situation, a responder is more than likely not going to give a verbal warning, not going to take in consideration your hairstyle or clothing. The responder has to consider PIE, and all he knows is shots are or have been fired, and you are holding a gun and possibly pointing it at another person. You aren't in uniform and they don't know you.

That is the tactical reality from the perspective of a trained responder. I'm telling you as someone who has seen the training, gone through the scenarios, ans watched others do the scenarios.
 
The discussion has been open, though going downhill.

Hale, as the mods were saying earlier, there are some people on THR in general who could be considered subject matter experts. There are some people posting here who are highly trained in stopping an active killing. You have been given good information on the topic. When you are less than accepting of the information and posit ideas that are less than mainstream in this realm of tactics, it is recognized as being what it is by those of us who are trained in the field on this topic.

You said you were former LEO, when and where?

I am trained to stop active school killings. I do other things, but that is what my primary job is. Tactics have changed so much since the 90s, and are still evolving. I'm just telling you, and others are as well, that if you have a gun out during an active killing situation, a responder is more than likely not going to give a verbal warning, not going to take in consideration your hairstyle or clothing. The responder has to consider PIE, and all he knows is shots are or have been fired, and you are holding a gun and possibly pointing it at another person. You aren't in uniform and they don't know you.

That is the tactical reality from the perspective of a trained responder. I'm telling you as someone who has seen the training, gone through the scenarios, ans watched others do the scenarios.

How many school shootings have you stopped?
When and where did you stop them?
 
There have been 2 school shootings in my district in the last 20 years, one a notorious one, and 3 more in neighboring districts in the last 12, the most recent a month and a half ago.

We have had 2 major, well known mass killing events in the metro area in the last 13 years.

I have not physically intervened to stop one, fortunately. I'm in no rush to do so. My instructors have. Some of my coworkers responded to these events. We study and adapt our tactics from these experiences. When I post, I am posting as a person who has studied and learned from and works side by side with people who have been there and done that.
 
I am trained in my profession to do many things. Some I have done, and I am willing to give expert opinion on those things. Some things I was trained to do, but have not done, and therefore to do not give expert opinions on those things.
 
I am trained in my profession to do many things. Some I have done, and I am willing to give expert opinion on those things. Some things I was trained to do, but have not done, and therefore to do not give expert opinions on those things.
Do as you please, but understand that if everyone were to follow that philosophy, there would be no one to give expert opinions on, or to give instruction in, current air to air combat techniques, defeating enemy countermeasures, actual use of ejection seats, undersea warfare, nuclear reactor catastrophe management, or a lot of other things.

Regarding incidents involving the use of deadly force, whether in the stopping of school shootings or not , those speaking from actual experience would have to limit themselves to the discussion of only the few aspects that happened to arise in their events.

And there would be far too few people available to begin to fill the need for instructors for any of those things.

Teaching and learning and strategy development cannot be so constrained.
 
Do as you please, but understand that if everyone were to follow that philosophy, there would be no one to give expert opinions on, or to give instruction in, current air to air combat techniques, defeating enemy countermeasures, actual use of ejection seats, undersea warfare, nuclear reactor catastrophe management, or a lot of other things.

Regarding incidents involving the use of deadly force, whether in the stopping of school shootings or not , those speaking from actual experience would have to limit themselves to the discussion of only the few aspects that happened to arise in their events.

And there would be far too few people available to begin to fill the need for instructors for any of those things.

Teaching and learning and strategy development cannot be so constrained.
I agree it is important to understand theory based on the best conclusions that can be drawn from the experience of others, but also feel that these scenarios are fluid. Mike Tyson said “everyone has a plan til they get punched in the mouth”.
 
, but also feel that these scenarios are fluid. Mike Tyson said “everyone has a plan til they get punched in the mouth”.

They are extremely fluid and everyone is different. That’s why first responders train for them. Training is not rote. It’s varied with a different scenario every time. If the budget can handle it simunitions are used. If the department has its act together every effort is made to make it as realistic as possible.
 
I agree it is important to understand theory based on the best conclusions that can be drawn from the experience of others,
It is not only important to understand the theory, but to train, as realistically as is reasonably practicable, for as many scenarios as possible.

...but also feel that these scenarios are fluid.
They are indeed. And as Jeff points out, every one is different.
 
As Kleanbore points out and the literature supports, quality simulations do work. It's been shown in air combat, fire, ships, trains, medicine and police work. As an old guy civilian, I've been through a few active shooter scenarios (some with law enforcement participation). Won some, died in some. Been the shooter and I hope aid officers in learning what not to do.

An officer may have learned in one of mine not to quickly shoot an innocent standing there with hands up or to pie a door way rather than charging in. I learned not to run out a door without taking a peek first (if you have time). It's all fluid. I learned that charging the gun man - you get shot sometimes. Sometimes, you disarm them and shoot them. Interesting problem. Several terrorists. You, by the grace of God, disarm one. What to do - well, I 'shot' said person as soon as I had the gun. The police evaluating action said: Why? I said the person was just trying to kill me. The fight was ongoing through the simulated courtroom. The bad person was reaching for me. The consensus of the officers and trainers was that it worked for them.

The idea is to give folks a chance to process situations cognitively and thus build automatic, perceptual analyses of situations that will evoke correct responses. It's been truly studied. Of course, the scenarios are built with input from folks have have been in such and/or intensively studied records, videos, eye witness accounts, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top