Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   After careful analysis of mass shootings, police advise that members of the public who find themselves in the midst of one should "run away, hide, or fight back." This report was delivered by police spokesmen Capt. Obvious and Detective N.S. Sherlock   (nytimes.com) divider line 231
    More: Obvious, mass shooting, Texas State University, Houston Police Department, Columbine High School, Holocaust survivors, Virginia Tech, Seung-Hui Cho  
•       •       •

2181 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Apr 2013 at 7:53 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



231 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-07 02:49:09 AM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: And in not one of the mass shootings over the past 30 years was it stopped by a bystander with a gun. Tackling after running out of ammo, yes. Police intervention, yes. Shooter kills self. Never by a person carrying.


I know of two in Colorado that were on the nightly news. Another one in Salt Lake City, 2 more in TX, and even one in CA just off the top of my head. And those are what I saw on the news in the past 5 or so years. If you look hard you could probably find dozens since the 80s.

You never hear about them like you do the successful shooters however, apparently dead kids is far better news than a dead fruitcake.
 
2013-04-07 03:10:58 AM  
Random thought:

Folks like showing the video of the concealed carry guy in the classroom failing to take down the attacker, fumbling with the weapon, etc.  This is realistic only for the -first classroom targeted-, additional classrooms would have warning.

/endrandomthought
 
2013-04-07 03:17:19 AM  

evaned: Ennuipoet: I am no gun nut, but I was taught in the cop school that cover and concealment were the first rules of not being killed during a shootout.

"Concealment", aka how not to be seen.


I approve of this method. (Chose my screen name based on this very sketch.)
 
2013-04-07 03:24:58 AM  
Troll thread, with troll headlines, with trolls in it. The advertisers on the right should be proud.
 
2013-04-07 03:26:04 AM  

WordyGrrl: Not long ago, I saw a video about a test to see how well (or if) college students could stop or survive an gunman's attack at a school. All the student participants were taken out to the range, taught how to use the handguns, etc. All felt confident that they could stop the attacker. But when the simulation went live, the students either panicked, froze or fumbled with the weapon and everybody in the scenario got shot.


I saw that video too. It was a complete failure of a test. The whole thing was heavily debunked as soon as it came out.
They "shooter" walked into the room, shot the teacher, then immediately tried to shoot the only "armed" student in the room. Apparently all active shooters are psychics and know instantly who is armed and who isn't. So instead of having the option of hiding for a second, then drawing, then popping up while the shooter was shooting the other kids who were running for the doors, as you KNOW he would be doing, they kids just got shot immediately while everyone else was ignored.
The armed students were forced to wear excessively long shirts which made drawing their gun way harder than it would be in real life.
The armed students were forced to wear bulky gloves which made drawing their guns way harder than it would be in real life.
A couple hours training with no real prior experience is almost entirely worthless anyway.
I am sure I am missing/forgetting some other important aspects of the "test" that were completely unrealistic, as it has been a while since I watched it.
 
2013-04-07 03:36:19 AM  

Silly Jesus: Princess Ryans Knickers: And in not one of the mass shootings over the past 30 years was it stopped by a bystander with a gun. Tackling after running out of ammo, yes. Police intervention, yes. Shooter kills self. Never by a person carrying.

With the exception of two or three instances, all of the mass shootings over the past 30 years have been in places where guns were prohibited.

Think that could have something to do with your nifty little statistic?


Actually only 1 mass shooting in the last 30 years was in a non-Gun Free Zone or posted "No Guns Allowed" area, the Gabby Gifford one. The next closest was Aurora, but even that was the only theater of the seven within 10 miles of the guys house that had "No Guns Allowed" signs.

The libs pass these gun free zone laws, the laws fail miserably, and we are supposed to trust them to make up even more laws to try and stop this? How anyone trusts these people, people who by their own statements know almost nothing at all about guns, people who have failed repeatedly already on this subject, to do anything about gun violence in this country is beyond me.
 
2013-04-07 03:52:18 AM  

Ontos: WordyGrrl: Not long ago, I saw a video about a test to see how well (or if) college students could stop or survive an gunman's attack at a school. All the student participants were taken out to the range, taught how to use the handguns, etc. All felt confident that they could stop the attacker. But when the simulation went live, the students either panicked, froze or fumbled with the weapon and everybody in the scenario got shot.

One trip to the range is not "training", that's barely "familiarization", and honestly it's a pretty idiotic way to attempt to draw any sort of informed conclusion.

I would have been shocked if they didn't react that way.


Indeed - I laughed when I read that. That's the "reality show" kind of "training" - give them an hour with some instructor with a moustache and some kind of law enforcement background, then call it a day.
Training isn't that at all. I've been shooting since I was 12, and I don't have any delusions that I'm an expert gun fighter. what I can hope for is that I'll instinctively aim, instinctively deal with stoppages, and keep moving while being shot at/shooting.

however, I find it incredulous that an entire room of college students armed with handguns can't manage to land a shot on an active shooter standing in the same room, and proceed to all get shot one by one. something doesn't add up there - or that's the biggest collection of limp-wristed daisies in america.
 
2013-04-07 04:39:58 AM  
I think I would strip naked and try and rub one last one out quick.
 
2013-04-07 04:58:50 AM  

iq_in_binary: Princess Ryans Knickers: And in not one of the mass shootings over the past 30 years was it stopped by a bystander with a gun. Tackling after running out of ammo, yes. Police intervention, yes. Shooter kills self. Never by a person carrying.

I know of two in Colorado that were on the nightly news. Another one in Salt Lake City, 2 more in TX, and even one in CA just off the top of my head. And those are what I saw on the news in the past 5 or so years. If you look hard you could probably find dozens since the 80s.

You never hear about them like you do the successful shooters however, apparently dead kids is far better news than a dead fruitcake.


Well, you never hear about a mass shooting that was successfully stopped....because it never became a mass shooting, now, did it? (duh) "Guy doesn't kill lots of people, fails to kill self" isn't a headline you'll be seeing the next day. Even the ones iq is thinking of were shootings that got started and then were INTERRUPTED by someone who was carrying--because they were on the news, hence, someone got going with his Glock AR-47 tactical assault bazooka and got stopped. However, just as often, if they're the same ones I'm thinking of, the "bystander" was as often as not an off-duty cop with his personal weapon and not Joe Gunshop showing off his CCW permit. The one in SLC, I know, was an off-duty state trooper.

Which means nothing in any case. Unless everyone in any given situation is locked&loaded 24/7 AND PREPPED for a shooter to walk through the door at any moment, then all the concealed weapons and preparedness and bullshiat gunghoedness is irrelevant. Anyone who's been under live fire will tell you there is a split second of shock as the mind tries to figure out "WTF? Is that someone shooting at me? What should I do now?" If you're highly trained and highly skilled, then the next thing you do is weigh your options, which might or might not be to return fire. But IF NOT, then flight or concealment should always be your backup plan.

A gun is a defensive weapon; and like any other defensive weapon, is only useful if it's in your hand the moment you need it; as that DA down in Texas and that prison warden in Colorado discovered too late. An arsenal in the basement or a Concealed Carry permit does you no good at all if some thug with a cheap handgun gets the drop on you. Likewise, if you're wanting to be the Hero of the Shopping Mall when Psycho McCrazy opens fire, whipping out your .45 and blasting away will not win you accolades when you kill four bystanders because you failed to check your backstop, or when you catch someone else's round in the back of your head because you stood up into crossfire. Better a live dog than a dead lion, as they say.
 
2013-04-07 06:41:52 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Better a live dog than a dead lion, as they say.


Not true for dinner.
 
2013-04-07 07:06:49 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Better a live dog than a dead lion, as they say.


They used to say "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."

We know the consequences for not stopping a gunman.
The purpose of CCW isn't to make everyone into a rambo, Its to give the community a fighting chance by leveling the playing field. It eliminates the temptation of targeting crowds by increasing the chance of the shooter being interrupted, even if the person doing the interruption isn't very good at it.
Maybe the guy has body armor (so far, none of them have) and maybe he is a hard core trained killer (the opposite is more often true). But simple acts of resistance are going to complicate and maybe stop his plan.

Its not the best thing for your safety or legal standing, but if we're gambling on how to keep a shooting from becoming a mass shooting then interrupting the shooter is key. While the lizard portion of my brain objects to being caught in the crossfire between you and the gunman, the rational part would understand that its better for everyone if the gunman goes downimmediately.
Its my one life VS twenty or more if you do not take the shot.
Better to have a complicated trial than a media spectacle that gives the mad gunman his day in the sun.


/At present in the US they use guns, in other nations they use suicide vests.
/Similar problem, but the only way to mitigate the damage is for someone to shove the attacker away from the crowd.
/This has happened, but the media never gives the Hero the press coverage he deserves.
 
2013-04-07 07:43:13 AM  

dk47: dfenstrate: skozlaw: I remember hearing something on NPR where they were talking to a guy who confronted a mass shooter in a mall. He didn't stop him, but they said after he disrupted the guy by confronting him the guy changed up his tactic and holed up in a store instead which effectively ended it. They said that now police are recommending that the most important you can do is disrupt the attacker's pattern, which is why instead of waiting for backup at school events and setting a perimeter they now just breach ASAP.

There's been a few times, to my profit, that I've interrupted someone's plan with my own counter action.

Once some tough looking kids were clearly following me (whilst driving), and after I was sure of it, I stomped on the brakes and pulled onto the shoulder of a busy road. They pulled to the side as if following me through a turn- but there was no turn; and they pulled back onto the road and drove off without stopping.
The other time my wife's employer was obviously setting up to fire my pregnant wife after their busy season was done. So I wrote a letter to them (which my wife passed on as her writing) accusing her supervisor of unlawfully discriminating against a pregnant woman, and got us a $4k payoff to shut up and go away for good.
So yeah , good tactic. Mess up your opponents plan.
/CSB

So you got your wife fired?  Nice.


They were already going to fire her, and admitted the paperwork was already in. They were just waiting until the busy season was done. So I got us a $4k payout instead of her just being fired..

From a few company parties, I think they figured out I earned enough money that she wouldn't be coming back after she had the kid. They decided to just fire her when it was convenient for them, and save themselves any future expenses from someone who wasn't going to come back. Unfortunately, they decided to have a months-long 'improvement process' for a 'weak employee' that was a complete sham, in order to have some kind of HR-approved process, which basically meant they were f*cking with my wife.

I didn't take too kindly to that.
 
2013-04-07 08:02:07 AM  

way south: They used to say "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."


This.

If you see evil, stop it. Laws be damned.
 
2013-04-07 08:15:18 AM  

dfenstrate: From a few company parties, I think they figured out I earned enough money that she wouldn't be coming back after she had the kid. They decided to just fire her when it was convenient for them, and save themselves any future expenses from someone who wasn't going to come back.


They didn't want to give a paid maternity leave to someone who wouldn't return when it was over?

Shocking.
 
2013-04-07 08:28:01 AM  

WordyGrrl: Not long ago, I saw a video about a test to see how well (or if) college students could stop or survive an gunman's attack at a school. All the student participants were taken out to the range, taught how to use the handguns, etc. All felt confident that they could stop the attacker. But when the simulation went live, the students either panicked, froze or fumbled with the weapon and everybody in the scenario got shot.


But take away their gun and give the shooter a smaller magazine, and the kids all turn into John McLane and don't freeze, panic, or fumble anything.
 
2013-04-07 08:59:28 AM  

o5iiawah: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: That's why no major media outlets reported this nonsense,

Well surely if it didn't appear as a frontline story on Nancy Grace it didn't actually happen.

That is your argument.

Listen to how dumb you sound.


Yes, when the "confirmed" source is not named and only appears on OregonLive.com, and no other outlet picks up a story of a CCW hero (You're saying Fox News wouldn't have jumped all over this shiat if it could even be remotely verified), then it's probably bullshiat.  That's why I also brought up Wikipedia's language with the story because even with an aggregate of all submitted accounts, there isn't a single source with a name willing to back up Nick Meli's story other than Nick Meli.  So tell me again, who are the "authorities" from your article?  Why didn't said "authorities" leave a name or phone number?  Why did your article only claim that someone witnessed him being there with a gun, but not that the shooter actually saw him?
 
2013-04-07 09:22:06 AM  

heili skrimsli: dfenstrate: From a few company parties, I think they figured out I earned enough money that she wouldn't be coming back after she had the kid. They decided to just fire her when it was convenient for them, and save themselves any future expenses from someone who wasn't going to come back.

They didn't want to give a paid maternity leave to someone who wouldn't return when it was over?

Shocking.


Do you become illiterate after reading 400-odd characters?
 
2013-04-07 09:30:26 AM  

DrExplosion: I will go on to assume that we simply have different definitions of "obsessive" or that you are a lousy shot.


I'm not, but most people are, that's what I was getting at.
 
2013-04-07 10:24:39 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: If I'm ever caught in a crossfire, I'm going to act like a rabbit.  Most people like rabbits.

OK, so you're going to hop around, twitch your nose, and stare wide-eyed at the gunman; or you're going to pull out a carrot, stick your finger in the end of the barrel, and say "Eh, who ya shootin' at, doc?"

Either would work, but one would be way funnier to watch.


2.bp.blogspot.com

"Eat your vegetables."
 
2013-04-07 12:10:45 PM  

BSABSVR: WordyGrrl: Not long ago, I saw a video about a test to see how well (or if) college students could stop or survive an gunman's attack at a school. All the student participants were taken out to the range, taught how to use the handguns, etc. All felt confident that they could stop the attacker. But when the simulation went live, the students either panicked, froze or fumbled with the weapon and everybody in the scenario got shot.

Well, sure.  But that's college students.  The human badassery that is populating this thread are all capable of instantly and accurately detecting who is a friendly shooter and who is the enemy shooter in a theater full of strangers.  Also they see to think that "friendly fire off" is a toggle switch in real life.


Yep, and I'm sure many of those college students (and folks in this thread) are Xbox badasses with FPS games. The test in that video was flawed, indeed. But it did get across the point that no matter how well you think you're prepared, the scenario will NOT go down as perfectly as you've planned it in your 'I'm a badass" dreams. Just because you're a damn fine shot at the range doesn't mean you're 100% combat ready and instantly capable of downing a violent, unpredictable shooter.  Confidence does not necessarily equal competence.
 
2013-04-07 01:55:47 PM  

Gyrfalcon: I_Am_Weasel: I don't like any of those options.  I need more.

Call in a nuclear strike. That would be my option.


All you have to do is kill 25 gunmen in a row.
 
2013-04-07 02:00:04 PM  

PanicMan: This has been part of the Active Shooter training I've received for at least 2 years.  Before then they've never encouraged you to fight back.  Now they do.


Is there such thing as an Inactive Shooter? Like a guy wants to kill people, but he's a lazy fark, so he just brings a lawn chair and camps in one spot?
 
2013-04-07 02:05:43 PM  

One Bad Apple: RedPhoenix122: Krymson Tyde: No praying? According to Facebook this shiat wouldn't happen if we prayed more.

Also armed everyone.

Kind of implied with the "fight back" part.

Bringing a knife to a gunfight is ill advised but considered an epic win when it works


That's why I have one of these:
www.onpointsupply.com
That way, I never have to choose.

/I really do have one, but only for the ridiculous factor. It was 20 bucks, how could I *not* buy something like that?
 
2013-04-07 04:51:12 PM  
My PD internal circulated this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VcSwejU2D0

I had the same thoughts as the Subby - Cpt. Obvious figured out iMovie.
 
2013-04-07 11:48:27 PM  

way south: Maybe the guy has body armor (so far, none of them have)


The Aurora shooter had full body armor including a tactical helmet.

The problem with trying to defend a mass shooting is that the shooter knows exactly what he's going to do and you don't. That gives him a huge tactical advantage. If everybody in that movie theater had a gun, Holmes would probably have still killed a number of people before anyone reacted and was able to take him down.
 
2013-04-08 12:04:16 AM  

CruiserTwelve: way south: Maybe the guy has body armor (so far, none of them have)

The Aurora shooter had full body armor including a tactical helmet.

The problem with trying to defend a mass shooting is that the shooter knows exactly what he's going to do and you don't. That gives him a huge tactical advantage. If everybody in that movie theater had a gun, Holmes would probably have still killed a number of people before anyone reacted and was able to take him down.


The body armor was an early report that was contradicted in later reports which said he was wearing a tactical vest, but not armor.
 
2013-04-08 12:14:11 AM  

vygramul: The body armor was an early report that was contradicted in later reports which said he was wearing a tactical vest, but not armor.


Yep, a 'tactical vest' is the military equivalent of a fishing vest - designed to hold lots of stuff in various spots, but not to function as any sort of armor.

CruiserTwelve: The problem with trying to defend a mass shooting is that the shooter knows exactly what he's going to do and you don't. That gives him a huge tactical advantage. If everybody in that movie theater had a gun, Holmes would probably have still killed a number of people before anyone reacted and was able to take him down.


Yes, but he would have killed quite a few fewer people though.
 
2013-04-08 09:14:39 AM  

CruiserTwelve: way south: Maybe the guy has body armor (so far, none of them have)

The Aurora shooter had full body armor including a tactical helmet.

The problem with trying to defend a mass shooting is that the shooter knows exactly what he's going to do and you don't. That gives him a huge tactical advantage. If everybody in that movie theater had a gun, Holmes would probably have still killed a number of people before anyone reacted and was able to take him down.




He has the tactical advantage but he also has the strategic choice of targets.

Criminals don't often target large crowds because they present too many unpredictable outcomes. Someone might resist. Someone might run. There might be an off duty cop in their ranks. What you want (as a crook) are fewer variables.
Body armor or not, you can't keep up your assault with small caliber rounds plinking off you. Which is what you risk even if you pick the most advantageous situation.

What we've done is weed out the weapons and leave a trapped audience. The shooter is no longer limited by the confines of a secure vantage point or the fear of return fire.

The damage of the "gun free zone" theory isn't just that the shooter has been given an advantage, its that we've also assured him of that advantage by law and by example. They will attempt more audacious crimes because they've been given bigger opportunities.

If we can reverse that perception then the least we will do is redirect mad gunmen to targeting smaller groups.
 
2013-04-08 11:05:23 AM  

way south: CruiserTwelve: way south: Maybe the guy has body armor (so far, none of them have)

The Aurora shooter had full body armor including a tactical helmet.

The problem with trying to defend a mass shooting is that the shooter knows exactly what he's going to do and you don't. That gives him a huge tactical advantage. If everybody in that movie theater had a gun, Holmes would probably have still killed a number of people before anyone reacted and was able to take him down.

He has the tactical advantage but he also has the strategic choice of targets.

Criminals don't often target large crowds because they present too many unpredictable outcomes. Someone might resist. Someone might run. There might be an off duty cop in their ranks. What you want (as a crook) are fewer variables.
Body armor or not, you can't keep up your assault with small caliber rounds plinking off you. Which is what you risk even if you pick the most advantageous situation.

What we've done is weed out the weapons and leave a trapped audience. The shooter is no longer limited by the confines of a secure vantage point or the fear of return fire.

The damage of the "gun free zone" theory isn't just that the shooter has been given an advantage, its that we've also assured him of that advantage by law and by example. They will attempt more audacious crimes because they've been given bigger opportunities.

If we can reverse that perception then the least we will do is redirect mad gunmen to targeting smaller groups.


The gun free zone theory isn't some random hope that killers will respect them. It's that anyone with a gun in that zone automatically needs to be intercepted and arrested. There are about as many teachers going about armed in gun free zones today as there were before the law was passed, so it's not like suddenly mass shooters became even more capable than before.
 
2013-04-08 11:44:55 AM  

vygramul: way south: CruiserTwelve: way south: Maybe the guy has body armor (so far, none of them have)

The Aurora shooter had full body armor including a tactical helmet.

The problem with trying to defend a mass shooting is that the shooter knows exactly what he's going to do and you don't. That gives him a huge tactical advantage. If everybody in that movie theater had a gun, Holmes would probably have still killed a number of people before anyone reacted and was able to take him down.

He has the tactical advantage but he also has the strategic choice of targets.

Criminals don't often target large crowds because they present too many unpredictable outcomes. Someone might resist. Someone might run. There might be an off duty cop in their ranks. What you want (as a crook) are fewer variables.
Body armor or not, you can't keep up your assault with small caliber rounds plinking off you. Which is what you risk even if you pick the most advantageous situation.

What we've done is weed out the weapons and leave a trapped audience. The shooter is no longer limited by the confines of a secure vantage point or the fear of return fire.

The damage of the "gun free zone" theory isn't just that the shooter has been given an advantage, its that we've also assured him of that advantage by law and by example. They will attempt more audacious crimes because they've been given bigger opportunities.

If we can reverse that perception then the least we will do is redirect mad gunmen to targeting smaller groups.

The gun free zone theory isn't some random hope that killers will respect them. It's that anyone with a gun in that zone automatically needs to be intercepted and arrested. There are about as many teachers going about armed in gun free zones today as there were before the law was passed, so it's not like suddenly mass shooters became even more capable than before.




They should have been intercepted, but these zones were often applied without security or some means to make that inception happen.

It isn't about a change in the shooters ability or our means of defend, its that we have an advertised vulnerability that the nation has done very little to fix for decades.
Shootings happen, politicians double down on the stupid, more shootings happen.

If we want to stop it then we've got to start defending where we're weakest. Crowds have to become dangerous to mass shooters again.
 
2013-04-08 01:07:32 PM  

dfenstrate: heili skrimsli: dfenstrate: From a few company parties, I think they figured out I earned enough money that she wouldn't be coming back after she had the kid. They decided to just fire her when it was convenient for them, and save themselves any future expenses from someone who wasn't going to come back.

They didn't want to give a paid maternity leave to someone who wouldn't return when it was over?

Shocking.

Do you become illiterate after reading 400-odd characters?


Other than 'paid maternity leave' what future expenses were they saving themselves? Her current salary? Well shiat, why not just get rid of her now and hire someone who will be around longer than another six months, seeing as she had no intention of returning to work post-birth. They'd also neatly solve the problem of absenteeism for doctor appointments and whatnot before the maternity leave anyway, which if she worked up until the actual birth she could've taken despite having no intention whatsoever of returning.

They were probably happy to pay the four grand and be done with it.
 
Displayed 31 of 231 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report