PDA

View Full Version : Tackling Active Shooters as Self Defense


Double Naught Spy
January 15, 2011, 12:32 PM
Not to hijack the other related thread, http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=436560, tackling active shooters was brought up and Gleen E. Meyer noted correctly..

Tackle - it was also tried at Virginia Tech and the kid was shot to pieces. On the other hand in a Oregon school shooting, it worked. Have to google the details. Think the kid took a round but got to him. It does depend on distance.

Tackling is dangerous because doing so means increasing your proximity to the shooter which means the shooter may more easily be able to shoot you. It also means that you may end up with the shooter's attention focussed on you when it otherwise may not have been.

It was not terribly successful at VT as Glenn noted. It wasn't successful for Al Gratia and at least one other patron at Luby's. There is no real indication that their deaths saved the lives of any others by making their attacks. The shooter wasn't stopped or significantly delayed by the attempts and simply continued locating and shooting patrons. Gratia's daughter, however, managed to escape while the gunman was reloading - better timing.

Success in stopping a shooter is a bit of a tricky area to describe. Stopping the shooter makes it successful, one could argue, but as will be seen in the examples below, the shooter frequently isn't stopped from shooting so much as being not allowed to continue. Most of the successful active shooter stops occurred when the shooter was out of ammo, reloading, or had already voluntarily stopped. Only rarely is an active shooter stopped by being physically attacked/tackled/wrestled while still actively shooting. So the true success stories are those where the shooter had intent and means to continue the attack, but was prevented from doing so. That would be the case in the Giffords/Arizona shooting. Loughner was stopped at a point when he could not shoot, though he was trying to rectify that problem when he was clubbed over the back of the shoulders and head with a chair and tackled by the doctor who had played dead and veteran that had suffered a glancing shot to the back of his head. Loughner continued to try to load his gun while on the ground, but was stopped by the tacklers and others.

It wasn't very successful for Reagan's attempted assassination where the shooter managed to empty his revolver and struck 4 people, though Hinckley was kept from killing the President. Hinckley had to stop shooting after 6 shots because his gun was empty and as far as I can tell, he didn't have more ammo and would not have been able to reload his gun while fighting off security people. So he was captured more so than stopped.

I did a quick search for incidents where tackling has worked.

It was successful in Littleton at Deer Creek Middle School.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/24/teacher-tackles-suspected-gunman-school-shooting/

It worked at Kelly Elementary.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/carlsbad/article_61b0007a-1ac5-52cc-acf6-4d942530dfca.html

It worked at the law school shooting, though the shooter appeared done with shooting (captured, not stopped)...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,43254,00.html

Kip Kinkel was stopped by several students at Thurston High School....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurston_High_School

...and at New York-New York Casino, stopped by off duty military reservists...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/07/06/shooting-spree-sets-off-s_n_55255.html

Maryville Baptist Church shooter tackled...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9ZuAwJOIfE

Another church...attempted shooting...okay it was just a BB gun but the tacklers didn't know it...
http://www.wpxi.com/news/23650725/detail.html

Knoxville, Tennessee church shooter tackled...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=5463260&page=1

Hudson Valley Mall, tackled after running out of ammo...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Valley_Mall

Pennsylvania mall shooter tackled from behind...
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/10/31/us/2-killed-in-shopping-mall-as-woman-fires-on-crowd.html

Phoenix strip club shooter tackled and beaten after he ran out of ammo (captured?)...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9KD2J5O0&show_article=1

I will stop listing examples now. Based on the information from the incidents, more often than not, shooters are stopped by unarmed folks who engage the shooter primarily through tackling/wrestling when the shooter is unable to shoot, such as when he has put his gun down (law school shooting) or out of ammo/reloading (several incidents). Cho at VT was a bit more prepared for this sort of contingency. He brough along two handguns and did not have to run out of ammo before reloading, though I don't know if that was actually the case. Like at Luby's, folks may have rushed Cho while he was shooting and he only needed to spot the attack and turn the gun on his attackers.

The Arizona folks attacked at the ideal time, when he was in the process of reloading and dealing with a bad magazine.

Unless the shooter can be attacked from behind or otherwise blindsided, rushing the shooter who is actively shooting puts the would-be hero good guys/gals at the most risk and at the greatest chance for failure. Timing appears to be critical. As hard as it may be to do for some, waiting until the shooter has to stop shooting (empty/reloading/malfunction) offers the greatest chance for success in both stopping the shooter and for the good guy/gal attackers not getting shot or killed in the attack. Similarly, it will be just as hard for many to realize and comprehend that a lull in the shooting may mean an opportunity to stop the shooter when the shooter is unable to shoot. What is most frightening here is discerning if the lull is because the shooter can't shoot or because the shooter just isn't pulling the trigger. Given the short amount of time needed to reload semi-autos or use speedloaders in revolvers, the window of opportunity may not be very big.

2edgesword
January 15, 2011, 02:16 PM
"Based on the information from the incidents, more often than not, shooters are stopped by unarmed folks who engage the shooter primarily through tackling/wrestling when the shooter is unable to shoot..."

I think in many instances shooting the attacker isn't the primary option because in spite of CCW most individuals in the vicinity of the shooter are unarmed. This is especially true in situations like Virginia Tech where the shooting occurs in a so-called "sensitive" area.

In the most recent incident in Arizona it appears the closest person that was carrying at the time was so far away from the incident by the time he got their the attacker had already been subdued.

TailGator
January 15, 2011, 02:39 PM
I have never been in the situation, but I doubt that proximity is the only issue. Judging only from the news reports, it appears that there was an active shooter moving through a crowd, and it is easy to imagine that individuals in the crowd were moving in unpredictable directions. I don't know how one could get a safe shot in such a situation without being at contact distance and having a combination of weapon and ammunition that gave you a high degree of confidence that you would not have a through-and-through round that endangered others.

Situations like that seem like a no-win to me. If I understand Double-Naught's point correctly - that there are situations in which we may have need of responses other than firearms, and that they can have some success if employed with rational thinking and a commitment to positive action - is a point well worthy of consideration.

2edgesword
January 15, 2011, 02:55 PM
One other point I would make with respect to the utility of a firearm or lack thereof in a particular situation. I would rather be in a situation with a firearm where an opportunity to use it may or may not present itself versus being in the situation, have the opportunity to use it present itself, and not have the firearm.

ojibweindian
January 15, 2011, 03:35 PM
If I'm tackling a guy with a gun, I'm gonna have a knife in hand.

jimbob86
January 15, 2011, 04:08 PM
....... it beats hiding under a desk and waiting your your turn for your bullet in the head ..... at the very worst, you'll soak up more than one.

Fight Back. Everybody meets death ...... don't meet it whimpering under a desk. ....... who is it here that has that sig line : "Flip 'em the bird and die like a viking!" ?

Double Naught Spy
January 15, 2011, 04:18 PM
I think in many instances shooting the attacker isn't the primary option because in spite of CCW most individuals in the vicinity of the shooter are unarmed.

Right. Shooting the bad guy isn't just not a primary option, but is no option at all if you don't have a gun.

Situations like that seem like a no-win to me. If I understand Double-Naught's point correctly - that there are situations in which we may have need of responses other than firearms, and that they can have some success if employed with rational thinking and a commitment to positive action - is a point well worthy of consideration.

Bingo. If you do have to respond in such a manner, just like if you decided to draw your gun and engage the shooter, it is something that needs to be done in a smart manner and how that appears to have been mostly manifest in previous incidents is by waiting for a lull in the shooting that signified the shooter was empty/unloaded.

McCowan was an armed CCW guy who responded at Tacoma Mall, but did not respond smartly and he was shot several times.

So with a gun or without, how you respond certainly may determine how well things turn out. Tackling is an option that primarily unarmed people have used at numerous past events and with a goodly amount of success, success being tied to how well they took advantage of the shooter's shortcomings (orientation, not ready to fire).

raimius
January 15, 2011, 06:24 PM
Tackling/stabbing/striking/etc are very dependent on timing and orientation.

Just a thought for those who are armed, that was discussed in a class I took. What happens when the background has too many innocents? One option may simply be to crouch before firing! A simple action may change the background enough to get a clear shot (or at least less risky, in the case of open sky).

Don P
January 15, 2011, 06:40 PM
yep, let me run and get closer to the shooter trying to tackle him so I can get shot at point blank range. :rolleyes:
Maybe I can bite his ankle:rolleyes:

Double Naught Spy
January 15, 2011, 09:46 PM
yep, let me run and get closer to the shooter trying to tackle him so I can get shot at point blank range.
Maybe I can bite his ankle

Nobody is suggesting that you have to rush the shooter in hopes of making a tackle. Defense includes numerous options. You may try to hide, play dead, get behind cover, run away, attack with an improvised or formal weapon. Tackling an active shooter is just another option for defense. Depending on the circumstances, tackling the shooter may be one of the best options for defense.

Think about events like Luby's and VT. Not doing anything to stop the shooters meant that there was a good possibility that if you weren't already shot, the shooter may get around to finally shooting you. If already shot, not doing anything resulted in several folks getting shot additional times moments later as the shooter walked around shooting folks who were already shot.

Exept for a contact shot, your GSW likely won't be too terribly different whether you are 3 feet away or 30 yards away. Everyone shot in Arizona was effectively shot at point blank range. Most of the VT victims were shot at point blank range. The same is true for Luby's as well. You already may be at point blank range when a shooter opens up on people. If you think about it, point blank range is anywhere from the muzzle to somewhere between 20 and 40 yards for a lot of handguns. For rifles, point blank can be out to as much as a couple hundred yards. Point blank is going to be the distance as which the shooter can hit the target exactly where aimed or very close to it.

In several of these situations, people have felt that that stopping the shooter is critical, either as a matter of personal self defense (the shooter will eventually work his/her way around to shooting the would-be tackler) or in defense of others. Some responded as a matter of responsibility (such as one of the teachers protecting his students) and/or because they felt that they had an opportunity to make a difference.

Closing the distance to the shooter isn't free from risk. The closer you get, the less skill the shooter will need to land shots on you. The closer you get, the larger you appear in his/her sight picture. With that said, just about any method you use for self defense involves risk.

If you look at some of the examples I gave, most of the tacklers do not get shot while attempting to tackle the shooter, though several had been shot before making their attack. So it isn't a foregone conclusion that you will get shot while you are attempting to tackle the shooter.

Interestingly, once you get within 2-3 feet, your risk of being shot may actually decline as you get inside of his reach. This is especially true for shooters with long guns. When you get in between the shooter and the muzzle of his long gun, it makes it very difficult for the shooter to turn the gun around to be able to shoot you.

Double Naught Spy
January 16, 2011, 02:45 AM
More related examples...

Bar patrons tackle and disarm gunman in pub before he shot...
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhojcwojkfgb/

Football player tackles gungirl before she shot...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/03/kaleb-eulls-local-footbal_n_276388.html

Gunman tackled before shooting at school, disarmed...
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/item_M5T1mGuQgsvx5ElOj3EkNL

Texas Capitol shooter tackled by officers while reloading...
http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/82435837.html

Turns out the Casino shooter was tackled while he attempted to reload...
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/article_628459b1-d0cb-5d51-ab3c-aa54db54d96f.html

Convenience store robber jumped by unarmed patron once distracted, eventually wrestled to floor...
http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/news/Hero-tackled-gunman-tells-story/article-1465039-detail/article.html

Two hostage women tackle gunman who threatened to set them ablaze, one was shot in the attempt, but the gunman was downed...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1397660/Women-hostages-tackle-gunman.html

Jack Ruby was tackled and prevented from shooting Oswald a second time, though the tacklers were mostly armed officers...
http://investigation.discovery.com/videos/crimes-of-the-century-jack-ruby.html

Army sniper tackled by unarmed special forces guys after killing 1 and wounding 20...
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9510/sniper/am/index.html

Unarmed constable tackles assassin who had already killed several...
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,904045,00.html

WANT A LCR 22LR
January 16, 2011, 08:05 AM
" Tackle " implies a running grab and throw, I'd think this is more of a generic description in the press than a accurate sequence of events. ( The Jack Ruby take down comes to mind as distance to others was near zero )

I think that if one can come up behind the shooter, using a striking object is more effective. As in the recent school board shooting, a fire extinguisher held vertically then swung in a downward motion so the base strikes the hand with the gun and gun would be more effective than a general horizontal strike.

It takes more than getting the shooter on the ground, their gun hand must be disabled.

teeroux
January 16, 2011, 09:33 AM
A person can cover a lot of ground in the time it takes another to react.

Ever hear of the 21ft rule? Hell we even disscussed a case at the academy of a shooting ruled justified at 30ft.(don't remember the case though)

Just a little tid bit for those who CCW. Any practice done at the 7yrd line and closer should include instinctive style shooting from in close and at the hip. Outstreched arms turn 21ft into 17ft.

atlctyslkr
January 16, 2011, 10:53 AM
This may be a little Hollywood but what about throwing something large like a chair or garbage can? I think if I was in a situation where I was unarmed but felt like I might die if I didn't take action I would be looking around for something to throw. Something heavy will surely knock a shooter off balance.

Double Naught Spy
January 16, 2011, 12:52 PM
" Tackle " implies a running grab and throw, I'd think this is more of a generic description in the press than a accurate sequence of events. ( The Jack Ruby take down comes to mind as distance to others was near zero )
Your definition fits well for how it is used in football commonly, but even in football, the person making the tackle need not be running. However, if you disagree, then just read the word "tackle" in this thread as meaning the act of forcibly taking a person to the ground which is the action being performed by those in the examples provided.

It takes more than getting the shooter on the ground, their gun hand must be disabled.

Nobody has suggested that the fight ends once the shooter is grounded, but grounding the shooter is a first major step to regaining control of a situation and preventing the shooter from being able to continue shooting at will. Instead of shooting at targets of opportunity, the shooter will focus on gun retention and trying to get free of the tackler(s). Getting the shooter on the ground greatly limits the shooter's mobility, line of sight, and directions of aimed fire. In short, tackling the shooter reduces his realm of command that encompassed a very large area while free firing to a very small area for which the shooter has to fight to have any control. Once the shooter is down, the amount of danger posed of the shooter is greatly reduced.

I don't think any of the examples I have listed resulted in the gun hand of the shooter being disabled. Guns were taken from shooters, shooters weren't allowed to reload, guns/hands were controlled such that the shooter could not shoot at targets...but none had their hands disabled.

Just a little tid bit for those who CCW. Any practice done at the 7yrd line and closer should include instinctive style shooting from in close and at the hip. Outstreched arms turn 21ft into 17ft.

You have arms 4 feet long? :eek:

A person can cover a lot of ground in the time it takes another to react.

Absolutely, but it is relative to what sort of reaction needs to be effected. The Tueller Drill showed how officers could be successfully stabbed by an attack who started from 21 feet away and charged the officer. The officer could not draw and fire in that amount of time...which was about 1.5 seconds. With his gun out, say at low ready, the officer could land shots ont the attacker in less than half a second. With the gun pointed at the bad guy, he could be shot in a quarter of a second or less from the start of his attack.

That is why timing is critical. The shooter has a much greater chance of shooting somebody charging at him if his gun is out and firing than if his gun has malfunctioned or it is while he is reloading. Depending on his gun handling skills, most such shooters are not likely to change magazines in less than 4 or 5 seconds - the time from last shot of old mag to first shot of new mag. That is a long time.

Yes, some shooters may be more skilled and quicker. We have all seen the guys with race guns and speed rigs do amazing mag changes. Rob Leetham isn't likely to be your active shooter. In several events such as AZ, Luby's and VT, the shooters had spare magazines in pockets that they had to fish out and orientate.

Something heavy will surely knock a shooter off balance.
Well and Loughner was struck with a chair. The blow wasn't huge, but it did put him off balance and both of his tacklers noted it was extremely beneficial to their success.

The effectiveness of such attacks can be quite variable. How they get perceived often relates to how well they changed the situation. The lady hitting the gunman's hand with her purse at the Florida school board meeting was perceived as being terribly ineffective. The gun wasn't knocked from his hand and nobody else responded to the distraction, even after the gunman turned his back on the rest of the school board to deal with the lady. Had a couple of the school board guys tackled the gunman at that point, the purse attack would have been credited to the gunman being taken down.

steve54
January 16, 2011, 07:33 PM
I was reading in 'The Week' magazine about the Tucson shooting that the one guy that was carrying at the event went to tackle the shooter but unknowingly confront another civilian that had, in fact, disarmed the active shooter and was now holding his weapon
That could have ended badly

Erik
January 17, 2011, 12:57 AM
If you have to shoot, shoot. Tackle, tackle. Stab, stab. Etc. But fight and win.

EricReynolds
January 17, 2011, 02:21 AM
+1 Jimbo86. It might not be the most tactically sound plan to rush at an armed assailant, but I'm not going like a lamb to the slaughter. It wouldn't be a great idea to jump on a grenade, the passengers of Flight 93 could have tried to "play it safe", the people who took down the shooter in Tucson could have ran the other way, but some times a little bravado is what's really called for. If I found myself in a horrific situation like that, and had an opportunity to tackle a gunman or find a place to hide, I'm going for it. I couldn't look myself in the mirror if I saved myself and let others die. The person from Virginia Tech will at least be remembered as a hero. That having been said, I don't think there is any kind of safe way to tackle an armed man.

RichardDonston
January 17, 2011, 02:36 AM
With the recent attack on the Congresswoman and the other people in the grocery store, there were three armed people at the rally. For whatever reason they did not fire any shots.

From anyone who has police and/or military experience, what would you in a situation like this in regards to not hitting someone other than the gunman? If someone was armed, I'm sure they would prefer to take down the gunman, but I'm not sure how many people would want to take a shot and risk hitting an innocent person.

Also, what happens at an event like this if the police show up and there are multiple people with guns? Do they generally fire at anyone who is armed? If you had a weapon for self defense wouldn't you be putting yourself at a risk?
This is also one of the arguments about why police officers don't want guns "allowed" on campuses, that being that they don't know who to shoot at.

I was just reading an article about this the other day and since I don't really know anything about firearms myself I thought I'd see if there were any police or military personnel that knew the answer to my question.

Stevie-Ray
January 17, 2011, 03:26 PM
It might not be the most tactically sound plan to rush at an armed assailant, but I'm not going like a lamb to the slaughter.Same here, my first instinct would be to cover my wife and if I thought I wasn't going to be found, to stay holed up. However, if I knew I was just awaiting my turn to die, unarmed, I'd wait for a hopefully oncoming moment to rush. I wrestled a lot in my younger days and feel I could still hold my own due to continued workouts. Once down, if possible, lift his head and slam it back down. Very effective at stopping fights. Armed, of course, I'd simply await my best chance at a stopping shot.

Skans
January 17, 2011, 04:58 PM
Other than what the OP said, I would have no intention of tackling a shooter. There might be some remote chance that I might find the opportunity to attack a shooter from behind, if the right circumstances presented.

I look at it this way - I owe the greatest duty of protection to my family and myself. I will help others, but not at a great risk of getting myself killed. Others need to provide their own protection for self and loved ones. Just because some of us carry guns, doesn't turn us into cops or deputies. Myself, I am neither armed, nor trained, to defend anyone not right near me.

Jim March
January 17, 2011, 06:44 PM
If I ever find myself sans gun and able to sneak up behind an active shooter, we're going to find out if he can turn around and shoot me while I'm wiggling the knife I've just jammed into his neck.

Deja vu
January 17, 2011, 08:30 PM
the main problem I have with "tackling" is you typically have to weight till they are reloading.

even in a small revolver thats 5-6 shots.

Wag
January 17, 2011, 10:39 PM
Just because some of us carry guns, doesn't turn us into cops or deputies. Myself, I am neither armed, nor trained, to defend anyone not right near me.

This. Nothing else.

--Wag--

RichardDonston
January 17, 2011, 10:55 PM
Does anyone have an answer to either of my questions?

Deaf Smith
January 18, 2011, 07:56 PM
The trouble with opening fire at a rally to stop an active shooter is mainly the possibility of hitting innocents, by missing, over penetration, or by misidentification.

Add to that the possibility of someone else mistaking you for another active shooter and you see why there is hesitation to fire.

What to do? As they have shown many times if the active shooter is in the process of reloading that is the time to attack! And if you are not an excellent combat shot, then trying to engage such an active shooter in a crowded location with such as a J smith .38 snub, well that’s asking for big trouble.

If you can, take them down and disarm them. But like being an excellent shot, I strongly suggest you have some H2H skills so you can tackle and disarm such a shooter.

Deaf

sakeneko
January 18, 2011, 10:12 PM
I'd probably try to tackle a shooter in preference to playing dead, but not in preference to any other viable response. Since I'm usually both armed with my carry gun and carrying pepper spray and a tactical bright flashlight, I'd usually have better options than pretending I'm a football linesman. About all I can say in favor of me tackling a shooter is that I'm big enough to block his shots at other people at least briefly. (wry grin) The problem with that is that I'd be drawing fire, and not likely to live through it if the shooter is competent. All things considered, I'd rather live.

However, if living isn't an option, I think that I'd choose to go out fighting.

Double Naught Spy
September 18, 2011, 03:20 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/09/18/florida.shooting/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
http://lakeland.wtsp.com/news/news/81049-update-one-dead-2-injured-after-church-shooting
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/florida-gunman-shoots-two-pastors-in-a-church-parishoners-tackle-him/
Parishioners tackled the shooter of a pastor and assistant pastor at a Florida church and the same shooter may have killed another person, his wife, at a residence before committing the church shootings.

stonewall50
September 18, 2011, 05:44 PM
Tackling an active shooter? I ain't Hussein Bolt...so there is little chance I am going to have the speed to actually take someone down from anything outside of what would be considered h2h distance anyway. If he is inside of 6 feet and I have the drop and I am not carrying I am going to use WHATEVER is at my disposal to kill him, pocket knife, pen, bottle, or simply hoping I can get the gun out of his hands and use my Jiu Jitsu to get to any form of hold I can.

This ACTUALLY brings another discussion that I think I will start another thread about WHEN to draw your weapon. I think it will be a similar answer to this one: one do YOU deem it the right time to strike? But I digress to the tackling.

If I am FORCED to take on an active shooter and he is trying to execute me or he is within ANY form of distance that I can actually consider an attemptable distance I am going to do my best to kill him or disable him to an extent that he CANNOT physically fight back...because if he is still capable of moving he will probably try to harm someone else.

ShaulWolf
September 18, 2011, 06:14 PM
This was a scenario that one of the Gunnery Sgts asked us during martial arts training. There's a guy popping off rounds at people while you're on leave. You're not close enough to hit him without running at him. What do you do?

Most of us said take cover and wait until he reloads to take him to the ground. A few other said take cover and wait until he reloads before drawing their own weapon and firing when there aren't any incoming rounds. We all pretty much had the agreement that acting when there are rounds coming at you isn't smart, and to wait until an advantage comes up, like them stopping to reload.

Not everyone has martial arts training or a concealed weapon, but knowing when to act and then following through seems to make a huge difference in stopping or delaying an attacker enough for someone else to stop them.

Double Naught Spy
September 18, 2011, 08:56 PM
Tackling an active shooter? I ain't Hussein Bolt...so there is little chance I am going to have the speed to actually take someone down from anything outside of what would be considered h2h distance anyway.

Funny how many people aren't Hussein Bolt and who stop shooters by tackling them. Funny how so many have no real training in such matters. Funny how many people inside of H2H distance don't do anything to stop the shooter. Funny how sometimes people outside of H2H have to work to get to the shooter to stop him/her.

You don't have to be Hussein Bolt to make a difference, but you need to be smart about your actions.

BlackFeather
September 18, 2011, 09:47 PM
The idea that you have to tackle an armed person has always been in my head. As I've mentioned a lot, I don't carry a firearm, so shooting back isn't an option in any case. So, within a range of 10 feet I am fairly confident, I train that way. I don't doubt my death would be at that moment, but at such a range you don't have time to wait for them to stop shooting. At a mid range from 15 to 25 feet there's still more of a chance for being shot and less of a chance you will be able to wait until they stop firing. Any distance after that you are less likely to be shot and have a better chance of waiting for a reload.

This is simply my observation, don't take my word on it. As a variable, you could have between 15 and 50 other people in the room. The more there are, the better and worse it may be. Swarms of fish confuse predators and make it more difficult to focus on one. However, more people could mean more casualties. When to act may be decided on time and distance, but it will always be more influenced by who else/how many people is/are in the room.

That being said, I would go for the weapon shoulder as any natural reaction is a predictable retreat back and this helps the tackle. After that, the shoulder controls the arm. Being sure to have the arm locked out to the best of your abilities is a plus, as you may get shot still, however controlling the arm on the ground is where you can have control of the gun. As for a rifle you have the same idea. They have the ability to hold on with both hands however, so effort must be made on the firing hand not the support hand. If you have a knife use it. I prefer to make a thrust during the tackle, that way some damage is done if I don't accomplish to disarm them. Distractions as were mentioned are a plus, but more so if you aren't doing it.

Those are my observations and opinions. I am definitely NOT going to do nothing. I haven't lived long enough.

TXGunNut
September 18, 2011, 10:25 PM
I don't think Mr Donston ever got his answer, I'll take a stab at it. Police training is focused on stopping attackers, not killing them. Not every deadly force situation has a deadly force solution. A police officer will know that every person with a gun is not necessarily an attacker and will not shoot every armed person he encounters.
A few thoughts on charging: have you ever tried to engage and shoot a rapidly advancing target? A charging target that presents a threat is remarkably hard to hit. Handgun bullet wounds are often survivable with the right mindset and immediate medical care. Another thought, wouldn't it be nice if two or three folks got the idea to charge a shooter at the same time? It happens, and sometimes it works quite well.

secret_agent_man
September 19, 2011, 11:57 AM
Without reading this thread completely, I submit there aren't many armchair quarterbacks who desire to be tackles.

Double Naught Spy
September 19, 2011, 03:08 PM
Too bad you didn't read completely, then maybe your comprehension would be better.

raimius
September 19, 2011, 07:57 PM
Tackle? I stink at tackles.
If I had an opening, I'd take a stab at it...or a strike with a metal flashlight (or some basic strikes/grapple moves, as a less than attractive option).

secret_agent_man
September 19, 2011, 10:25 PM
maybe your comprehension would be better

Well, I read the thread, and this is my conclusion about tacking. I've probably prevented three armed robberies about to take place in a Kentucky Fried Chicken, a gun store and a stop-n-rob convenience store. Also an assault from the rear in a WalMart restroom. I say probably because all four potential incidents never actually went down, so I have to qualify my statement.

In all cases, the mere perception I had a gun or was otherwise about to interfere (telephone) was sufficient to back the suspects down.

A tackle in any of the above would have proven disastrous, as all three of the possible robbery attempts involved multiple perps. But stay on your feet, and for them it comes down to who wants to get shot first or still be around when the cops roll up.

TXGunNut
September 19, 2011, 10:54 PM
I played football as a kid and as a young & dumb LEO I put my tackling skills to good use more than a few times on unarmed suspects. I was bigger than some pro linemen and when I hit someone, they stayed down, fight over. :D On occasion I'd apply a choke hold on the way down and he'd wake up in handcuffs. Those were the days. ;)
And no, a weapon wouldn't have made a difference in tactics or outcome in most cases.

Double Naught Spy
September 20, 2011, 05:22 AM
Well, I read the thread, and this is my conclusion about tacking. I've probably prevented three armed robberies about to take place in a Kentucky Fried Chicken, a gun store and a stop-n-rob convenience store. Also an assault from the rear in a WalMart restroom. I say probably because all four potential incidents never actually went down, so I have to qualify my statement.

Okay, so what you are saying is that you read the whole thread, finally, and still completely missed the points being made. Shooting isn't always an option and is no option if you don't have a gun. So what are you going to do if you aren't armed or can't use your gun if you find yourself in an active shooter situation? By active shooter, I am not talking about your unrelated stories of stopping robberies that never occurred. Those were not active shooter events and hence are in no way related to the thread.

Just because you are unarmed or can't use your gun should not mean that you are defenseless or helpless, though being defenseless and helpless is how many CCW folks describe themselves on forums like TFL when they talk about being unarmed. There are options, all sorts, and if you want to take an active roll in stopping the shooter, tackling is an option that is often used successfully. It is done at great peril, no doubt, but chances are the folks in the situation where the active shooter is killing people are already in great peril.

Mobuck
September 20, 2011, 06:35 AM
The best time for the physical defense is BEFORE the first shot. Before the shooter works up to actually shooting there's some indecision and possibly some confusion that can allow a successful physical attack. A physical attack from multiple points will often confuse an inexerienced shooter allowing contact to be made.

BlackFeather
September 20, 2011, 10:20 AM
The best time for the physical defense is BEFORE the first shot. Before the shooter works up to actually shooting there's some indecision and possibly some confusion that can allow a successful physical attack. A physical attack from multiple points will often confuse an inexerienced shooter allowing contact to be made.

Sure, that is the ideal time to stop them, but that option is rarely apparent in social situations. Unless you catch them reaching for a gun, (or wallet, or handkerchief, or keys, or smokes, or nose picker), you aren't going to stop them preemptively. And of course, planning for the worst situation may be a fantasy as much as expecting the best situation, but as long as you're sticking to a general plan you are better off.

Personally, I don't think enough people practice to respond to the sound of a gun shot and people yelling and panicking.

Glenn E. Meyer
September 20, 2011, 02:08 PM
Unless you have a trained unit, you really can't expect a bunch of folks to jump up and charge under fire in some organized fashion. Yes, that's a nice internet fantasy but it's not going to happen.

Also, having studied this - the shooter can pick a spot that is a fatal funnel choke point and immediately open up. Yeah, maybe they are going to make a speech first but maybe not.

Double Naught Spy
September 20, 2011, 04:43 PM
Glenn, that is correct, but nobody is suggesting that we expect people to operate as a trained unit. Heck, even as armed folks, the majority of the gun community cannot even respond as trained individuals with their firearms, in part because of their lack of training. So no, you can't expect a group of people to respond as a trained unit or in any sort of coordinated fashion, yet there have been numerous instances of multiple folks responding simultaneously where such sequential or en masse hits have resulted in a cessation of firing. In other cases, it has only taken a single individual to effect a tackle that resulted in the cessation of firing.

Numerous active shooters do not pick fatal funnels. In fact, many don't seem to have much of a plan beyond shooting people. Many are out in the open or in a confined space for which they cannot control their surroundings.

The best time for the physical defense is BEFORE the first shot. Before the shooter works up to actually shooting there's some indecision and possibly some confusion that can allow a successful physical attack.

The problem is, almost nobody ever spots the shooter before the shooting and are in a position to do anything about it in the time frame before the shooting starts.

Mobuck
September 20, 2011, 05:25 PM
I didn't say it was easy, I was actually meaning the time between the displaying of the weapon and the first shot. Some of the nuts have something to say leading up to the shooting or brandish their gun for a short period prior to the actual event-some don't. The threatening/brandishing period is when they're building up and could possibly be taken down. The pull it and shoot it ones would be hard to predict but the one thing they have in their mind is that everyone will run, hide, or fold. Something happening counter to what they expect might throw them off their premeditated plan.
While it would be unsettling to have a miss or pass through hitting an innocent, stopping the possibilty of a larger number of people dead or injured would seem to be preferable(minus the liability lawyers lining up like buzzards on a possum carcass).

farmerboy
September 20, 2011, 05:49 PM
I'n a situation where you may not have a gun, it's a loved one or someone elses life at stake. You may have to try anything, it may work out. It may not. As far as practicing rushing. You're wasting your time or on a pipe dream. Time spent better at the shooting range

Alaska444
September 20, 2011, 07:21 PM
The death rate from handguns is only 20% depending of course on the bullet placement, but in general, the FBI stats show an 80% survival.

Understanding that fact, playing dead while a weirdo walks up to you and puts a couple of bullets in your brain with exceedingly high mortality makes the option of going for a tackle a much better statistical chance. I hope I never have to put these stats to the test, but I believe I would be moving either away or towards the shooter depending on the situation.

I was actually surprised that the Fort Hood soldiers did not mount an attack in some manner against the Islamic terrorist now on trial. Besides tackling, there are objects you can throw as a distraction/weapon to help with the attack. Doing nothing and just letting the weirdo walk up to you and kill you is just not an option in my mind.

farmerboy
September 20, 2011, 07:42 PM
Used only as a last resort, Great but other than that you just may be a statistic. Got the same mind frame. At the end of my shift i plan on going home unless the Lord is ready for me to come home.

Double Naught Spy
September 20, 2011, 10:10 PM
I was actually surprised that the Fort Hood soldiers did not mount an attack in some manner against the Islamic terrorist now on trial.

Several did, but were unsuccessful.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/military/article/Few-GIs-tried-to-stop-Fort-Hood-shooter-799272.php

Of course, not everyone with a gun who tries to save themselves or intervene on behalf of others is successful either.

Mr. James
September 20, 2011, 11:01 PM
Double Naught Spy,

Thank you for a thought-provoking thread. I've actually given this some thought, especially after the Tacoma Mall incident. Here's this humble pilgrim's take. I'm no warrior, no "operator," just an average guy. But I do know that confronted with this situation, I'm looking for an opportunity to rush the shooter. I played rugby here in the states for twenty years. So, I also know how to tackle.

Assuming I'm alone and not responsible for loved ones, I'm going after that bastard, and I'm going to try to break his spine (which won't happen, but hey, you have to have a target!). Once down, I'm going to dash his brains out on the floor. That failing, I'm going to gouge his eyes out and beat him until he desists. Or I'll die or be maimed. There are worse things than that.

Bob James

Alaska444
September 20, 2011, 11:40 PM
Thanks DNS, great link. I guess that article gives the odds on success in this situation. Not good. Force on force like that, you need equal force to make it even. That makes the Ft Hood shooting even scarier when reading all those that tried to intervene but failed. One more example of why you need CCW in this nation.

Double Naught Spy
September 21, 2011, 08:58 AM
Thanks DNS, great link. I guess that article gives the odds on success in this situation. Not good.

Actually, most of the other articles show very good odds for success. The same can be said for CCW self defense as well. CCW folks get killed on occasion as well.

You don't always need equal force to be successful. Going up against an active shooter is inherently risky whether you are armed or not.

Thank you for a thought-provoking thread. I've actually given this some thought, especially after the Tacoma Mall incident.

Great example of a CCW guy at Tacoma mall, Brandan "Dan" McKown, one of at least two who did not stop the shooter. Having a gun didn't help Danny-boy one bit because his tactics sucked. He is one example where an armed CCW person might have just been better of trying to rush the shooter across the mall. He stated that he carried a gun to protect others in just such an incident and when the time came, he didn't know what to do and got shot multiple times as a result.

Pond, James Pond
September 21, 2011, 09:56 AM
Interesting thread and food for thought.

I think it is also social conditioning. Going back to Glenn's comment on people making a coordinated charge for the attacker, I'm sure I recall that being exactly the case in the relatively recent gun attacks in either India or Pakistan (can't for the life of me remember where it was) where the death toll was far lower than might have been because the people near the shooter turned on him and charged rather than turning and running.

Either way, I think for 99% of people in that situation their reaction will be instinctive rather than reasoned.

I must say I have no idea how I would react, only how I hope I would react...

MLeake
September 21, 2011, 10:04 AM
Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but many environments are actually fairly rich with improvised weapons. Yet I can't recall reading of an incident where people have thrown hard objects, swung hard objects, etc when rushing a shooter.

I knew guys in high school and college who'd start a fight by throwing car keys in somebody's face, or flicking a cigarette lighter towards somebody's face. The distraction usually let them land a few good punches and/or kicks before the other person could react.

(I'm not advocating this for normal social encounters; just saying that there are all sorts of things out there - from pots full of hot coffee, to ketchup bottles, to car keys - that could be put to use in a pinch, with the right mind-set.)

doofus47
September 21, 2011, 10:21 AM
When things go bad, all the choices you might have left could be bad, worse, worstest, and somewhere beyond that is "where I am now."

Do the best you can with the adrenaline pumping. If you can't find a tool, go to God using what God gave you.

It's kind of like if you are camping and a bear invades your tent b/c your kids have saved a snicker's bar for a midnight snack (happened to my wife's sister while camping). You're out of good scenarios and options: do the best you can. (In that case, the bear seemed to be completely taken by surprise by 3 howling, waving primates in the cramped space and decided that it was not worth fighting about.)

MLeake
September 21, 2011, 10:33 AM
A father killed a black bear that was going after his son last year, by throwing a small log at it. Crushed its skull, IIRC.

I believe the father got cited for improper storage of trash, but not charged with anything.

Of course, the trash could well have been what attracted the bear in the first place.

But back to the main point - a thrown log stopped a bear. Odds are, the father grappling the bear would not have gone so well for the family. If any weapon is available, it probably beats bare hands.

BlackFeather
September 21, 2011, 10:52 AM
Unless you have a trained unit, you really can't expect a bunch of folks to jump up and charge under fire in some organized fashion. Yes, that's a nice internet fantasy but it's not going to happen.

I agree that it's not likely but I'd like to think mans inherent hunting instincts would kick in. If one person steps in and goes for his right side trying to control the weapon, anyone who notices may instinctively go for his left side or back. It's a simple predatory action that is seen in most animals. I may be expecting a bit more from the human race than I normally would but it's a possibility. It may not be organized, but it would increase your chances of success.

Glenn E. Meyer
September 21, 2011, 11:09 AM
I support, of course, reasonable efforts to save your life and using improvised weapons.

I fear though that such emphasis weakens the case for campus carry as there are DVDs, etc. full of such.

A planned shooter as compared to a random, irrational person can choose a venue that minimizes such.

I did a little experiment with the flying laptop of death. Two conclusions - you can't throw it that far. Next, in the time it takes to close it, and assume a reasonable throwing posture - a shooter can get off about 7 aimed shots. One will be you when you stand up.

Thus, we should push for carry and training for intensive incidents. Yeah, maybe in the moment - your group will become the 300. Better to have carry.

Yes, it worked in tight spaces with nuts who get into melee distances. Guns are needed for those who are not so irrational.

MLeake
September 21, 2011, 11:35 AM
Glenn, I agree, but in the meanwhile we have to work with what we have.

raimius
September 21, 2011, 03:59 PM
Yeah, I would argue that unless an object has clear utility as a bashing or stabbing weapon, you are probably better off forgetting it, if about to be shot at (from rushing range). If you are holding something of little utility as a weapon (keys, wallet, half-empty water bottle, etc), you may want to throw it as a distraction. Reaching for something to throw as a distraction probably wastes more time than it is worth.

Double Naught Spy
August 30, 2012, 03:47 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/29/us-usa-baltimore-shooting-idUSBRE87S16D20120829
15 year old Robert Wayne Gladden, Jr. fired the first barrel of a double barrel shotgun into the back of a student.

A guidance counselor rushed and tackled Gladden when he saw the student produce the gun, but Gladden fired one shot into a crowd of students, striking classmate Daniel Borowy in the back, Batton said.

Double Naught Spy
December 19, 2012, 12:57 PM
http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/video/caught_on_tape/caught-on-camera-gunman-tackled

Robber tackled after firing single shot. In this case, the tackling appears wholly unnecessary, poorly timed, and only by luck did the tackler not get shot, but the gunman never fired a second round and was subdued by the tackler and then others.

ltc444
December 19, 2012, 01:27 PM
In a fight for your life, you use what you brung or have at hand. If bare hands are all you have then that is what you use.

My one experience was with an armed intruder into our Condo at Squaw Valley, CA. The guy entered the bedroom from an outside balcony. I bull rushed him under the weapon and pitched him into a snow bank from the second floor.

Heavy crockery plates are excellent Frisbee.s. They also do an amazing amount of damage when they strike a body.

You need to always be aware of potential adversaries. Conversely you need to look for potential weapons as you check for exits.

Seaman
December 19, 2012, 02:27 PM
In high school I was a defensive tackle on my football team. I knocked down running backs, receivers, quarterbacks, and blocked kicks.

Now I am old dog with a bad back, the past week or so have been walking with the assistance of a cane (walking stick).

This morning I took my child to a medical appointment and then dropped my little beauty off at school (1st grade). The kids were just sitting down for lunch. If an active-shooter had burst in I could not rush him, my back won't cooperate. And my handguns were left in the car, no CCW allowed in the school.

All I could do is absorb bullets and hope I stopped enough to save my child.

Maximus856
December 20, 2012, 01:14 AM
I've played out these scenarios in my head quite often. I like to think that situation dependant, I would have the gonads to confront the shooter with my barehands if no escape or other tools of violence were available. One thing I try to live by when dealing with threats was taught to me by some of my former NCO's. "Speed, surprise, and violence of action...' as well as situational awareness. If it's a guy around my size and is with in close proximity, I *think* a good bear hug from behind and tossing him back on his head might disrupt him enough to at least get the gun out of his hands. Pressure points and soft spots would be a quick target. *IF* if I manage to get him to the ground, a good elbow or punch to the nose might increase these odds. Things to consider however is what direction is the shooter in relation to me, what is the intent of the shooter, and what environment is this in? For me personally, a lot of it dependant on whether or not there will be collateral damage from my actions, or lack thereof. Will your actions if failed escalate his force against others? I value my life very much, but I also value others. If it's a daycare or something, you can bet your sweet cheeks I am going to try everything in my capacity to do something. If it's in a food court in a mall and I'm 4 stores down theres not much of a chance me running towards the guy or even trying to sneak up on him will work.

Another thing to note. What is he using as a weapon? Manipulating a rifle/shotgun out of his hands while keeping the gun not pointed at you would certainly be easier than a handgun.

This is ALL pure speculation on my part. There are so many ways to cut this pie, and I honestly have no idea how I would react in a given situation. At the very least however, contemplating it is a form of preparation.

-Max

Glenn E. Meyer
December 20, 2012, 10:31 AM
In some combative classes, KISS was the rule. Forget pressure points and soft spots. If you get the guy down, pound him the head repeatedly.

The key to all the tackling is distance. The successful folks could close.

At VT, a student trying the classic football tackle took multiple rounds and died. Other students have taken a round in a nonvital and got to the shooter.

Another argument for FOF - in one, an current Army vet - vaporized me when I decided to go for him. In another, I disarmed someone. Of course, the charge of the FOG may leave something to be desired.

Double Naught Spy
December 20, 2012, 01:28 PM
The successful folks could close.

Right, and I will state again that this is a dangerous tactic and one that is best used smartly. Many of the more successful events where this has been used has been when the shooter either had a malfunction or was reloading. If you charge an active shooter with a loaded gun who knows you are coming, expect the shooter to try to shoot you.

Maximus856
December 21, 2012, 01:29 AM
Glenn, I agree with you very much. The more 'primal' (for lack of better words) should be key. However, some soft spots are easy targets, such as the nose or solar plexus. A running and diving tackle, much like a football tackle leaves a lot of time for you to become a target. A bear hug and wrestling style toss IMO would be much more effective. Again, time and place While certainly not as crucial a situation, I encountered some of these things as a bouncer in a college bar. The difference between a guy who knows you are there and a guy who doesn't when you try to grab them up is very different. I think a huge key is trying to disrupt their OODA loop. Regardless, aside from avoidance all together the best bet is some cover and a gun.

Double Naught Spy
December 21, 2012, 09:26 AM
OODA Loop, Fruit Loop, Loopty Loop. If you are worried about the OODA Loop, then you are worried about the wrong thing. OODA Loops are being continuously disrupted and reset all the time with new stimulus/information. If you are trying to disrupt some bad guy's OODA Loop, then yours has already been severely disrupted.

Glenn E. Meyer
December 21, 2012, 11:47 AM
On the ABC news, one argument for 10 round limits was that an inexperienced maniac might take as much 4 sec to reload as compared to one second of a skilled shooter, that gives you time to tackle.

That happened on the LIRR shooting that sent Rep. McCarthy into the antigun movement.

4 sec is probably enough time. But you have to have your act together and unfortunately many freeze up.

Double Naught Spy
December 21, 2012, 05:59 PM
Yep, and in the Gifford's shooting, tackling was accompanied by somebody slamming a chair into Loughner first, IIRC, undoubtedly slowing his reload.

You probably can't decide to attack after you realize the shooter is reloading and have high expectations of being successful. That decision likely needs to be made in anticipation of the reload so that it may be launched as soon as the reload is recognized.

Strafer Gott
December 21, 2012, 07:24 PM
I'm voting with Mleake on this one. Break off the tabletop and get behind it.
Launch the silverware! Make it rain debris. Don't stick around for return fire.
Be that animal.

carlosr77
December 22, 2012, 01:09 AM
tackling works when a distraction occurs that buys you the time to cross the distance.
Im former law enforcement. for the question of do you shoot a shooter in the crowd that is firing at a principle, at the peril of striking a by-stander. short answer is yes. to save a life or lives.
Now, you can spin a bunch of circumstantial scenarios some of wich may lead to "no", and many more that are maybe's.
To protect life, and acting in good faith, it is never wrong to use deadly force. The shoot scenario will be evaluated based on circumstances. THIS IS WHY YOU MUST HAVE A PERSONAL POLICY AS TO WHEN YOU WILL USE DEALY FORCE. BEFORE YOU GO OUT THE DOOR. To save a life is mine.

police do not respond so quickly. The fight would have been over for sometime by the time they get there. If you shoot someone, wait at the scene, reholster your weapon, and show your hands to police, comply with directions, and let them know you have a holstered weapon (in your waist band). FOLLOW DIRECTIONS.
wHEN THEY SECURE THE SCENE YOU HAVE QUESTIONS TO ANSWER. Explain what occured. If an overbearing cop puts unwarranted presure on you, its ussually a good time to ask for an attorney.

Double Naught Spy
January 17, 2013, 08:37 PM
http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130116/NEWS/301160322/-1/SITEMAP

This was interesting. A gunman in the City of Newburgh in NYS attempted to rob a corner store, shooting the clerk in the legs during the robbery. "Bystanders" (which you no longer are once you act, LOL) tackled the gunman and beat (including kicked) him and managed to disarm him along the way.

“They were beating him and beating him,” Woody said.

Double Naught Spy
July 23, 2013, 11:49 AM
http://www.ozarksfirst.com/story/norwood-congregation-praises-heroes-for-tackling-gunman/d/story/g1fo0qD8AEC79jRcfC5Fcw

A church in Northwood, MO church service was interrupted by a gunman who entered the church...

He just came in and waved a gun and fired a shot and that's when I jumped at him.

He was immediately setup by a member, tackled to the ground, disarmed several members, and apparently held for the cops. The pastor will be beefing up security...of which I take it that there was none.

deepcreek
July 23, 2013, 04:15 PM
When I studied CQC we would fight over rubber guns a couple of things I noticed.
-A trained person could usually get out of the line of fire and strip a gun from an untrained person, if their was an opportunity.
-A trained gun holder could most always keep a person in the line of fire.
-A group could strip a gun from a trained person but the gun will probably be empty by the time they get it. The best thing a group could do is try to keep the gun low under chest cavities.

This was in rubber gun play land, so take it with a grain of salt.

SgtLumpy
July 23, 2013, 05:16 PM
If anyone should decide to practice gun take-aways with a training partner and a rubber gun - PLEASE - have the gun holder keep their finger OUT of the trigger guard. Essentially every gun take-away move is designed to or results in spraining or fracturing the finger if it's "in the hole". Cutting away the trigger guard is not a terrible idea, so the finger simply can't get bound up in there.


Sgt Lumpy

FireForged
July 23, 2013, 06:56 PM
I am not going to tackle anybody.. If I can not escape danger, there might be a fight at some point but tackle is not part of any plan I have come up with.

jerryd
July 24, 2013, 12:00 PM
I tackle them with 8rds of 45 !!

Double Naught Spy
July 24, 2013, 01:06 PM
While I appreciate the gun-biased bravado, the point here is that use of firearms is not always possible and not always prudent. More over, in cases of close proximity, it is often quicker to respond with means of force OTHER than the drawing and firing of a gun. This was the case, for example with the shootings of Reagan and of Oswald. By the time agents and officers had guns drawn, the shooters were already downed...and those were professionals drawing their guns.

Think about it. For most people in a crisis, the first and often longest delay in responding correctly is the delay that comes from the lack of recognition of what is going on, often spawned by a sense of disbelief that something could be going wrong or misconception about the nature of what is going on. That can last from a fraction of a second to several seconds.

Once proper recognition is made, then a decision to react occurs and this takes time. If the decision to draw and fire a gun is the decision made, then it will be for most folks who are not aware that they are going to be in a situation where they are about the draw and fire, 2-4 seconds time before they will get shots on target. Bear in mind that you general CCW person isn't a Quckdraw McGraw who practices drawing and firing at the range every week. Most haven't even been to the range this year, much less worked on their draw skills.

So as noted in the Northwood, MO church example I posted yesterday, if you are standing there in a service and a guy walks into the service and is standing next to you and starts shooting, do you really think the most timely action is going to be to draw and fire your own gun? You can do that in 2-4 seconds from the time you decide your course of action or you can be tackling him in less than 1. Which do you see as the one most apt to stop the shooter sooner from carrying out his intended goal?

Now if the shooter is across the room, street, etc., then sure enough, tackling may not be the best of options if you are indeed armed, but a lot of the shooters that are tackled are tackled early on and when they are in close proximity to the responding people, not all, but many based on reading over the examples here.

csmsss
July 24, 2013, 01:14 PM
I'd say it all depends upon how close you are to the adversary and what physical barriers exist between the two of us. But at the end of the day, all things being equal, I'm going to trust my ability to draw, aim and fire my sidearm over my ability to play linebacker.

Glenn E. Meyer
July 24, 2013, 01:22 PM
The proximity issue is the thing.

My concern in the campus carry debate is that certain venues offer high concentrations of people who cannot easily get to the shooter or throw their IPADs at him or her. It was a point I made when I testified to the Texas House.

All the flee, hide, fight videos don't have a charge across a distance of lecture hall for instance towards someone with competence and a large number of rounds available. But such videos are used to argue that we do have a plan for active shooters and don't need carry.

The videos usually have folks hearing shots and then ambushing the shooter at the doorway. As if the shooter never heard of pieing or just didn't shoot through the door (as has happened).

geetarman
July 24, 2013, 02:02 PM
The proximity issue is the thing.



I think you are right. In order to be effective against an armed person, you would not only have to be close but you would have to have enough situational awareness to react immediately to the threat.

I don't know how you really prepare for that.

Many of us think of how we would react to a threat like that. Real life will often throw a curveball.

I hope I never have to find out if my theory is correct or not.

FireForged
July 26, 2013, 07:43 AM
I was only saying that if I have the opportunity to tackle someone, I could probably have used that same opportunity to run away.

Double Naught Spy
July 26, 2013, 09:43 AM
That's your call. Running away is a valid form of defense.

People continually note however, about how they are "defenseless" without a gun and there is no reason to defacto believe that to be the case in every case and even if you are armed with a gun, that it is the most opportune choice to make.

Proximity is or can be a prime issue, and people continually are using it to their advantage.

Glenn E. Meyer
July 26, 2013, 10:17 AM
Can't run away if you are in small room or office with one door.

That's what the usual fight scenarios are. Of course, there are the crowd scenes where the shooter is close.

Studies show that 35% of rampage shooters seemed to have planned their attack. Given that the run, hide, fight videos are all over the place - the planners are watching them also.

A large group in a church or lecture hall might swarm the person. The first in get shot. You decide if you are in that first wave. Modern First Responder theories says that they take that risk (wearing armor). Do you as a civilian?

The point of the thread is that in certain circumstances you can fight with improvised weapons or your gung-fu and a pastrami on rye.

But I said before, I don't want such incidents to be used as counter to concealed carry - and they are.

Also, if you do advocate concealed carry - you should have some training before you propose that option.

fileophile
August 2, 2013, 05:31 PM
Learn how to fight with no weapon first, then you can add capabilities and range with additional weapons and tactics. But if a gun is your only "hammer" , then you'll be looking to apply it to every nail.

Sierra280
August 3, 2013, 02:50 PM
What happens when people without guns go up against people with guns?....

Best to retreat or hit the deck if you don't have a gun. I prefer to be armed than cowering waiting to be shot, or throwing things at the shooter, making a charge and definitely getting shot. That being said, shooting back is the best option. I see that in a crowded area there could be a chance of hitting others but,it's like the argument against having armed guards at schools because they could miss and hit a kid, Wake up everyone! If people/school kids are being shot worse case scenario has already been reached returning fire cannot make the situation worse when people are already dying.

Do you really want to die for lack of shooting back?

pax
August 3, 2013, 03:56 PM
I think the big elephant in the room here is this: not every scenario is survivable. Sometimes the question is only: How do you want to die?

So you don't have a gun. You don't think you can win. So… What, then?

http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2006/09/i-aint-goin-out-like-that.html

Even if the police are right there, it might not do me any good. Heck, I might not do me any good. But, dammit, I am going to try. If a 51 year-old nurse can overcome a hammer-wielding psycho with her bare hands, the least I can do is go out on my feet. I'm not going to wait for the coup de grace under a desk; I'm not going get in the abductor's car; I'm not going to comply with their demands; I'm not going gently.

pax

40-82
August 3, 2013, 06:12 PM
And sometimes when objective analysis of a situation tells you, "Yep, you're going to die," if you pick your moment and fight back with fury and ruthlessness you may yet win. This old world is full of people who sometimes stop what they're doing at odd moments and just laugh because they never expected to live through what they lived through. Yet they did.

40-82
August 3, 2013, 06:31 PM
Sierra 280,

If you ever take out a mass murderer actively engaged in running up the score with a shot that kills an innocent bystander you will face a public fury from the liberal elements of our society far greater than anything they would direct at the mass murderer. After the Va. Tech shooting the Roanoke Times ran an essay that what happened was not a worst case scenario. The worst case scenario would have been had an armed private citizen intervened.(I can't quote date of publication and name of the writer because at the time I had no reason to remember those details.) If you do kill one innocent to save the life of multiple victims, or even more devastating yourself, your life as you know it is over. I expect you already know this. It's just rough to realize that at any moment any one of us could turn a corner and face a decision between ugly and uglier.

Sierra280
August 4, 2013, 12:27 AM
^ my first mentioned, preferred option in the given situation is to look for an exit.

Things can always get worse. Since we are talking in hypotheticals, (as it appears the times article was). I'm afraid I still have to chose figuratively having my life be over than actually having my life be over.

The worst case scenario you describe is actually probably only worse for me. From an objective stand point allowing the shooter to continue on a rampage is far worse.

I worry much more about situations that have a much more viable chance of actually taking place (vehicle collision I don't even see coming, chiefly)

40-82
August 4, 2013, 06:05 AM
Sure, the most likely way to die is in something like a vehicle accident where there is no possibility of evasive movement, or on a commercial flight that hits bad weather or mechanical problems. Life throws at us innumerable possibilities where we could die without any opportunity to respond. Most of us don't spend energy anticipating these events, and when one does come our way and we survive intact by pure dumb luck, we don't think about it much later. When I consider the amount of response to this thread, I think I am not alone in being interested in a situation where the possibility of influencing the outcome exists. I don't think I dwell on these possibilities but I think about them, and I think considering these possibilities makes good sense. If you are caught coldly by surprise in a situation you never considered possible, I can almost guarantee your reaction. You will react in the normal human fashion: you will hesitate, then you will panic.

If nothing else comes out of the recent, I suppose sociological, trend toward indiscriminate public shootings and bombings, I find myself looking at gatherings of peacefully assembled unarmed people as a place to avoid, and I find myself asking the question, "Do I absolutely have to be there?" My instinct for avoidance kicks in even harder if the event is staged in a place where being armed is against the law.

Husqvarna
August 4, 2013, 06:05 AM
well my 300pound frame probably wouldn't arrive in time for a tackle, but I hope I have the presance of mind to atleast attempt it. I work in a school so I must do it. atleast I could soak up some bullets.

Even if we could have guns for SD/CCW here I probably couldn't because I work with special needs children, I wrestle with them daily

Double Naught Spy
August 4, 2013, 09:20 AM
Husqvarna, many of these folks involved in taking down shooters or attempted shooters aren't traveling significant distances. They find themselves right next to the shooters when the shooting starts, or the shooters manage to come to them. In some other cases, the distances traveled are just a few feet. So the notion of "arriving in time" is relevant to distance from the event.

Sierra280
August 4, 2013, 10:32 AM
I don't think this tactic 'tackling an armed assailant' is really that effective or prevelant, the media just really plays it up when it happens, just like they downplay stories where armed force stopped or prevented the 'mass' shooting.
The shooters generally commit suicide when confronted with armed force. Thus negating the likelyhood an armed citizen might even have to fire and miss. It should be noted Leo's only connect with about 1/3 of their shots.

Yes, panic is a standard human response, so is irrational paranoia. Now if you'll excuse me, all this talk has made me think of other scenarios that i might find myself in. So i need to go bury some more spam cans of ammo and coffee cans full of gold in my back yard.

Glenn E. Meyer
August 4, 2013, 10:56 AM
No, the rampage shooter usually commits suicide after shooting many people. It is when the law arrives. Also a third don't.

As DNS has documented, shooters have been taken down quite a few times in close quarters.

At longer distances, like VT, tacklers get shot.

Folks want an guaranteed solution - there isn't one. It is situational. All you can have is abilities and mindset. Then take an action that may or may not work.

However, if you cannot carry a gun you are missing a major tool that may negate the need for a suicide charge at a gun man.

If you want to prowl the halls of a school against a gun man with an AR or Ak and body armor with your J-frame, that's your decision. There is no correct answer.

Wreck-n-Crew
August 4, 2013, 11:09 AM
I could probably have used that same opportunity to run away.

Many people act instinctively in ways that often are counter effective to the scenario.

The biggest example is when faced with a possible collision in a car. Most people instinctively hit the breaks without having an escape route or a way to avoid the collision by something predetermined.

How many people are always aware of what is around them such as the next lane on a four lane or if someone is behind them. How often do you see someone on the cell phone without any knowledge of your existence much less your position on the road? How many have taken defensive driving classes with scenarios?

How many people prepare for scenarios? How many people have compared their reasoning in a scenario with experts or from real life scenarios that have already taken place? How many people panic and how many have instincts to do the right thing?

A lot of questions, but weighing the options properly and having an idea of what to do in a scenario that could include tackling MIGHT be something that should come from training in a classroom.

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting everybody go take a class because I have met many people who would have the instincts and knowledge to make the right decision in the given scenario. It's just that many don't and I hope for one that they make the right move when the stuff hits the fan.

Double Naught Spy
August 4, 2013, 03:59 PM
I don't think this tactic 'tackling an armed assailant' is really that effective or prevelant,...

Wow, nobody claimed it was prevalent. I take it that you didn't read the thread or the examples. Same for the issue of effectiveness, though it has been used VERY effectively and can be used effectively, it is at considerable risk. Familiarize yourself with the material. Then, I think you will have a better understanding of the issues being discussed.

FireForged
August 4, 2013, 07:42 PM
I just don't get this whole "tackle" thing... If I cant get away and need to fight someone in order to protect others.. why would I tackle them? Why not physically attack them if the situation calls for it. Why end up on the ground where its a toss up or where my abilities are negated by the floor or rolling around on the floor. Yeah yeah, I have been through ground fighting training back in the 90's [ARCON] they called it- and even then, that's the last place I want to be with a badguy.

Double Naught Spy
August 5, 2013, 05:11 AM
Simple, taking your opponent to the ground negates a whole myriad of advantages the opponent has. His mobility and abilities to manipulate his weapon including his choices of direction of fire, vision, target, selection, etc. are immediately and significantly reduced once you take him/her to the ground. The opponent is left trying to defend his gun more so than trying to continue shooting people. An opponent on the ground can be more controlled than an opponent that is on his/her feet.

FireForged
August 5, 2013, 06:12 PM
Simple, taking your opponent to the ground negates a whole myriad of advantages the opponent has. His mobility and abilities to manipulate his weapon including his choices of direction of fire, vision, target, selection, etc. are immediately and significantly reduced once you take him/her to the ground. The opponent is left trying to defend his gun more so than trying to continue shooting people. An opponent on the ground can be more controlled than an opponent that is on his/her feet.


sure... and striking him with your fists and elbows can do the same thing. To use a tackle as a method of force pales in comparison to hard strikes. If you tackle someone, you will most certainly have to follow up with something to take them out of the fight. This while you have handicapped yourself being on the ground with them. People can do what they want but if I am forced to fight some nut with a gun, I am going full tilt boogie- right out of the gate and try and take him out of the fight quickly and with the first few blows (if I am lucky). I am not going to waste time trying to grapple on the ground.

Double Naught Spy
August 5, 2013, 06:31 PM
sure... and striking him with your fists and elbows can do the same thing

It can do the same thing, but usually will NOT do the same thing. You are not likely to restrict mobility or directions of fire unless you are extremely lucky or skilled and can deliver a CNS disabling blow. Most folks cannot do that.

However, feel free to start your own thread documenting fists and elbows to stop active shooters. I would not be surprised if you find several. It would be interesting to see what examples you derive and can share with us. No doubt it will be informative.

FireForged
August 5, 2013, 06:44 PM
The whole point is to win. Knocking him down will do nothing past a few seconds if you don't win. You already know that there is no way you will take him out of the fight with a tackle. A tackle is probably the most passive form of physical force there is. You will have to do something more once you have him down. On the other hand, you just might take him out of the fight with a hard strike if you land it properly. How is a badguy going to "select targets" or "orient his weapon" with me knocking the stew out of him?

SgtLumpy
August 5, 2013, 08:59 PM
A bad guy with a gun, standing upright, is still a bad guy with a gun, lying down. Focus on the threat. Kick him in the groin or break his knee to disable HIM but then neutralize the threat.

Guns don't kill people. And in this scenario, people don't kill people. People with guns kill people. Unless that "people" is really, really severely disabled, he's still a bad guy with a gun. Even with OC or mace in his face, or a cold meat pie to the jaw or a kick to the manley bits, and especially with a simple football tackle, he's still got a gun and he's now amped up on adrenaline. And YOU are the object of his sudden pain and rage.

Disable the shooter-gun component.


Sgt Lumpy

Double Naught Spy
August 5, 2013, 09:14 PM
How is a badguy going to "select targets" or "orient his weapon" with me knocking the stew out of him?

I admire the bravado, I really do.

A bad guy with a gun, standing upright, is still a bad guy with a gun, lying down.

Yep and with a tremendous restricted range of motion and hence is easier to deal with.

I appreciate y'all's ideas especially the bravado and acknowledge that there is more than one way to deal with such a threat. Please do start another thread and document these other pugilistic and kung fu cases of stopping active shooters. Such examples are very educational, much more so than bravado theory.

Double Naught Spy
August 5, 2013, 09:38 PM
Here is a mass shooting just stopped by taking the gunman to the ground.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/05/2-killed-town-meeting-pennsylvania/2621711/

Inside, the executive director of the West End Open Space Commission, Bernie Kozen, was tending to one wounded man. Kozen then "bear-hugged" the gunman, took him down and shot the suspect with his own gun, Reber reported.

Yep, an armed gunman on the ground is still an armed gunman, but Kozen focused on the threat, controlling it on the ground and shot the threat with his own pistol.

SgtLumpy
August 5, 2013, 09:43 PM
Yep, an armed gunman on the ground is still an armed gunman, but Kozen focused on the threat, controlling it on the ground and shot the threat with his own pistol.

That is exactly my point. Recalling the news footage from Bobby Kennedy shot -
"Grab the gun, break his thumb if you have to but grab the gun".


Sgt Lumpy

pax
August 6, 2013, 08:07 AM
You know, one of the reasons the old Abbott and Costello routines were so funny was because of the reflex most people have when watching them, wanting to say something like, "Uhhhh, you guys, why don't you back up and start over? Because you are not listening to each other."

Keep your goal in mind. Do what you need to do. If you have to do something, do it with all your heart.

pax

Double Naught Spy
August 6, 2013, 08:15 AM
AFTER Rockne Newell was downed, then he was disarmed. There is just so much LESS a downed person can do than an ambulatory person.

No mention of the gunman's fingers being broken, just shot in the leg.

This link has statements particular to Newell being tackled...
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/06/justice/pennsylvania-town-hall-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

MLeake
August 6, 2013, 11:50 AM
I am not sure why people treat it like either/or, when in my opinion it's both.

Disarms seem to work better when the defender attacks the wielder, while simultaneously deflecting and controlling the weapon.

An unbalanced opponent is exponentially easier to manipulate, as any force he applies will serve to unbalance him further. This is true for very strong bad guys, possibly more so than for weaker ones.

Unbalancing is achieved through a combination of change in relative positions and centers of gravity, and through threats or strikes to areas that achieve a reaction - eyes, throat, floating ribs, groin, knees, ankles - whatever is easiest to treaten or strike in the instance.

Throwing a person who is set and balanced is hard. Throwing that same person in the direction to which they are already lunging (tracking a moving target) or flinching (avoiding or reacting to a strike) is much easier.

FireForged
August 6, 2013, 06:54 PM
Because we differ on the first strike option which [to me] is critical. SgtLumpy knows what I am talking about and he summed it up better than me. The whole flying tackle thing is stuff of television, not physical combat.

MLeake
August 6, 2013, 09:59 PM
We differ, but not the way you suggest.

Where we differ is that you seem to think your striking skills will likely result in an instant stop. I have very rarely seen any fight ended with a single strike or combination.

So, IMO your strategy is generally likely to fail.

I am not advocating some magical flying tackle; I am not opposed to strikes. But I do think emphasizing striking is a good way to increase the odds that the assailant will still be able to use his weapon. And I think the best strategy is a combined one.

FireForged
August 7, 2013, 10:47 AM
All I am saying is that if a lives are on the line, your first attack must mean business and afford you the best chance at winning. A tackle is a very passive use of force and nothing that I can qualify as a real attack (in a of itself). If its not an attack, it has no place in being a fist strike on a armed badguy. Its just my opinion.

MLeake
August 7, 2013, 11:01 AM
What I am saying is rather than making assumptions, it mght be a good idea to get some training in weapon disarms. I have been practicing them pretty regularly, for years, training with cops, corrections officers, and MPs, and in my experience (on the mat) it takes simultaneous movement off the X, attack, and deflection to give the best odds.

Brian Pfleuger
August 7, 2013, 11:20 AM
...first attack must mean business and afford you the best chance at winning. A tackle is a very passive use of force...

I'm fairly certain that "tackling" the shooter is not intended to be like the NFL. You don't roll your shoulder in, wallop him, bounce back up and spike the ball.

A little common sense in determining the next action would go a long way. One would reasonably assume that fists and other options would immediately be employed, depending on the specifics. In fact, one would not reasonably assume anything else.

Glenn E. Meyer
August 7, 2013, 03:47 PM
The young man who attempted to tackle Cho at VT in what was described in some reports as a classic football position was shot repeatedly.

The exact whatever is based on being close. If you are close - then you can apply your preferred DragonBall Z, Kung-fu moves of death. Or just pound the person in the noggin repeatedly.

pax
August 7, 2013, 04:27 PM
And Jacob Ryker (http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/23/us/shootings-in-a-schoolhouse-the-hero-wounded-teen-ager-is-called-a-hero.html) was shot too. Of course, he -- and the other six unarmed teenagers who helped him subdue the attacker -- would have been dead if they hadn't acted. Along with at least a few more of the 300 or so other students in the room.

Plus, this entire thread is suffering from a lack of facts. This link might help: http://www.hardtactics.com/Blog/?p=17

pax

FireForged
August 8, 2013, 11:01 AM
What I am saying is rather than making assumptions, it mght be a good idea to get some training in weapon disarms. I have been practicing them pretty regularly, for years, training with cops, corrections officers, and MPs, and in my experience (on the mat) it takes simultaneous movement off the X, attack, and deflection to give the best odds.

I have had the training and used those techniques during a previous occupation I held for more than 13 years.

MLeake
August 8, 2013, 12:26 PM
Then you must be one hell of a striker, because I have met few who could strike their way out of getting shot, stabbed, or slashed using strikes alone.

Glenn E. Meyer
August 8, 2013, 12:36 PM
Who is the better Bruce Lee is not on topic.

Have we exhausted the basic points which are if you are close to the person, physical combat and swarming him or her may work - note if you are in front, you can get shot. If the person choses to engage a crowd at a distance, better to have a firearm.

Anything else?

Constantine
August 8, 2013, 01:13 PM
Wow...Pax, that took me a while to read most of that. Takes ones mind into a dark gloomy place. Sad to read all of those...

Bad guys always have the drop on the good guys. They prepare for the bad deed they're doing with the most serious intention of harm to others resulting in death.

All we can do is prepare for the worst the best we can.

In the book "Force Decisions" by Rory Miller he states that even the most highly decorated veteran can tense up and freeze at a time where he/she needs to act to stay alive or save a life. Gives examples of one way and the other. Meaning an average Joe going above and beyond and a highly decorated officer freezing and vice versa.

So all this training is amazing and great. The more you have the better. However one never really knows what he/she will do when they cross that bridge until they get there.

SgtLumpy
August 8, 2013, 05:43 PM
I'm not a martial artist, nor a boxer, nor a wrestler. In two different police academies I've taken very short courses in disarming others. Twice in my career I've taken a gun away and once taken a knife away from a subject. I've never been taught to tackle an adversary. I suppose there are places/courses that do teach to tackle someone down and then go for the weapon. But in my limited experience and training it's been to focus on gaining control of the weapon in their hand, get it pointed in a safe direction, twist it out of their grip or apply a sharp blow to the forearm to cause them to release it and THEN immediately gain space between me and the adversary.

Again, there may be other ways to teach disarming. I personally don't see myself at any advantage having thrown my body weight at an adversary and ending up on the ground. I feel I'd be at more of a disadvantage on the ground with a bad guy than if I were standing and thereby more mobile.


Sgt Lumpy

FireForged
August 8, 2013, 05:46 PM
Then you must be one hell of a striker, because I have met few who could strike their way out of getting shot, stabbed, or slashed using strikes alone.

I did not mean to suggest Strikes alone... My point has always been ( in this thread) and within the context of what the original poster layed out, if a person finds themselves in the middle of an active shooter event and "if" they decide to take action against the badguy.. strikes should be first if that's all you have.

SgtLumpy
August 8, 2013, 05:47 PM
My point has always been that if you are unarmed vs an armed badguy- strikes should be first.

Controlling the WEAPON should be first.

Focus on the threat.


Sgt Lumpy

FireForged
August 8, 2013, 05:51 PM
Only if that weapon is being pointed at me.. if not, I would stand a better chance at removing the weapon following a hard attack. If I just run up behind someone and grab at their weapon while they still have 100% of their faculties, my odds are less. But yes, I agree if a person in close proximity has a weapon on you... that is the fist priority ( to control it ). I took this thread to suggest that what is being discussed is attacking a badguy who may be unaware of you but is actively attacking others. I guess we can simply agree to disagree. We have all made out points and I respect that but the debate is no longer fruitful. As I said in the very beginning, I would likely go the other way if escape was available which to me is the preferable option.

MLeake
August 8, 2013, 06:07 PM
Now it seems we are reaching more of a consensus. I would suggest, though, that controlling the weapon can also be approxated by controlling one's relative position to the weapon.

This would be easier to show than describe... May have to try a short video demo when Sixer gets back from vacation.

Double Naught Spy
August 8, 2013, 09:13 PM
I'm not a martial artist, nor a boxer, nor a wrestler. In two different police academies I've taken very short courses in disarming others.

So you are a highly trained professional with a lot of experience. Good for you! Most of the people present in active shooter situations, ironically, are not highly trained professionals, MMA fighters, don't attend multiples of courses on disarming, open hand, closed hand, edged weapon, handgun, carbine, or shotgun fighting, etc. They are ordinary people. They include a subset of ordinary people who are gun owners and who can legally carry, but for some reason don't carry on a regular basis and don't even usually go to the range more than once or twice a year, if that often.

For some reason, the super fighters don't seem to be present in a timely fashion at these sorts of events with any sort of regularity. That leaves the situation in the hands of the ordinary people.

m&p45acp10+1
August 8, 2013, 09:20 PM
I know it did not work out well for the civilian contractor on Ft. Hood. He charged the shooter with a chair. He was shot, and killed. If I remeber correctly the shooter shot him in the head.

A disarm worked in the Kip Kinkle (sp?) school shooting. Kip Kinkle killed his parrents. He then took a 10/22 rifle, and a hand gun put them in the family car. Drove to school. Walked in, jumped on a table, and started shooting people with the rifle. A teacher jumped on the table, grabbed the rifle. He managed to get it free of the shooter's hands.

Myslef I would probably go for cover. If I had the elements of concealment, and surprise working in my favor I would possibly try a disarm, and take down.

SgtLumpy
August 9, 2013, 01:55 AM
I suggest that everyone make their own decisions on what they might do. For me, My 200+ lbs applied with violent force TOWARD THE WEAPON is a better use of force than me tackling them, hitting them with a chair, punching them in the nose etc.

Focus on the threat.

The threat is the weapon.


Sgt Lumpy

Double Naught Spy
August 9, 2013, 06:26 AM
I know it did not work out well for the civilian contractor on Ft. Hood. He charged the shooter with a chair. He was shot, and killed. If I remeber correctly the shooter shot him in the head.

I am not sure what you are saying here other than charging with chairs doesn't work.

A disarm worked in the Kip Kinkle (sp?) school shooting. Kip Kinkle killed his parrents. He then took a 10/22 rifle, and a hand gun put them in the family car. Drove to school. Walked in, jumped on a table, and started shooting people with the rifle. A teacher jumped on the table, grabbed the rifle. He managed to get it free of the shooter's hands.

You left out the part about Kinkle getting tackled by students, led by Ryker, who waited until hearing that his gun had run dry. No disarming by a teacher mentioned.

I suggest that everyone make their own decisions on what they might do. For me, My 200+ lbs applied with violent force TOWARD THE WEAPON is a better use of force than me tackling them, hitting them with a chair, punching them in the nose etc.

Focus on the threat.

The threat is the weapon.

It wasn't a long post, Sgt. Lumpy, but long enough for you to contradict yourself. First you suggest they make their own decisions, then you tell them that they need to focus on what YOU define as the threat.

Constantine
August 9, 2013, 06:40 AM
This is a really good topic. Can I just tweak the verbiage a bit?

The "threat" and "weapon" go hand in hand. If you can take him/her out, do so in whichever way possible. You won't know how unless its happening before your own two eyes.

Also, the threat is a whole. The weapon being a gun or knife is inanimate and can be taken away. Placed in good hands and used against the threat.

The "weapon" can also be the person being a nut job and killing random people.

However you see it in your eyes. Everyone varies.

Whatever poison you prefer, going for the weapon or person...you'll be generally going for the threat. Period. It's just verbiage.

MLeake
August 9, 2013, 11:19 AM
The weapon is NOT the threat. The actor is the threat. Focus on the weapon to the point you disregard the actor, and things are not likely to go well.

raimius
August 9, 2013, 01:22 PM
Considering that there have been many cases where an active shooter came with multiple firearms, focusing on disarmament alone is very risky. (I realize that most posters here who say "disarm" probably intend to disarm first, then detain/disable.)

To me, the preferred solution in the scenario would be to disable the shooter WHILE preventing them from employing a weapon against you. Since I am often in places where weapons are banned, my best bet would be on multiple disorienting/disabling strikes, stabs, or slashes in quick succession (bonus points for getting the shooter off-balance and taking them to the ground). Ideally, this would be done from an angle that would provide good targets for strikes, etc and would surprise the shooter while being difficult to defend against.

From my, albeit limited, experience, keeping a sustained attack going severely reduces an opponent's ability to respond effectively. It's a lot tougher to fight back when taking hits.

Double Naught Spy
August 9, 2013, 02:31 PM
The weapon is NOT the threat. The actor is the threat. Focus on the weapon to the point you disregard the actor, and things are not likely to go well.

Right, "Active shooter" does not refer to a gun that is being fired, but to the person firing the gun. The person is the threat. The gun is just a particular tool.

buckshot00
August 11, 2013, 01:16 PM
If you "tackle" a gunman you still have a gunman you are both just horizontal and the gunman still has a gun.

I think a disarm would be the preferred strategy.

Double Naught Spy
August 11, 2013, 03:33 PM
You might think so, but the historical evidence shows this NOT to be the case in terms of unarmed people stopping active shooters.