You have missed the point by several miles.
This is what an active shooter response looks like. THink about how quickly this went down as you contemplate being on scene with a visible firearm.
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
The only clarification required was clarification that your strawmen did not apply to what I posted. You should spend more time reading what has been posted and just responding to it and less time trying to create sound-bite versions of posts twisted to suit your own argument.
Absolutely not. And I don't believe you are really stupid enough to think it is. If it were, I would have posted what you did and saved a lot of thought and a lot of typing.
Bcwitt
Member
With respect, it sounds like you are saying " How to survive the police". That is a very disturbing thought. I do appreciate you clarified that.
He said nothing of the kind.
It is becoming increasingly clear that you have little or no appreciation of how a violent event can unfold.
Try his: put yourself somewhere where shots are fired.
The police have not yet arrived.
Draw your handgun.
Now, explain why you would think that other citizens who were present would not reasonably believe that you were the shooter.
luzyfuerza
Member
I've been loathe to express any thoughts on this. Especially here, in this forum.
Because I'm a nobody. I've never been a cop, and my only expertise is as a self-defender. I cannot claim to have studied hundreds of mass murder events in detail. So I can only contribute ideas, not complete solutions.
But if I could change both police and self-defenders' responses, this is where I would start.
For Police
Educate cops about likely, readily-observable differences between mass murderers and self-defenders.
1) Just under half of mass murderers carry long guns. By contrast, virtually no self defenders carry long guns in public. If a cop sees a person in a mass murder scene who is not in uniform and carrying a long gun, he is likely a murderer. However, those who only have handguns may be either murderers or defenders...assess carefully.
2) Only 4% of mass murderers are female. A visibly armed female is unlikely to actually be a mass murderer.
3) 50% of mass murderers are under age 30. And 75% are under age 40. If cops see a person with a visible firearm and grey hair, they are less likely to be a mass murderer than someone younger.
4) By contrast (if THR demographics are any indication) a male retiree with an LCP or snubby in hand is unlikely to be a murderer.
Educate cops that their response to a shooting in a GFZ should be somewhat different than a response to a shooting in a location where armed defenders may be present.
1) 82% of mass murder events have occurred in GFZs. Given their law-abiding natures, few armed defenders will be present in a GFZ. Police can move forward with the idea that someone carrying a visible weapon in a GFZ is highly likely to be a murderer.
2) Conversely, when responding to a shooting in a non-GFZ, police should be more careful to consider the likely presence of armed defenders.
3) In jurisdictions where wide-spread concealed carry by the law-abiding is a new cultural concept (e.g. New York, New Jersey, etc.) this concept may need to be taught repeatedly.
(See https://crimeresearch.org/2024/01/u...lic-shootings-from-1998-through-october-2023/ for more information about mass murder events.)
For Self-Defenders
Educate ALL armed self-defenders (even those who are just learning to shoot) about the nature of criminal or mass murder scenes and likely police response.
1) Police who respond to any public shooting events have a very difficult time distinguishing between an armed murderers and armed defenders.
2) Having a firearm visibly in hand increases the likelihood of being "neutralized" by responding police.
3) Acting like a hunter in search of a mass murderer increases the likelihood of being "neutralized" by responding police.
4) The more time that passes from the onset of an event, the more likely is it that police are on-site.
FoF exercises teach items 1-3 in a visceral, unforgettable way.
Armed defenders should tweak their firearm training and equipment to minimize the time their gun is out of the holster.
1) Armed defenders should focus on learning to shoot quickly and confidently from a concealed holster. Consider starting exercises more often with the hand on the butt of a gun. Having a smooth, consistent draw to accurate first shot reduces the tendency some have to move or search with a gun at low-ready or SUL. Which may also reduce the risk of mis-identification by police.
2) Use of equipment which facilitates smooth, one-handed reholstering makes it easier to get the gun out of defenders' hands after use.
3) Practicing with an after-action checklist can also minimize the time a gun is out of the holster (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itzcJPdxZiQ).
Those who pocket-carry small guns may struggle with items 1 and 2.
Armed defenders should learn to better apply the concept of "situational awareness" to criminal and mass murder events.
1) Armed defenders should train to use heightened "situational awareness" to watch both for murderers, as well as for responding police.
2) Armed defenders should learn to listen for sounds that tell them that police are on-scene. These sounds may include vehicle sirens, announcements over bullhorns, and verbal challenges. (Note that police may want to make sure that loud announcements are included in their protocols for entering mass murder scenes.)
3) As part of their daily activities, defenders should learn to keep an eye out for areas that they could retreat to. Retreating to a defensible space is much safer than joining the hunt for a murderer. If a defender must fight, then fight. But as Claude Werner emphasizes, defenders' priorities should always be Avoid, Escape, Confront, Resist. In that order.
The cost of killing
‘too bad they didn’t kill him’ ‘needs to get more practice at the range so they have better aim [to kill him]’ –Internet common-taters Often when a story surface…
thetacticalprofessor.net
BTW, I refuse to call perpetrators of mass murder events "active shooters." I shoot regularly, and I am therefore an "active shooter." These nutjobs are mass murderers. I always call them what they really are.
Last edited:
Life is dangerous. Some situations are more dangerous than others. Knowledge is power. You can accept the knowledge and use it to your advantage, or reject it, rail against reality and just hope you are lucky. Just keep in mind that when it comes down to a conflict between personal opinions vs. reality, reality always wins.
The problem is that sometimes it's very difficult to tell. Is the guy with the tac vest and an AR-15 who just shot someone an off duty cop who grabbed a weapon and body armor and who has just shot the threat, or is it a kitted-up bad guy who just murdered another innocent victim? Is the guy standing over the dead guy and holding a rifle the cop-killer you're responding to or is it a good guy who just shot the bad guy and took his rifle? You'd better figure it out quickly because if you get it wrong, you could end up being the next victim--or shooting a good guy.
In the video that started this thread, it's quite easy to see that determining the difference between the shooter running out with a hostage and a defender running with a victim to safety is hard to discern rapidly and it's also easy to see why it might be really disadvantageous to the hostage (if that's what she turns out to be) to try to resolve the situation verbally. In another situation, a verbal challenge might make a lot of sense, but there really isn't a good one size fits all type solution.
As you can see here, some people get very irate when it is suggested that they can learn about how to avoid looking like a threat to other defenders and to the cops.