Tackling Active Shooters as Self Defense

[MLeake]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Tactical Jackalope]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You might think so, but the historical evidence shows this NOT to be the case in terms of unarmed people stopping active shooters.