"active shooter" training for the armed civilian?

[30 cal slut]

does this make any sense?

what specific lessons can the armed citizen learn from columbine, trolley square, va tech and others?

it's my understanding that there is an LEO curriculum out there. i think. why not something for law-abiding citizens?

so it turns out that most active shootings happen quickly ... binghamton was over after two minutes or something like that.

does it just boil down to constantly being in condition yellow, being armed at all times, and the willingness to point muzzle and pull trigger and put bullet in rampaging and ultimately suicidal ****tard(s)?

i'm asking this in anticipation of the hatchet job that diane sawyer and ABC will be broadcasting this Friday on the efficacy of CCW's vs. mass shooters.

if your average CCW is supposedly not prepared for the active shooter (keep in mind i don't necessarily agree with this supposition), then there's got to be a remedy for it, and that is mindset + specific training.

and if LAV is offering it, i'm in.

-slut

[John_Wayne777]

does it just boil down to constantly being in condition yellow, being armed at all times, and the willingness to point muzzle and pull trigger and put bullet in rampaging and ultimately suicidal ****tard(s)?

Those are some of the basics. I would also stress realistic decision making. All of us here would really like to see armed people go f**k up the day of some malevolent narcissist. If it were up to us we'd hand out medals for that sort of thing.

The world is not comprised of people like us.

Ordinary joes do not have the benefit of a shield on their chest. That shield buys the wearer a certain level of support in the community, especially when running to the sound of the guns to deal with an active shooter. If mistakes are made or if really bad things happen that are beyond the control of the good guy, those who wear a shield get more of the benefit of the doubt than the ordinary joe would.

Ordinary joes are not indemnified against liability by a police department. Ordinary joes do not have the benefit of backup and body armor.

Etc.

i'm asking this in anticipation of the hatchet job that diane sawyer and ABC will be broadcasting this Friday on the efficacy of CCW's vs. mass shooters.

There have been instances where a legally armed citizen responded to an active shooter, and in those cases the body count was dramatically lower than what you see in the most recent attacks. The Colorado church is an excellent example of this.

if your average CCW is supposedly not prepared for the active shooter (keep in mind i don't necessarily agree with this supposition), then there's got to be a remedy for it, and that is mindset + specific training.

The "average" CCW holder certainly isn't prepared for it. I hear guys who talk in one thread about how their Kel-Tec .32 auto (with no spare mag) is plenty of carry gun, then in another they talk about how they will take on an active shooter.

What we can say with absolute certainty is that the earlier an active shooter is met with lethal force, the lower the level of carnage. Police response, even EXCELLENT police response, is not sufficient to stop an active shooter from inflicting horrific damage. In the VT incident the police were on scene in an incredibly short period of time...but there were still a lot of victims.

The best way to ensure that an active shooter is met with lethal force is to have people packing lethal force among his intended victims.

[KevinB]

The biggest issue with Armed Civilian responce to active shooter is HOW DOES THE LEO dicriminate you from the AS.

Having had the benifit of doing ride alongs with over 15 LEA, mostly recently with those excellent folks at LAPD, I can attest to the fact it is tough to tell who the good guy is if he/she is not wearing a uniform or raid jacket.

I feel the CCW handgun is a good defensive tool, one that I will use to defend my immediate area, but as for rushing to the sound of the guns - I hesitate.
At least I hesistate behind the keyboard, where I can think this through.

[John_Wayne777]

The biggest issue with Armed Civilian responce to active shooter is HOW DOES THE LEO dicriminate you from the AS.

Another excellent point. When LE comes into a situation looking for an active shooter they are going to be looking for a dude with a gun. Something I can't seem to get some people to understand is that good guys do not have halos or anything else that instantly distinguishes them from bad guys if they are not in uniform. A dude with a gun who isn't in uniform looks like...well...any other dude with a gun.

Since police are not clairvoyant, they have no way of knowing that you are a Sunday School teacher trying to save the day. If responding LE sees you with a gun in your hand, you are a threat, and probably THE threat. You may get told to drop the gun...or they may just engage you without warning. If you get a warning and don't comply, lethal force may be used against you.

Plainclothes and UC officers have been killed by their bretheren in the heat of a high-stress moment before...it's a possibility for the ordinary joe as well. My advice on this would be:

If you adon't have immediate use for the weapon, keep the blaster concealed. That way if you encounter LE you aren't as likely to get shot.

[CarlosDJackal]

If I had my ruthers I would run AS training for LEOs that included a many non-LEOs as possible. This way each group can have a better understanding of just how much they can help or hurt the effort.

During Beslan, it is thought that quite a few of the Rescuers (Spetsnaz) were killed by armed Citizens who were trying to lay down covering fire. As Murphy once said: "Friendly Fire isn't."

FWIW, during one of the earliest Active Shooter incident (NOTE: I personally prefer the term Active Killer because not all of them use a gun, but that's JM2CW); the Charles Whitman shooting at the University of Texas, the two Officers who ended up ending the fight was aided by multiple non-LEOs. This included one (I think he was a Janitor) who went up the tower with them to end the bloodbath. While this was happening, non-LEOs who had their own rifles handy (it was Texas, after all) kept the killer occupied by returning fire.

But unfortunately, in one of the cases of great initiative in Active Shooter Response Training I know of (it involved dozens of local, State, and federal Agencies as well as three Schools); the Officer who was trying to organize the exercise met roadblock after roadblock from School Officials and PTAs who did not want their children and teachers associated with such a "violent exercise".

[rhino]

One issue that some don't consider is that some private citizens probably have as much if not more need for "active shooter" training than do most police officers. I'm not talking about somebody being the hero by rushing toward gunfire and saving the day, but people whose jobs put them in places that where there are high concentrations of potential victims. Schools come to mind first, as do all other places where large groups congregate, but either by bad law laws or by stupid policies, the people can be expected to be unarmed.

This of course raises the dual issue that responsible adults need to have legal restrictions removed from their choice to be armed in such places.

Back to my point, as others have noted, these things can happen very quickly, often too quickly for the best trained police officers with the best training and skills to do anything at all about it. The people who are already there need to be able to deal with the problem.

I think that reality is the most compelling issue. A significant portion of the people who may have to deal with "active shooters" have the least access to the instruction because they don't have badges. I find that unacceptable.

[Zhurdan]

As to what differences there are between active shooters and civilians trying to help from the point of view of the responding officers... wouldn't compliance be enough? I would think that anyone who's a good guy isn't going to turn his gun on the police and would comply with commands given to them by police. I'd doubt that the police are going to roll up and just start shooting the first person they see with a gun without trying to de-escalate the situation.

I'm sure it's confusing as hell, but heaven forbid the need arises, I'd rather someone be armed to be able to possibly take out the SOB going on a rampage. Deal with what comes as it comes, but first you need to be alive to do so.

I agree with KevinB, if you needed to draw your weapon and fire, assess whether the bad guys down, then reholster. If you are right on top of where the excrement hit the occilator, it'll probably be long over before the police roll up (not a dig on police, just that it takes them time to get there). Hopefully no one here will ever have to find out.

Zhur

[John_Wayne777]

As to what differences there are between active shooters and civilians trying to help from the point of view of the responding officers... wouldn't compliance be enough? I would think that anyone who's a good guy isn't going to turn his gun on the police and would comply with commands given to them by police.

You're presuming that he can A. hear the commands and B. is thinking rationally and C. that police will not automatically engage him on sight. If the cops holler "Stop! Police!" and our CCW holder does the natural human thing and turns toward them...well...he'll probably get lit up.

I'd doubt that the police are going to roll up and just start shooting the first person they see with a gun without trying to de-escalate the situation.

In an active shooter situation they are trained to engage people with guns. If you aren't in uniform and if you happen to be shooting or pointing your weapon in the direction of a bad guy they can't see, you're likely going to be perceived as the threat.

I agree with KevinB, if you needed to draw your weapon and fire, assess whether the bad guys down, then reholster. If you are right on top of where the excrement hit the occilator, it'll probably be long over before the police roll up (not a dig on police, just that it takes them time to get there). Hopefully no one here will ever have to find out.

Amen. If you don't need it, holster it.

[Zhurdan]

You're presuming that he can A. hear the commands and B. is thinking rationally and C. that police will not automatically engage him on sight. If the cops holler "Stop! Police!" and our CCW holder does the natural human thing and turns toward them...well...he'll probably get lit up.

Presumptions are the soup of the day when talking about shooting senario's as very few people have ever been in one, let alone near one. By no means am I an expert, just food for thought.

In an active shooter situation they are trained to engage people with guns. If you aren't in uniform and if you happen to be shooting or pointing your weapon in the direction of a bad guy they can't see, you're likely going to be perceived as the threat.

Again, with presumptions, if someone were to engage a shooter (assuming 1 shooter), it'd be long over before police rolled up due to the response time, even if it were at a minimum.

Amen. If you don't need it, holster it.

I would hope that people who carry, care enough to have gotten some professional training. I'm not a police officer, but I have many friends that are. I've shot with them, trained with them (off duty) and have also taken some defensive pistol classes. It's amazing how much a person can learn (I've been shooting for nearly 30 years and I still learn something new every time). There's no real way to simulate the amount of stress involved with a situation like having to shoot someone, but training can get you close. Hopefully that will make all the difference by giving people the ability to decisively end an active shooter senario, holster and start looking for their cell phone in their pee drenched pockets to call it in.

Interesting topic btw.

Zhur

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

The biggest issue with Armed Civilian responce to active shooter is HOW DOES THE LEO dicriminate you from the AS.

Having had the benifit of doing ride alongs with over 15 LEA, mostly recently with those excellent folks at LAPD, I can attest to the fact it is tough to tell who the good guy is if he/she is not wearing a uniform or raid jacket.

I feel the CCW handgun is a good defensive tool, one that I will use to defend my immediate area, but as for rushing to the sound of the guns - I hesitate.
At least I hesistate behind the keyboard, where I can think this through.

Emphasis added mine- I'm suprised that we haven't seen more of this chaemeleon attire from the more planned AK (I like AK better too ) Just because a woman wears slutty clothes doesn't make her a whore, a jacket doesn't make a cop.

I thought it was interesting that in the recent incorporation case for the 2nd in the 9th that one justice brought up that civilians would have a role in a Mumbia type attack. LEOs training for an AK scenario should have some kind of training as too CCW holders being in the mix, and I think CCW holders need more attention in training to these scenarios. At the same time, CCW holders need to realize that there is a good chance they are going to get popped.

I've wondered if there is a place for a super-CCW permit that is almost like a old-school pre-emptive deputization. In return for more training, under the local LEO, you get the right to carry like an off duty cop would.

Is there anything that the LEOs would like to share in a public forum as how they would identify themselves as a LEO if they were offduty? I assume getting on the phone and at least talking to 911 is a good start?