CC...a critical review and discussion

[tb-av]

I read somewhere that firearms sales were up 43% on CO after the shooting.

The NRA should jump on this opportunity to bring public education to a higher level. Companies like S&W, Federal, the NRA, local ranges, everyone should be "paying it forward" right now. All the major players, all the minor players.

"Will you know what to do?" "Get Trained"

It's about education not regulation. It seems like a golden opportunity to me. Yet everyone seems to be on the defensive. If there were ever a time for a massive offense it's now.

The NRA should flood every possible media outlet with a "basics training" campaign right now.

Oh and don't think all your buddies at the range are on your side. some guy called into the radio station today. He was reasoning that ammo costs too much, shooting 150 - 200 rounds makes your hands hurt because he goes to the range all the time and 6,000 rounds is simply uncalled for.

I'm sure he will be happy to support some added government regulation too. A little training regulation here, a little ammo regulation there,,,, want to throw in a vision test?

I just think the growing pains associated with re-arming the citizenship should not look for a government solution under any circumstance.

[az doug]

What are the odds of it happening? I'm sure it's pretty low. One of those if you're afraid of "X", you'd never leave the house. It's food for thought none the less

I can only remember one officer here shooting the wrong person once. It was a hostage situation in a robbery. Robber used an innocent person as a shield. At first it was believed the robber shot the hostage and the officer shot the robber. The citizen was very thankful for the officer having saved his life and was all over the news. The citizen's wound was minor. A few days later, when the ballistics testing was completed, it was learned the officer had shot both the robber and citizen. Interestingly, the citizen was still so thankful that he did not want the officer prosecuted and he did not sue the department.

I do know of two officers here prosecuted for their shootings. One was found not guilty by jury after $300,000 in legal fees. The other is still pending.

[Preliator]

Of course, CC's lack of statistics is no more absurd than your mention of having to traverse spilled popcorn to get out.

I realize you were ranting and I think I see where you were coming from. But the "tactically right" thing to do for my family is to keep them safe. That might mean fighting, running or sheltering in place before doing either. To call running your kids to safety a "cop out" is not being intellectually honest about what your tactical goals are and what options are available to you.

I hear what you are saying - the "popcorn" was for illustrative purposes, setting the mood and tone of the scene if you will.

As for the cop out remark - it is a common cop out, in my opinion and I stand by that remark.

Folks preach about how the rest of the public's safety is not their responsibility, well I can't argue with that, it is up to the individual, and only an individual can choose. What I am saying is that many people post about whisking the family to safety assuming that they will be able to do so! Some times the surest way or the only way to keep the family safe is to attack.

I submit, based on my training and experience and limited knowledge of the situation, that it is highly likely that the best chances to keep my family safe, would have been to throw the wife and kids on the ground out of sight and engage the shooter as violently as I could. Emphasis on the second part.

My issue is with the folks who are not "intellectually honest" and refuse to talk about any plan other than herd the family away (of which I have run across more than a few on this forum, and more on others).

I think Bluedreaux, that we are on the same page. Please correct me if I am wrong.

ETA---------
I think folks use the 'whisk the family to safety' excuse for every situation because they are afraid of being labeled a "hero" with a negative conotation, or even worse - a "sheepdog". There is undoubtably a backlash in use of the term in the last year or two. To each their own.

[Bluedreaux]

Same page. Tactics are about options. Sometimes it's good idea vs. bad idea, sometimes it's not so clear. If you refuse to consider all of your options you're courting failure. And to say "THIS or THAT is always right" is dangerous and shows a lack of experience.

I listened to the radio traffic of the responding officers. It was a madhouse in the theater. People shot everywhere, people still trying to escape, gas popped, movie still blaring, dark theater, still don't know where the shooter is....

My .02 is that a good option would be to shelter in place for a minute. Laying down tucked up against the little wall under you chair would be a tough shot for a shooter at the bottom with stadium seating. Especially if he focuses his fire on people fleeing to the sides and not empty seats. See what happens. Most of these shooters move off to another room relatively quickly. Then hustle out or to a better position. It's not something you could thump your chest about on the innernets, but Sherpa-ing my 3 kids out of that mess or getting off accurate fire from the top of a panicking theater would've been quite a trick.

[gunrunner505]

Same page. Tactics are about options. Sometimes it's good idea vs. bad idea, sometimes it's not so clear. If you refuse to consider all of your options you're courting failure. And to say "THIS or THAT is always right" is dangerous and shows a lack of experience.

I listened to the radio traffic of the responding officers. It was a madhouse in the theater. People shot everywhere, people still trying to escape, gas popped, movie still blaring, dark theater, still don't know where the shooter is....

My .02 is that a good option would be to shelter in place for a minute. Laying down tucked up against the little wall under you chair would be a tough shot for a shooter at the bottom with stadium seating. Especially if he focuses his fire on people fleeing to the sides and not empty seats. See what happens. Most of these shooters move off to another room relatively quickly. Then hustle out or to a better position. It's not something you could thump your chest about on the innernets, but Sherpa-ing my 3 kids out of that mess or getting off accurate fire from the top of a panicking theater would've been quite a trick.

Absolutely your safety and the safety of your loved ones is priority number 1. If you can get out, get out. If you cannot get out, and you cannot avoid confrontation then yes, you engage that threat as forcefully and violently as you can to win the fight and protect yours.

[gesundheit]

This is why he had body armor on and a helmet (as he has expecting a gun fight).

A little off topic but the fact that media's FUD (yes that includes Fox News) has got to almost everyone to believe that this guy had armor on really pissed me off. The shooter did NOT have body armor, he had a Blackhawk vest with no armor. I would understand if idiots sitting in New York, get it wrong but I have yet to see anyone correct this misconception that you can buy assault vest with armor, mag pouches, a tactical knife and have it shipped overnight for $306.

The big-mouthed small-brained idiots at TacticalGear didn't help either.

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dai...st_threats.php

P.S. Nothing against you Grant. I was just using your post as an example. Almost everyone I know also believes what you wrote because that is what all the newspapers and TV stations are saying. Nobody checks the facts anymore.

[CarbonCycles]

Your reading fundamentals are lacking. Please refrain from continuing to post in this thread. However, since you started with a rant, I'll indulge your POV.

Rant time!

Really great way to start off a discussion

Obviously from your post, you ARE NOT.

What basis do you have to make this comment? You have never personally met me...you make this judgement based off a single post?!?

Not every one SHOULD carry, but every one has the RIGHT to carry. (except as stated on page 1, those that 'voluntarily' gave up that right.

Skipping since this is an ancillary point to the discussion.


What are these purported statistics? any links?

Further, unless you have a detailed diagram and after action report of what was reconstructed to have happened in the theatre you have no way of proving anything that you have stated is true.

What links are necessary? How many violent crimes have been committed in which the suspect was this concise and meticulous in preparation ranging from firearms chosen to venue? The number based off searches from reported news venues puts this in the extremely small category. Note - we're talking about frequency not magnitude, which news sources love to blow-up.

For additional clarification, when I mentioned statistical odds, I'm referring to all the different environmental factors that will prevent a proficient shooter from making a COM hit. Many shooters can't hit COM at 7 yards on a static range with good lighting and perfect conditions for vision and sounds to help augment mental concentration. Based on the reported news, the theater was dark; the move was in progress leading many to lower their SA to either low to zero (assuming they even had any to being with); the suspect released an air born irritant; and everything was dynamic...I'm pretty sure the statistical odds of a COM were substantially reduced at this point.


As a father of two small children I take my familie's safety seriously, and the "run them to safety" cop out to not doing the right thing (I dont mean morally, I mean tactically) pisses me off. Try herding your family to safety in a shopping mall that is well lit, has ample room and lots of other "targets" - can you ensure that your family will not be found by som maniacs bullets? No, you can not. Many times the best course of action is going to be attacking the assailant, attacking him violently and with everything at your disposal.

This comment is exactly the CC holder that gives me reason to pause. You come across as a reactionary more than a thinker. Training in different venues with different tools (e.g, force-n-force in urban survival settings) really reveals the strengths and weaknesses on using action by violence. There is a time and place for ABV.

Rant over.
Indeed

[C4IGrant]

A little off topic but the fact that media's FUD (yes that includes Fox News) has got to almost everyone to believe that this guy had armor on really pissed me off. The shooter did NOT have body armor, he had a Blackhawk vest with no armor. I would understand if idiots sitting in New York, get it wrong but I have yet to see anyone correct this misconception that you can buy assault vest with armor, mag pouches, a tactical knife and have it shipped overnight for $306.

The big-mouthed small-brained idiots at TacticalGear didn't help either.

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dai...st_threats.php

P.S. Nothing against you Grant. I was just using your post as an example. Almost everyone I know also believes what you wrote because that is what all the newspapers and TV stations are saying. Nobody checks the facts anymore.

Thanks for the info. I had not heard this before.


C4

[tb-av]

Report of gear worn. 4:30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF7Fs9TLJog

[Ironman8]

This comment is exactly the CC holder that gives me reason to pause. You come across as a reactionary more than a thinker. Training in different venues with different tools (e.g, force-n-force in urban survival settings) really reveals the strengths and weaknesses on using action by violence. There is a time and place for ABV.

CC,

I don't know why you would think that someone who would bring VoA to an active shooter situation is a reason to "pause" about him carryin a gun. I don't know Preliator, but just by the way he describes his mindset, I would guess that he at least has the basic training and knowlege of tactics and gun handling.

Your OP about those who don't have the training, or are too stupid to carry, are the ones that should give you pause. The average M4C member, will be much more trained for this type of scenario then the average joe.

A few posts ago, I mentioned what *I think* my mindset would be (or at least what I have trained it to be) in a situation like the one in CO...it was really a question posed to Grant, but its a good discussion for anyone to have. I was playing Devil's advocate to an extent with the different options that I posed, but I wholeheartedly agree with Preliator that sometimes getting your familiy to safety FIRST, isn't the best "tactical" decision...pretty much what I had posted on the first page. If the avenue of escape is still there and not blocked off by the threat, or others trying to escape, then yes, I'll get my family out of there. If I see that that is not an option, I would push, pull, whatever to get them behind cover, then go bring VoA to the attacker.

*This is my opinion based on my continual training and studies*
Now, talking about the "dynamics" of an active shooter situation, by default, he would at least have the Surprise element and possibly the Speed and/or Violence of Action elements. Most active shooters aren't trained like SpecOps guys, so they may not have all three...As someone who is trained, and knows these dynamics, it is up to that person to at least gain two of those three elements back in order to tip the odds of success in their favor. To an extent, you'll have Surprise on your side if the attacker isn't expecting you to fight back (weapon or not), but the two that you can gain are Speed and Violence of Action. You have to take the fight to the enemy without hesitation, but in a smart, thought out manner. The time to think about it is NOT when it is happening. You should be thinking about them BEFORE it happens...and I'm not talking about a constant state of paranoia. Its all about being in the right mindset. Just have a plan.

Its much better to put a "good" plan into action right now, than sit there and think about what is the "best" plan to put into action later.