Tactic in a Mass Shooting Situation

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I suggest that you get a comfort area coloring book that is used to reduce stress. Sit there and color it. Get one with trains and color them blue.

Or reread Pax's post.

About retrieving a gun and running back. A few years, one of our member LEOs told me of an incident. A dad drove to the scene, and with handgun in hand, tried to run in to save his daughter. He was almost shot crossing the police line. Luckily someone figured out that he wasn't the bad guy.

About comparative risk. I might be more likely to get the flu than be in a shooting. However, I get a flu shot and learn how to take a shot if need be.

[BlueTrain]

Realistically, there's a miniscule chance of being present at a mass shooting. There seems to be a greater chance of being shot by a family member--intentionally. Ignoring that possibility for the sake of discussion, it seems that a person is actually more likely to be involved in an incident in which flight is impossible. Think about having an armed intruder in your home, for instance. That seems to be a more likely scenario, although in comparison, it doesn't sound so dramatic.

If that is the case, you're not going to be shooting at someone in a crowded shopping center from twenty-five yards away. That's why I maintain that your most likely target is going to be no further away than across the room. But some of you may live in larger houses than I do.

[Limnophile]

I don't have a problem with a self-preservation mindset, but understand that some, especially those of Northwest European descent, are programmed -- by culture, genetics, or both -- to be rather altruistic, even pathologically altruistic.

I would not recommend engaging any target at 100 yd with a carry pistol under anything but the most dire circumstance -- eg, you're caught in the open and a guy with a rifle is shooting at you. Service handguns are typically sighted in at about 25 yd, and the military considers them to be combat effective out to 50 yd. Can you hit a man-sized target at 100 yd? Sure, if you practice, but a good hit rate at typical self-defense distances -- within 10 yd -- is one out of three shots, so expect a hit rate far lower at 100 yd. In a mass shooter situation you don't want to be wasting precious ammunition, as you can bet your foe brought much more than you did.

[Sharkbite]

you're caught in the open and a guy with a rifle is shooting at you. Service handguns are typically sighted in at about 25 yd, and the military considers them to be combat effective out to 50 yd. Can you hit a man-sized target at 100 yd? Sure, if you practice,

Im reviewing in my mind the North Hollywood bank robbery. 2 shooters armed with rifles and wearing body armor. Lots of LONG shots (90+yards) taken by responding officers armed with handguns.

I dont recall the total # of rounds fired by Police, but it was HIGH.

I have trained (and taught students) to engage tgts at extremely long distances, but the fact is thats a very low percentage shot, under the stress if an actual encounter.

By all means...train for it. But the common held "Run, Hide, Fight" response is a better one for most people. If thats what you do then the only time you would engage is if the badguy was closing distance with you.

The reality of playing "sniper pistol" is pretty daunting. Try it if you must, but scoring a debilitating hit at 100+ yards with an iron sighted CCW type pistol is unlikely in a real encounter

[ms6852]

"All that is needed for evil to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing". This quote or similar to it is something that inspires and have always tried to model mysel as a good man.

The truth of the matter is that no one knows how not even yourself, how you will react to a situation until it happens. I spent almost 21 years in the military and was faced with many situations in which I wished I would have reacted differently. There is alot to be said for hindsight. There were situations where I froze, or acted to aggressively,or should have been more gentle or patient. You never know your true self until you are tested.

I normally carry a 1911 and can hit a paper plate at 100 yds 5 out of 7 times. But I doubt I could hit a human size target shooting an ar 15 or AK at me.

[DA/SA Fan]

If I were in the open and a likely target I would shoot. If I were under cover but unable to leave I would shoot. If I were under cover and unnoticed and people were being shot I would shoot. The last circumstance would be about as gutsy as I would get. I would only risk attracting attention to save people I don't know if I had reasonable cover and was sure I could "hit the gong" every time with the gun I had with me. Now if it were school children and puppies being picked off................I might risk everything. YMMV as I don't have children of my own to return to in the worst case.

[zincwarrior]

Best tactic- get the BLEEP out of there.

Every other tactic is a last resort.

[MarkCO]

It's easy to talk about what you would do in a situation like this but there are so many unknowns and it's much different when fight or flight kicks in. I think its important to try to have a realistic mindset though.

Fight, flight or freeze. Facts are that the VAST majority fall into category 2 or 3. I agree that my goal is to survive for my family and that there are few situations in which an armed citizen can insert themselves into a fight and create a more positive outcome. However, if you are targeted, then you should know how, and what to do.

I would also assert that the VAST majority of the people who have a CCW (and I do not think the TFL crowd is representative of the ave CCW holder) lack shooting skills or tactical skills to be of much benefit. I believe that for most, the best chance at saving a life is going to be administering of trauma care, but so few are trained or have any equipment. Second is to be the best witness you can be. Evac and observe is what I hope most would do if given the chance.

Stress inoculation is huge. as some have alluded to. Go do a Paramedic ride along in a big city, and a LE ride along. You will start to get an idea maybe. Find an extreme sport out of your comfort zone and try it, that will start to get an idea of how you react to adrenaline.

The most tools in the bag, the more calm you can remain, the better your chance of survival and the better your chance that you can help your fellow man...if you are so inclined.

[manta49]

No one knows what they would do in that type of situation including me.

[FireForged]

No one knows what they would do in that type of situation including me.

Perhaps not but the best time for considering it and qualifying in your mind for the first time what you are prepared to do, willing to do.. isnt when the crisis is happening.

There can be a benefit to checking off a certain degree of boxes before crisis occurs and then there are the boxes you check based on what specifically is happening in the moment.

Most people consider ahead of time what they would do in the event of a fire, car accident, tornado, home invasion, cardiac emergency and many other crisis events.. this discussion is no different.

[1-DAB]

what would i do?

i don't know.

but i do know that i always have a pistol on my hip. a pistol i shoot regularly. a pistol that i know i can hit a target with at 35 yards. a pistol loaded with quality ammo that has passed the FBI barrier tests. a pistol that has several spare magazines, one of which i also carry with me.

so, i don't know what i would do, but i do have options.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Most people consider ahead of time what they would do in the event of a fire, car accident, tornado, home invasion, cardiac emergency and many other crisis events.. this discussion is no different.

Mindset is so important. Also, the emergency literature is clear that training with realistic simulations gives the best results. Fire, medical, combat, police, flying, being a ship captain, nuclear tech - whatever.

[Kosh75287]

Realistically, there's a miniscule chance of being present at a mass shooting.

Cold comfort to 14 bereaved families of the San Bernardino dead. Ultimately, people respond to stressful situations in the way they were trained (or have trained themselves) to respond. If they are trained to do what works, their odds of survival improve. If trained to do something that does not, their odds of survival could be less than for they who freeze and do nothing.

In any case, it is hard for me to imagine that the casualty count at San Bernardino would have been so high, had one or more armed persons had engaged the creeps and drawn their fire. The person confronting them may increase his/her odds of being killed, but those odds were already suddenly quite high. We know that some among the murdered acted to protect others who were exposed to hazard. I just wish they'd had something besides their bodies with which to fend for the survivors.

[kilimanjaro]

The odds of an armed civilian response to an act of terror like these is rising, gun sales are through the roof, CCW applications are backed up, more people are going to deep carry despite employers rules, another college will allow student carry, etc., etc.

There is a miniscule chance of being involved in one of these events, but statistically, your house will burn down only once in about 1200 years. You carry fire insurance because it's too big of a loss to take without it.

Same with carrying a firearm. Without it, you will almost certainly lose everything, your life and perhaps the lives of your loved ones. With it, you stand a chance of walking out with them.

[Kosh75287]

I normally carry a 1911 and can hit a paper plate at 100 yds 5 out of 7 times. But I doubt I could hit a human size target shooting an ar 15 or AK at me.

Why not? A human target is larger than a 9" dinner plate. That AR/AK the creep is holding doesn't make that dinner plate any smaller. You may not have as much time to carefully aim at them as you did the unarmed paper plate, but that's why you practice. To get faster at shooting better.

[ms6852]

It is obvious you haven't been shot at with an ak47 on full auto

[Kosh75287]

It is obvious you haven't been shot at with an ak47 on full auto

MORE obvious is the fact that you haven't the slightest clue as to my background, nor am I inclined in the least to discuss it with you.

Nonetheless, we rarely get to fight back with the weapons we WANT, unless they happen to be the weapons we HAVE, at the moment. I CAN attest to the difficulty associated with continuing to think in situations so stressful as these, but the capacity to reason almost never completely leaves us. One solves such problems by taking them apart, piece by piece (albeit hurriedly, and preferably while the other team is reloading), and where possible, fixing the most resolvable aspect of the problem, first.

Engaging an aggressor 100yards away with a sidearm probably won't yield a dead bad guy on the first shot, but just getting close to them simply MUST make them reconsider their position. If you do no more than signal that they cannot fire on you with impunity, their next move may be slow or tentative enough to afford you an avenue of escape. To just sit there and get sprayed, while armed is non-sensical. Additionally, even if you CAN evade, others with you might NOT have that luxury. A missed shot that lands anywhere NEAR the "Full Auto Firing" creep will likely make them reassess their firing position long enough for you and others to flee.

[Sequins]

I think that on this forum and at least one other I frequent that there is a sort of glamorization of cowardice going on. I don't mean to cast aspersions on any of my fellow posters in particular, but I detect a certain sentiment from a certain base of posters that anyone who would prefer to engage an active shooter rather than run for the hills is a bad person and perhaps even a danger to themselves and others. It sort of seems like some among us are attempting to create a groupthink where anyone who isn't completely paralyzed by fear is a chest-beating savage stirring for conflict. It's quite a strange wedge to see driven amongst members of the firearm community by staff here and at another popular green & brown forum I frequent, and I think it's a completely false dichotomy. It's absolutely possible to be interested in the defense of yourself and also the body politic but not be a danger to anyone. I think there are grave philosophical implications when one suggests that a member of the public should not engage in the defense of said public as matter of course, or alternatively that a member of the public is not qualified to engage in the defense the public.

We often draw comparisons between guns and other more common culprits of catastrophe on these forums, such as cars. If you saw a flaming wreck on the side of the interstate would you pull over and attempt to render aid? Some wouldn't, but I would. If you saw a burning house and heard a crying baby would you stop to render aid? Some wouldn't, but I would. If I EDC'd a firehose I wouldn't wait for a "professional" before I got that hose to work, that's for sure. I don't meant to glamorize myself and perhaps if I had a wife and kids I wouldn't care so much about others relative to myself, but I do care and I really have a problem with the suggestion that not helping is somehow as noble or even more noble than helping. I don't care how good your reasons are if you see danger and run there is a word for that and it's not prudent.

Often I hear the same phrases repeated verbatim, such as "I only care about me and mine" or more specific to this thread "Run, Hide, Fight". I personally believe in Freedom and so I don't think anyone who doesn't want to should have to carry a gun, but if you do carry a gun for protection you ought to extend the aegis to your fellow countryman. If you care about the sanctity of life, which I think is implied by carrying a gun to protect your own life, then you are obliged to care about more than the end of your own nose (in my opinion).

ED: A whole separate firearm specific line of argument is that an unskilled shooter is completely ineffective. Have you ever seen someone with less than 100hrs shoot a rifle? they're terrible. These San Bernardino shooters had like 25 hours of experience, and I bet any argument of "oh it's so scary to be shot at" would apply equally to them. When the police started shooting back I notice the terrorists didn't score a single hit. I could have shot back...

[Snyper]

Jeffrey Snyder was right but I'm surprised to hear it here:

And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality and incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants.

http://jim.com/cowards.htm

[johnelmore]

I was robbed last year and it was surreal to have a pistol stuck in my face. When it happens the truth is you really dont know what to do. The person I was with smartly ran away, but I stood there frozen. Hard to say what the correct reaction would be at the time, but I came out alive. Now that I have that scenario out of the way I will tell you what I would do is run as fast as I can in a different direction. That would be my initial reaction, but it all depends. In any event the shooter will have planned it out and you will.be reacting on the fly not knowing what to do. I guess making a run for it from the time you realize its happening might be a sound strategy. If we all run in a different direction at full speed chances are they wont get us all. If we stand there frozen yes they will get us all. If I was with a group of people and something went down I would instantly yell at everyone to run and I would run too.

[Sharkbite]

Why not? A human target is larger than a 9" dinner plate. That AR/AK the creep is holding doesn't make that dinner plate any smaller. You may not have as much time to carefully aim at them as you did the unarmed paper plate, but that's why you practice. To get faster at shooting better.

Stress degrades ability. Its a simple fact of human physiology. It happens to athletes on the playing field. It happens to shooters under attack.

Having been on the wrong end of guns being fired on more then one occassion and seeing the effects of those angry bees whipping past, i can attest that you are not anywhere near as good under stress as on any range during training.

A 9" plate at 100yds is good shooting with a pistol. A human at 100 yds that is shooting at you is another story all together

Dont misunderstand..train hard and practice for those long shots. Just dont think its anything like the range

[zincwarrior]

I understand everyone's different impulses.

1. While one never is sure what they will do in a circumstance, thinking about some of the major ones ahead of time can be helpful (and if its not, it doesn't hurt).

2. If there were a mass shooter in a mall or restaurant I have thought about those scenarios and how I would want to react, which could be different than robbers in the same circumstance. But it all depends doesn't it and I don't believe there is either a right or moral answer.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think there is a difference between suggestions that a civilian might do their best to get out of the fire fight as compared to the attitude of some that you are, a priori, helpless and worthless in the fight.

The other attitudes that gall me are that:

1. You don't need to train
2. You can't make the shot even if you do train
3. No handgun can be used successfully

[TimSr]

I think that on this forum and at least one other I frequent that there is a sort of glamorization of cowardice going on. I don't mean to cast aspersions on any of my fellow posters in particular, but I detect a certain sentiment from a certain base of posters that anyone who would prefer to engage an active shooter rather than run for the hills is a bad person and perhaps even a danger to themselves and others.

I have to agree. Kind of the whole concept of the 2nd Amendment with the citizen being armed in order to serve as a citizen militia. Seems to me the security of the free state implies an obligation beyond protecting myself and my family despite the personal risk. I'm really glad for all the regular Joe's out there who pulled victims from a burning car or building, rendered first aid, rescued, protected, or otherwise preserved lives they were not responsible for, when "a trained professional" wasn't handy.

Would seem to me a better discussion would be how one might recognize opportunities, and how to reduce the chances of adding confusion or being mistaken for another bad guy, and recognizing when to engage, and when to retreat.

[pax]

Let me repeat something I said very early in my first post on this thread:

"... asking whether it's an appropriate or inappropriate mindset is probably the wrong question. Not because the question itself is bad, but because it's a question that only you can answer, for yourself alone. We are talking about some deeply personal subjects that affect whether you live or die, after all. Nobody else can tell you what's appropriate or inappropriate by your own moral code. We can only discuss what's practically possible, what's legally defensible, and what's tactically sound."

I'm not really into calling people cowards for making informed decisions.

I'm not really into calling people bloodthirsty for making heroic decisions.

I am very much a fan of helping people understand the important variables they might need to consider, so that they can make their own decisions based on their own moral codes.

As for the bit about "all it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" -- I very strongly agree! But I think sometimes people who own guns and carry them think that escorting others to safety, or protecting the people immediately around us, or setting up a tactical ambush to take down the attacker from a safe position (as Jeanne Assam did), all somehow counts as "doing nothing." I don't agree. Only doing nothing is doing nothing. There are many different things we can do that are moral and even heroic. Those things don't always involve the gun, although sometimes they do.

Originally Posted by TimSr

Would seem to me a better discussion would be how one might recognize opportunities, and how to reduce the chances of adding confusion or being mistaken for another bad guy, and recognizing when to engage, and when to retreat.

Yeah, that's why I suggest meaningful training. Talk talk talk about all that stuff does very little, in the absence of immediate and realistic feedback about what one can actually do -- on demand, in the presence of others who know what they're looking at and who know how to help you learn to do it better.

pax,

Kathy