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 26
    More: Obvious, mass shooting, Texas State University, Houston Police Department, Columbine High School, Holocaust survivors, Virginia Tech, Seung-Hui Cho  
•       •       •

2159 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Apr 2013 at 7:53 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-06 09:14:50 PM
4 votes:

Silly Jesus: Your scenario works in an open field, sort of, but in reality these people aren't scattering.  They are sitting ducks in a theater, in classrooms, in an office.  If they were able to run in all directions then of course it would be stupid to stand in a circle and draw weapons.  But, since we are dealing with reality here, I don't see the downside to the teacher in Newtown laying on a pile of children having a gun when the guy came through the door.  What extra harm could that teacher have possibly done?  The kids were cornered, they had chalk and erasers, and you're preaching about advanced societies.  If my child had been in that room I'd have loved for the teacher to have had at least a chance of doing something with a gun.  Hell, if the teacher shot 5 kids and then the shooter things would have still been better overall.

Bring your analysis back to the reality of people being trapped in rooms in buildings and try again.


If you're trapped in a room, it doesn't matter if you're armed or not. If 30 armed people are sitting in a room and someone walks in and opens fire with a superior weapon, even if those 30 people could all give Wild Bill Hickock a run for his money, a few of them are still going to die. And I don't know about you, but I do NOT want to be in a room with 30+ people opening fire with a weapon. Friendly fire is inevitable, even if it's just ruptured eardrums. 

Ditto for Newtown. Maybe that teacher laying on the pile is the Olympic champion of Shooting Accurately While Lying In Terror On Top of A Pile Of Terrified Children, and she kills him. More likely, she still dies. She would have been outgunned either way, and at a distinct tactical disadvantage, at the very least; if she pulled it off, it would have been an upset. 

But on the other 109500 days of her 30 year career where there  isn'ta shooter in the school, she has to constantly worry about simultaneously keeping the thing cleaned, loaded, and ready, but not ever where a kid can accidentally get hold of it. Spend a little time in an elementary classroom, and you'll realize that the odds of ANYONE being that on the ball are slim to none. And if they are, their teaching must inevitably suffer.

And that brings up the huge and inherent flaw in the 'everyone armed, all the time' argument: the victims are necessarily all on the defense. I don't know about you, but when I'm in a theater, I'm watching the movie, not the crowd; if a potential shooter waits until a very tense moment, there's not a person in the room watching to see if they're going to be shot. If the shooter is at all competent, 10+ die, minimum. And in a classroom setting, if a teacher hears loud bangs, she's going to concerned with getting the kids under control, not with whipping out her Colt and going shoot at someone toting an assault rifle. 

Your scenario works just fine, if all teachers are trained soldiers or police officers, or have similar psych profiles. But the don't. And firearm accidents are a small but significant cause of death in the US: 600 at last count, or 25 times the death toll at Sandy Hook. If every teacher in every classroom in the country is packing, that number must inevitably rise. And barring a truly tragic shooting, it must surely exceed the potential number of lives 'saved' by the deterrence of those guns. 

So to sum up: in an Aurora-type situation, a bunch of people were going to die either way. In a Newtown-type situation, fewer might have died, they might not have, depending on who was the better shot. In a Columbine-type situation, it likely wouldn't have helped at all - if security guards couldn't stop it, there's no reason to think armed teachers would have done better.

Bottom line: if you CAN get away, you SHOULD. Armed or not. Civilians running  towardsthe gunfire is rarely if ever going to help the situation, and it's certainly going to put more targets in front of the shooter. And you don't arm and train people and then tell them to run away. Your plan puts more people in the line of fire, and that's a bad thing.
2013-04-06 08:26:51 PM
2 votes:

BigLuca: serial_crusher: What happens if the dude tries to shoot up a swimming pool inside of a gun free zone?  Can't fight back without your gun, running is strictly not allowed around the pool, and there's not really anywhere to hide at a pool

That's why I only swim with fat kids.


Mythbusters tested this. Just go underwater a few feet and hope the shooter wastes his ammo before you come up. Bullets lose all their energy very rapidly in water. Any bullet, rifle or handgun.
2013-04-07 12:10:26 AM
1 votes:

duenor: mr0x: Ontos: The average civilian hobbyist has a hell of a lot more range-time than the average "mass shooter".


Really? A guy who decides to do a mass shooting has less experience with firearms than an average person?

He didn't say average person, he said average civilian hobbyist. To be fair, however, I'm not sure that's even relevant. Most mass shootings tend to take place at close to very close range, with the targets basically staying in one place, cowering, begging for their lives. Then again, if there was someone shooting back there might be a chance for those who are unarmed to get away. I don't know.


Exactly, and this is why people die.  Most people will simply freeze up if confronted by a situation like that, or are in a position where they're being funneled into close quarters, panic and can't get out.  You don't need a lot of training to walk into a room full of people, start shooting and hit something.

Again, look at how most mass shootings play out.., when they're confronted by something that challenges they're preconceived notion of how things will play out, or people start fighting back, they off themselves.

I'm never going to tell someone that doesn't feel comfortable carrying a gun to carry one.  That's an individual choice that everyone needs to make on they're own, and it's not for everyone.  For the average unarmed civilian, the best thing you can do to stay alive is simply have a modicum of situational awareness.  If you're in a public place, think about where the exits are, where are people going to be funneled in an emergency, what are you going to do, what are your personal reactions to stress, why is that guy that just walked in wearing a long jacket and why does he seem nervous, etc.....  Interviews with survivors from mass shooting events have shown these are generally common threads.

Myself, I have the training and aptitude to carry a firearm and I do every day.  Is it a magical panacea that will save everybody in all situations?  No.   After the Aurora shooting (which also took place in a gun free zone), we ran an informal outbriefing at work talking about active shooter scenarios and how that one could have played out differently.  It's a tough call... I carry everyday, shoot competitively where I shoot in the "Master" IPDA class, train extensively and typically burn through about 1,000 rounds per month at the range.  That being said, I don't think I could have made much of a difference if I was there and armed just due to the low lighting, close quarters and mass panic.  However, there are plenty of other situations where being armed does (or could have) make the difference.

My personal choice is that I'll take my chances, and I carry everyday wherever it is legal to do so.
2013-04-06 11:42:13 PM
1 votes:

mr0x: Ontos: The average civilian hobbyist has a hell of a lot more range-time than the average "mass shooter".


Really? A guy who decides to do a mass shooting has less experience with firearms than an average person?


Buying a gun and deciding to go out and shoot up a mall or a schoolyard does not mean someone has any training.  By and large, the idiots that do shiat like this have very little in the way of training.  You don't get that from just buying shiat.

I didn't say the average person, I said the average shooter.
2013-04-06 11:30:08 PM
1 votes:

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.

WordyGrrl: Oh, of course not. I Googled to heck and back and couldn't find it again. It was some news program-type thingie. In any case, it did get the message across that no matter how well you think you're prepared, when the real thing goes down it will not conform to your perfect pre-planned mentally-thought-out scenario.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

first scenario: armed intruder knows the layout of the room and who is shooting. The CCW defense shooter is wearing a t-shirt 2 sizes too big and gets the gun snagged inside it.

second scenario: She engages the shooter while others scram for safety

third scenario: defense shooter instantly takes cover and is then ambushed by the shooters who know where he is.  Funny how each of the students were in the same seat each time.

In other news, ABC took a police marksman instructor and put him against a novice shooter and a couple of complete newbies. Not surprisingly, the cops win. Conclusion: CCW holders are delusional.

Of course, there was another instance where a shooter busted into a room and nobody had a CCW.  That would be called Sandy Hook.
2013-04-06 11:26:45 PM
1 votes:

mr0x: DrExplosion: and hoping for a headshot is still better than hoping he runs out of ammo before he gets to you.


Hoping for headshot? This isn't like a video game.


Unless you have extensive training and skill with your weapon, you aren't getting a headshot. Attempting to shoot will direct the attacker's focus on you. He has bigger guns, protection, bigger bullets and more bullets and a lot less to lose than you.

The chances that you are significantly more trained than the shooter is very unlikely.


No... Actually it's not.  Most people involved in these mass shootings actually have very little in the way of training at all, which is one of the reasons they tend to pick areas where they're virtually guaranteed people won't be shooting back (V-Tech, Newtown, etc.).  About the only recent shooter with any real level of training could have been the Fort Hood dickhead, but even then he was an O-4 head-shrinker that most likely had very little live fire training (unless he trained on his own).  Even then, he also picked a "gun free zone" as a military base is one of the most unarmed places in the United States.

As far as better protected... No on that as well.  Despite what the movies say, body armor is extremely rare in these case with the only notable event I can think of being the North Hollywood shootout.

The average civilian hobbyist has a hell of a lot more range-time than the average "mass shooter".

Why do you think these jerkoffs pop themselves after anybody with a gun shows up?
2013-04-06 11:08:22 PM
1 votes:

Publikwerks: Silly Jesus: I've been informed by libs that cowering defenseless in a corner is the best action against someone shooting a gun at you.  Under no circumstances should you perform the action that has gotten all of the mass shooters to stop or commit suicide, arrive with a gun.

The more you know...

Because the surest way to limit the body count is to have people return fire.
Because it never goes wrong. Especially when the shooters have extensive training..


Oh wait

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds - caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com /2012/08/26/nyregion/bystanders-shooting-wounds- caused-by-the-police.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But you know, us libs are just silly folks. You, trying to limit gunfire around kids.


Wait... Are you trying to say that cops have "extensive training"?

Most LEO's couldn't hit water if they fell out of a farking boat.  Just trying to get 98% of your officers to actually show up to the range and burn they're training allotment of ammunition is a pain in the ass.  Depending on the jurisdiction, probably 5 out of 100 officers will actually be "shooters" and those are your real bump and rumble troops.  Other than that, you've got a lot of public servants with badges and guns out there.
2013-04-06 10:52:22 PM
1 votes:
August, 1999. I was not even 21 yet, and had only one rifle to my name, a Bushmaster AR15 clone (XM15). About 8pm, heard lots of yelling downstairs (I was in my upstairs studio). Then, shots. I loaded and turned off the tv. Went outside to the top of the stairs leading to my apt and its two adjacent ones. Wanted to make sure I could control who was coming up. Mostly hid at the top, behind the railing alongside the stairs. I heard about another 2 shots, and then nothing more. Police sirens about 2-3 minutes later.  Found out much later that someone had fired shots at a nearby apartment building. Nobody was hit (I think).

Did I stop the shooter? No.
Did I save anyone's life? No.
Did I even use my rifle to defend myself? No.

But I'll tell you one thing. I sure as hell felt a lot safer. So did my neighbor, who saw me sitting there. He got his baseball bat and hung out with me there until cops had the whole 4x4 blocks locked down with chopper overhead and all.

I'd like to think that I have what it takes to stop a murderer if it comes to it. But if nothing else, I am responsible for my own safety - and I did so without depending on the vagaries of others.
2013-04-06 10:06:34 PM
1 votes:

FARK rebel soldier: skozlaw: Is it just me or does Silly Jesus basically just run around shiatting in every thread just to be a total dickhole?

This. I found myself agreeing with him in one thread and suddenly he was just screaming abuse and worshipping his own cleverness. I was glad I didn't get myself into that mess.


The ignore function exists for a reason. And it's him.
2013-04-06 09:46:33 PM
1 votes:
Is it just me or does Silly Jesus basically just run around shiatting in every thread just to be a total dickhole?
2013-04-06 09:21:51 PM
1 votes:
As a professional internet tough guy, I would stare the bastard down, make a smart-ass remark, and put a bullet through his forehead without raising my pulse.
2013-04-06 09:18:38 PM
1 votes:

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. So, if I were to find myself armed and in a mass shooting, first I would scream, cry, shiat myself, hide under a dead body and then maybe, if I had a clear shot, I would shoot at the rampaging gun nut with the semi-auto chugging rounds into the pre-school class.

I am nothing if not a realist.



THIS!

A mass shooter has a bulletproof vest, semi-automatic weapons etc and all you have is a dinky little concealable weapon. You send one bullet his way and he sends a dozen your way, focusing the fire on you.
2013-04-06 09:09:13 PM
1 votes:

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.


The Clackamas mall shooter offed himself after a CCW drew on him.  He was in the midst of monkeying around with the charging handle on his AR after one of those evil, scary drum mags failed like they usually do.

So yes, the reason CCW holders dont stop many spree shooters is because the spree shooter is usually stopped after 1 or 2 killed.
2013-04-06 08:58:35 PM
1 votes:
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.
2013-04-06 08:51:56 PM
1 votes:
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.
2013-04-06 08:46:34 PM
1 votes:

dfenstrate: I like how the lib advocating cowering (publicwerks) links to an article about cops shooting up bystanders- not armed citizens shooting bystanders.
So tell me again why we should limit gun ownership to the police only.


Say there's one shooter and 30 potential targets. Which is better: for those 30 potential targets to scatter in 30 different directions, or for them to cluster and start fumbling around for their handguns?

I'm guessing you'll take option B, because hey...30:1 good guys to bad guys, right?

And in terms of sheer numbers, you're quite right.

The only problem with this scenario is that it's predicated on a number of assumptions:

1. That everyone is packing.
2. That they all know how to use those guns, and are prepared to do so.
3. That they will be able to put A, B, and C together in order to effectively and safely return fire.

IF all of those things happen, then of course it was a better idea to have everyone armed and standing their ground. They just prevented a massacre. 

The problem is, the data show that that rarely happens, even among trained personnel. People panic. People fumble. People freak out so much that they fire in any direction, regardless of who is doing the shooting. If soldiers do that in battle, there's just no way you'll convince me that it won't happen even more regularly in a room full of teachers, accountants, hairdressers, and middle management.

So now, instead of one guy with a gun chasing a rapidly scattering herd of potential targets, you have a whole room full of people with guns, and shooting going on every which way. Who do the police arrest? Who is to blame? How do you diffuse that situation?

If history has shown us one thing, it's that the more developed and advanced a society is, the more it disarms itself. The whole US was heavily armed once. It became increasingly less so over time, not because we became cowardly or weak, but because it made sense to do so. Your argument that everyone being armed is better works in the short term, under a specific set of assumptions, but over the long term it must inevitably lose out. How do I know this? Because it already did.
2013-04-06 08:26:50 PM
1 votes:
If a lib was in a movie theater that was actively being shot up and laying on the floor next to a guy that said "damn, just my luck, the one day I didn't carry my gun", the lib would actually be thankful that he'd forgotten it.  I just can't understand that.

"I'm being shot at, good thing I and everyone around me is defenseless!"

Lib brains should be studied.
2013-04-06 08:26:07 PM
1 votes:
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.
2013-04-06 08:23:10 PM
1 votes:
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.
2013-04-06 08:13:40 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-04-06 08:04:57 PM
1 votes:
I_Am_Weasel
I don't like any of those options. I need more.

Well, since fleeing, hiding and fighting were all covered in the headline, we're pretty much down to
"wait in plain sight for the shooter to pump you full of bullets, hoping to save the others by making the shooter run out of ammo"
2013-04-06 08:04:03 PM
1 votes:
If I'm ever caught in a crossfire, I'm going to act like a rabbit.  Most people like rabbits.
2013-04-06 06:49:08 PM
1 votes:

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


Depends on who you pray to.

fc06.deviantart.net
2013-04-06 06:18:59 PM
1 votes:
What happens if the dude tries to shoot up a swimming pool inside of a gun free zone?  Can't fight back without your gun, running is strictly not allowed around the pool, and there's not really anywhere to hide at a pool
2013-04-06 05:16:05 PM
1 votes:

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

Also armed everyone.


Yeah, that too. Then we'd be living in a good, honest God-fearing utopia.
2013-04-06 04:30:54 PM
1 votes:
No praying? According to Facebook this shiat wouldn't happen if we prayed more.
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report