Engaging an AR shooter with handgun

[psyopspec]

When I got married my mentality underwent a shift on the matter of reacting to a mass shooting; I suddenly had something other than myself to lose, and now prioritize getting the family out. However, with my wife having limited mobility the fastest way out may not be that fast, and mounting a good offense, or being prepared with every possible defensive option come into play. That's manifested in my training by being prepared to 1) guide or drag her if necessary while having the gun up with one hand and 2) practicing shots on head-sized targets out to 100 yards. #2 is not an ideal option, but a tool to have in the box. And I like having a diverse array of tools.

Another interesting thought around mass shootings--to be taken by each as he or she likes--is that they tend to end at the first armed intervention. Many trainers of agencies, for example, will now point out that the first responding officer may end the situation, which is a change from the Columbine era of waiting for backup or a SWAT team.

 

[benEzra]

You also have the possibility of the guy with a rifle being unnerved by the person closing in on him especially if he's firing while advancing.

IIRC, that is more or less how it went down when the would-be mass shooter at the church in Colorado Springs was stopped by a church member with a 9mm CCW.

 

[X-Rap]

I think that what we have come to consider the "typical" mass shooting would be ended with the first assertive offensive fire since that seems to trigger the suicide component of many of the attacks but I think that will change as we see in the jihadist attacks in which they continue to fight or disperse to fight again.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[MachIVshooter]

I'm a pretty good shot with a pistol, was ringing a 24" x 24" plate at 118 yards two out of every three shots with my pocket carry DB9 weekend before last. But engage a rifle shooter with a handgun? Only if there's absolutely no other option. Unlike Terry, I'm still fairly young (34) with a little boy counting on me. If I were by myself and was reasonably sure I could get the drop on an active shooter, then maybe I'd try, as protecting innocent life is something I feel I should do whenever possible. But my son comes first always, and I cannot protect and provide for him if I get myself killed or maimed trying to protect others who failed to take appropriate measures to protect themselves.

 

[psyopspec]

^Speaking of Terry having a few years on many of of us, I wanted to point out that I was surprised to hear that. He's clearly someone who continues to learn and make a habit of good thinking, rather than being a strict keeper of the habits learned when he first started shooting. Seriously would have guessed from years of seeing your posts that you were in your 50's, tops, guy. Thanks for setting an example of graceful aging and life long learning.

 

[scaatylobo]

@ 230 rn

Saw your post and smiled.

I am a bit long in the tooth also,and PLAN on living to a ripe older age.

But saw the "Mumbai" attack and knew what I would have to do IF [ IF being the key word ] there was no way out,or I just was honor bound to stay and take action [ wife,friends,innocents in line of fire ].

I actually train for such a scenario,and PRAY that I wont find out if my play acting would work.

Look for the best cover and make the shooter earn his wings ,if at all possible.

 

[X-Rap]

One killed and six wounded with 212 rounds is the kind of hit ratio I hope I'm up against if it would ever happen to me.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[230RN]

Thank you, just realistic decisioneering.

psyopspec remarked,

When I got married my mentality underwent a shift on the matter of reacting to a mass shooting; I suddenly had something other than myself to lose, and now prioritize getting the family out. However, with my wife having limited mobility the fastest way out may not be that fast, and mounting a good offense, or being prepared with every possible defensive option come into play.

Remember that every store in the mall has a back door into a corridor leading to the loading docks and or dumpster areas. Beats having to drag the wife and kids through the mall's killing field to get out through a normal exit.

Terry, 230RN

 

[scaatylobo]

@ 230 rn

TOTALLY agree about TAKE THE BACK DOOR = if at all possible.

But if you recall Mumbai ,there were too many attacker and they took over the building.

IF you can get out,and do not = SHAME ON YOU.

Best "gun fight " is the one you avoid,MUCH less incoming rounds and that means LESS holes in all y'all.

I just train for the OMG moment that means I cannot get out of Dodge.

 

[jmorris]

Interesting how different the same crime can be reported.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/30/us/fatal-houston-shooting.html?_r=0


Like many things in life, it depends. There were a bunch of people that did nothing about a few guys with box cutters and thousands died because of it. No telling how many of the 40 on flight 93 decided to put their lives at risk to save others but also no way to know exactly how many lives they saved.

Over 200 rounds fired from a two tour solder and he killed only one person, I would say is pretty lucky. Depending on the lives Mr Wilson saved, he might think it was something he would do again. Then again he might just run out the back and let the chips fall.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Years ago, I developed an "Action on contact" drill for the Army. This drill contravened the standard "Charge a close ambush and run away from a far ambush" drill -- which is obviously worthless.

I based my drill on experience:

First of all, on contact you're taken by surprise (if you saw the enemy coming, you'd ambush him.)

Secondly, people under fire will instinctively seek cover.

Third, they will probably NOT know where the fire is coming from.

Fourth, you HAVE to do something.

So the drill is:

1. Take cover! You're still alive, try and stay that way.

2. Locate the enemy.

3. Return Fire.

The remaining two steps of the drill are military and probably not applicable in a civilian situation. I would replace them with:

4. Dial 911

5. Keep the police informed of the situation.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Most carriers CC pistols of some sort. To me that indicates quite simply, short distance interaction.

IMHO the closer the distance the less disadvantage of having "only a pistol" comes into play. Sure the attackers weapon could be more devastating than yours but it's still reasonable to try and stop the threat. Much different than an attacker at a distance with cover and a rifle.

Within range it simply becomes a matter of training and shot placement, and fingers crossed that their not wearing armor. Unless of course you always only aim for head shots.

But a attacker from a distance with a long gun and I/we only have a pistol? You hi-tail it outta there.


NOTE: this might be one reason for more of us gun folks to start carrying a reasonable capacity semi long gun in our vehicles. Of course, only if you're so inclined, none of us are obligated so do not feel as such.

 

[Jeff White]

NOTE: this might be one reason for more of us gun folks to start carrying a reasonable capacity semi long gun in our vehicles. Of course, only if you're so inclined, none of us are obligated so do not feel as such.

I was wondering how many posts this thread would go before this was suggested.

What good will a long gun in your vehicle do you if you are not at your vehicle when the shooting starts?

Do you really think it's a good idea to leave an active shooter scene, secure a long gun and head back into the scene?

What do you think the first responding police, who probably have almost no reliable information about what is happening at that point are going to think when they see you heading for the action with a long gun in your hands?

You are most likely going to be shot down without warning by the first responding officer who sees you and your long gun.

I carried two long guns, an AR and a shotgun in my squad car, and if I thought I was going to need a firearm I took one with me when I exited the vehicle.

If you are unfortunate enough to be in the middle of an active shooter incident, then the fight is on you and if you decide to fight, your only option is to fight with what you are carrying.

So you are in the mall and shooting breaks out, do you really think you are going to sprint a couple hundred (or more) yards to your vehicle, secure your trusty AR, AK, SKS, Winchester 94 etc. and sprint back in to take out the shooter?

Sorry but I just don't think this is a viable tactic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mljdeckard]

Yes, the odds are small, but the odds of you being involved in a mass shooting in the first place are very small to begin with. If we say "It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it", does that not also apply here as well?

Yes the odds are small that it would do any good. But at the same time, I want all of the options I can get. It would really suck if I WERE in my truck when such a disaster occurred, or I DID need to go get a long gun, and I didn't have the option. I live in a place, and my lifestyle is such, that I probably have a long gun in my truck a lot of the time anyway.

But yes, plan A is to cover my retreat with whatever I have available. I once zapped a jackrabbit at about 75 yards with my 1911. The rabbit wasn't shooting back.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

You also have the possibility of the guy with a rifle being unnerved by the person closing in on him especially if he's firing while advancing.

IIRC, that is more or less how it went down when the would-be mass shooter at the church in Colorado Springs was stopped by a church member with a 9mm CCW.

LOL, no it is how the Colorado Spring church shooting went down at all.

The former cop, performing as a security guard for New Life Church ran to a position of cover, laid in wait for the gunman to advance on her position and when he did, identified herself as a police office. He did not comply with commands and she opened up on him and he went down. He was not unnerved at all. She says she then advanced on him and he was shooting at her and she was shooting at him. During all of that, he managed to get up and move to a position of cover.

Here is her interview immediately following the event.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqDVBWcBy2g

Here is her revised interview a few years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sGx_acSmzw

http://www.denverpost.com/2007/12/10/guards-hands-didnt-even-shake-as-she-shot-gunman/

I think that what we have come to consider the "typical" mass shooting would be ended with the first assertive offensive fire since that seems to trigger the suicide component of many of the attacks but I think that will change as we see in the jihadist attacks in which they continue to fight or disperse to fight again.

Unfortunately, this belief people have that the gunmen are cowards and will commit suicide at the first sign of trouble is an exceptionally naive belief that while hopeful, is tactically very poor. Usually, suicides happen only after the shooters have accomplished their goals or have come to realize that they have no other way out. Having no other way out frequently may come after first being engaged in a gun battle. Charlie Whitman, Klebold and Harris, Matthew Murray, David Hernandez Arroyo, Sr., Farook and Malik, Aaron Alexis, Wade Michael Page, Jared Lee Loughner, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, Sulejman Talovic, Colin Ferguson, James Oliver Huberty, and Michael Kenneth McLendon are several examples of folks who did NOT give upon meeting resistance. Most ran into gunfire, two (Loughner and Ferguson) were subdued by people not armed with guns.

 

[X-Rap]

Whether we want to argue over typical, or usually i think we can agree that making the assumption that gunman will either kill themselves or run away is not a sound tactic in today's world.

Sent from my VK410 using Tapatalk

 

[SSN Vet]

I'm quoting from the initial news article (situation still unfolding) that jmorris linked....

The role of the second gunman was less clear. “We’re trying to figure out what his role in this was,” Officer Cannon said during a news conference. “Was he a suspect, or someone who happened to be armed with a gun?”

Asked if the police regarded him as a suspect, he said, “We’ll say he is a suspect because he had a gun.”

And am reminded again that to the police, anyone with a gun is a gunman and you may likely get shot down by the boys in blue.

 

[shafter]

I was wondering how many posts this thread would go before this was suggested.

What good will a long gun in your vehicle do you if you are not at your vehicle when the shooting starts?

Do you really think it's a good idea to leave an active shooter scene, secure a long gun and head back into the scene?

What do you think the first responding police, who probably have almost no reliable information about what is happening at that point are going to think when they see you heading for the action with a long gun in your hands?

You are most likely going to be shot down without warning by the first responding officer who sees you and your long gun.

I carried two long guns, an AR and a shotgun in my squad car, and if I thought I was going to need a firearm I took one with me when I exited the vehicle.

If you are unfortunate enough to be in the middle of an active shooter incident, then the fight is on you and if you decide to fight, your only option is to fight with what you are carrying.

So you are in the mall and shooting breaks out, do you really think you are going to sprint a couple hundred (or more) yards to your vehicle, secure your trusty AR, AK, SKS, Winchester 94 etc. and sprint back in to take out the shooter?

Sorry but I just don't think this is a viable tactic.

This is true. Anyone leaving the scene and returning with a long gun is asking for trouble. Responding units to an active shooter aren't going to be asking questions when they arrive on scene and see a subject with a long gun.

 

[bearcreek]

Sorry but I just don't think this is a viable tactic.

You may be right. Here's the thing though. I carry a Glock 19 nearly everywhere I go. The chances of me getting in a defensive shooting in my rural corner of Amish country are extremely small, but I carry every day anyway. It's become a habit, and a habit that doesn't harm anyone and has even the smallest potential to help someone doesn't seem like that bad of an idea. Same with a long gun carried in a vehicle. Nothing saying you have to take it out to defend life but it seems like, generally speaking, it'd be better to have the option on the off chance that it's the tool for the job. Personally, I think we're destined to see these kinds of events with increasing frequency, leading to the increased potential for a long gun to be a viable option.

 

[bearcreek]

Interesting how different the same crime can be reported.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/30/us/fatal-houston-shooting.html?_r=0

That's for sure. I'll bet the NYT doesn't update this story with the facts.

 

[TimSr]

Not the odds I would choose, but sometimes the situation may warrant that you "do what you gotta do". Facing a guy head on who has superior fire power, and waiting for him to "draw on me first" may be the honorable thing to do in old western movies, but bad guys seem to be far less honorable these days. If I have a clean shot, and he's focused on somebody else, I would hope I would take it.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

First of all, you will not know what's going on initially. You'll only know there's a lot of noise and screaming and people running. So take cover.

Next, while under cover, attempt to assess the situation. Locate the enemy if you can.

Third, you are under no obligation to be a hero. But if the shooter approaches you and you get a shot, take it. The ideal situation would be for you to go into a room and close the door. Position yourself in the corner on the same side as the door hinges -- if the shooter enters, you will have the door between him and yourself, and that will give you a bit of warning.

Use your cell phone to call 911 and keep the police updated on the situation.

 

[shafter]

You may be right. Here's the thing though. I carry a Glock 19 nearly everywhere I go. The chances of me getting in a defensive shooting in my rural corner of Amish country are extremely small, but I carry every day anyway. It's become a habit, and a habit that doesn't harm anyone and has even the smallest potential to help someone doesn't seem like that bad of an idea. Same with a long gun carried in a vehicle. Nothing saying you have to take it out to defend life but it seems like, generally speaking, it'd be better to have the option on the off chance that it's the tool for the job. Personally, I think we're destined to see these kinds of events with increasing frequency, leading to the increased potential for a long gun to be a viable option.

I think you're right about seeing these sorts of events occur more frequently, however, I think the liability of leaving a rifle in a vehicle unless very well secured isn't worth the liability.

First of all, you will not know what's going on initially. You'll only know there's a lot of noise and screaming and people running. So take cover.

Next, while under cover, attempt to assess the situation. Locate the enemy if you can.

Third, you are under no obligation to be a hero. But if the shooter approaches you and you get a shot, take it. The ideal situation would be for you to go into a room and close the door. Position yourself in the corner on the same side as the door hinges -- if the shooter enters, you will have the door between him and yourself, and that will give you a bit of warning.

This is the proper tactic for an armed citizen to utilize his weapon in an active shooter scenario. You're positively identifying the shooter, lessening the chances of yourself being shot by another good guy or law enforcement, and by letting the shooter come to you, you lessen the risk your shots will pose to the public.

Pay attention to responding law enforcement and when they show up make sure your gun isn't anywhere in sight and comply immediately to instructions. There's nothing wrong with giving your description to dispatch but honestly the police won't care and everyone will be a threat until the scene is secure.

 

[Jeff White]

I carry a Glock 19 nearly everywhere I go. The chances of me getting in a defensive shooting in my rural corner of Amish country are extremely small, but I carry every day anyway. It's become a habit, and a habit that doesn't harm anyone and has even the smallest potential to help someone doesn't seem like that bad of an idea. Same with a long gun carried in a vehicle. Nothing saying you have to take it out to defend life but it seems like, generally speaking, it'd be better to have the option on the off chance that it's the tool for the job. Personally, I think we're destined to see these kinds of events with increasing frequency, leading to the increased potential for a long gun to be a viable option.

If it gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, go ahead and carry a long gun in your vehicle. But unless you are going to carry it on your person everywhere you go, like you carry your Glock 19, don't expect it to be any more use to you then if it was at home in the safe, if it's in your vehicle and you aren't when the fight comes.

When the fight comes to you, you are going to be limited to what you have on you at the time. It is utter folly to think that you can leave an active shooter situation, retreat to your vehicle, arm yourself with a bigger, more powerful weapon and charge back in to be the hero.

Active shooter doctrine is no longer to isolate the situation and wait for SWAT. The first responding officers are going to organize into small hunter teams, enter the affected area and end the situation by killing the shooter.

They are going to have very sketchy information and there will be no reliable way to sort out the "good guys with guns" from the active shooter. Fratricide is a distinct possibility. You are going to have multiple officers from multiple agencies responding to an incident like that. There is going to be a lot of confusion and anyone who is visibly armed is likely to be shot down. Uniformed officers have been killed by "friendly fire" in the past. Plainclothes officers have been shot in the past.

If you make it out of the situation to get to your vehicle, you should leave. getting your long gun and charging back in is very likely to have tragic consequences.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Jeff I wasn't advocating leaving the scene to get a LG from your vehicle, absolutely not. I'm saying it's not out of the realm of possibility to be in or near your vehicle when a threat first shows itself, long before any LE would be on scene. I felt the idea fit the original incident because it's not unreasonable to think someone getting their car washed might be near their car, no?


Personally I do not leave any firearms in my truck as it's too much of a liability IMHO. I mentioned that "this may be a reason for more of us to start" meaning folks that don't have any issue with the idea. Also, I did say "may be"...