Run, Hide, Fight

[Marquezj16]

I thought I would share this. They teach "what to do" during an active shooter event.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VcSwejU2D0&feature=player_embedded

 

[Wyosmith]

Well the people who made this video are either unaware of the facts and the truth--- or they are being motivated by the P.C. climate of today.

However the facts show their order is in error.

Run, hide, fight should be Fight/Hide and run. In that order.

Now I know this is probably going to attract opinions from a lot of readers but the FACTS are pretty conclusive.

In EVERY case of an "active shooter attack" (and in nearly every case of a madman attacking people with weapons other than firearms) in which 4 or more people attacked the criminal within the first 1-2 minutes the criminal was subdued and/or killed.
When that happens the media either ignores it or gives it a pass-by so short most people don’t notice and few remember.

These facts are conclusive and are compiled from hundreds of cases gathered from over 20 countries and spans a time period of over 50 years.

In EVERY case of what we now call "active shooter" where 4 or more people attacked their assailant the people won. EVERY CASE!

In every case where people hid or ran the loss of life was much higher and the activity lasted for anywhere from 10 minutes to 7 days. (Hostage situations)

ATTACK should ALWAYS be the first response to an active shooter if there is ANY way to close with the shooter and get hold of the weapon. One on one you have perhaps a 30% chance of winning. Two on one you have about a 70% chance. Three on one your chances are close to 100% that the shooter will be subdued. The reason I lumped Hide and Fight together is simply that in most cases the ground is more familiar to the victims than it is to the shooter and an ambush is often the very best way to counterattack.

I cannot help but notice how the very idea of having handguns in large numbers, carried concealed by the victims in this dramatization was avoided altogether.
If such an incident were real and one or 2 people got hold of the shooters gun when a few more could use their guns in a contact shooting mode, the incident would last only a few seconds.
But………….The PC crowd strakes again.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...In EVERY case of an "active shooter attack" (and in nearly every case of a madman attacking people with weapons other than firearms) in which 4 or more people attacked the criminal within the first 1-2 minutes the criminal was subdued and/or killed.
When that happens the media either ignores it or gives it a pass-by so short most people don’t notice and few remember...

Then please provide evidence/documentation/sources validating this claim.

...These facts are conclusive and are compiled from hundreds of cases gathered from over 20 countries and spans a time period of over 50 years...

Then provide sources and establish that the sources are valid.

...In EVERY case of what we now call "active shooter" where 4 or more people attacked their assailant the people won. EVERY CASE..

Again, provide evidence, documentation and sources.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you that in some cases a more aggressive defense would be a better idea. But you are claiming certain specific things are "facts". They are not, however, facts just because you say they are. You must prove them. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

 

[aarondhgraham]

What else are they going to say,,,

What else are they going to say,,,
This video was put out by a Mayors office.

In all seriousness,,,
Do we think they could promote any other actions?

We all hail heroic people who stand and fight rather than run,,,
But for a Mayors office to actually advocate that would be against accepted public policy.

I hear and feel where you are coming from Wyosmith,,,
But realistically no current political entity will ever advocate fighting first.

I feel this video advocates the actions that most people will do anyways,,,
Perhaps it is wisest to encourage and teach the behavior that is already the most likely to occur.

I really do not know what is best,,,
But I can't in good conscience condemn this video.

If I am suddenly in harms way,,,
And I have no weapon to fight back with,,,
You better believe that I'm gonna be running like lightning.

Aarond

.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It depends on the configuration of the attack locale. In close quarters, rampage shooters have been tackled. In incidents with space, tacklers have been shot dead.

There are no generalizations that are useful as the way to respond.

You need to have knowledge and skills to able to evaluate the particulars.

Run has worked for some. Hiding has worked for some. Playing dead has worked for some. Fighting has worked for some.

Barricades have and have not not worked for some.

The optimal response is to allow folks to carry firearms. That said - it is your moral responsibility to have the training to be able to use it efficaciously in a stressful critical incident. We need to avoid the bluster of some after a critical incident. We certainly don't need a friendly fire horror during a rampage.

We have successful firearms interventions and we have some where the intervener may have saved lives but because of failed will or tactics came to ill.

There are no certain outcomes.

Last, do not be fooled by the small number fallacy. Well known in decision making. We do not have large enough samples to make a reasonable probability statement. Because at place X, something happened is too close to chance variation.

My problem with such videos is that the fight scenario is used to argue against gun carry as you can take down the guy with a charge of the staplers and laptop of death projectiles. Perhaps, but you are not getting through Mumbai or Aurora with your stapler or gung fu. Not all rampages are close quarter let's tackle him scenarios. A well thought out Aurora attack will negative that.

 

[Marquezj16]

As I was cleaning a couple of pistols, a few questions came to me.

What if you were armed and in an active shooter situation?
Would you actively try to engage the shooter?
How would you respond?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...What if you were armed and in an active shooter situation?
Would you actively try to engage the shooter?
How would you respond?

See Glenn's post 5. There is absolutely no way to properly respond to your question. It entirely depends on the exact circumstances.

 

[PawPaw]

What if you were armed and in an active shooter situation?
Would you actively try to engage the shooter?
How would you respond?

It's my job to train on these scenarios and to pray to a forgiving God that I never have to use my training. So, with the distilled knowledge of my instructors, here goes. I am a resource officer in a local high school, with 10 years in this duty assignment. Our training over the years has changed, with increased study of the active shooter phenomena.

My job is to locate, engage, and neutralize the shooter. I can do this through one of two ways. Either by killing him, or pushing him into a place where he can't harm innocents. It's my job to maneuver against him and bring fire upon him; to take his focus off the innocents and to bring it on to myself. If I'm lucky enough, and good enough, the tactical problem will be over before the SWAT team gets there.

If he goes to ground and barricades himself somewhere in the building, it becomes a barricaded shooter scenario. I'm going to hold him there until the cavalry arrives. In short, if he's not actively shooting, he's not an active shooter. I'll wait till help gets there before I go charging in.

Our training shows that, generally, an active shooter believes that he's in a firearm-free zone, and he's the only one there that has a gun. Having someone lob bullets at him disrupts his plan and allows the innocents a chance at retreat. The best plan, from my perspective, is to violently close with him and take him out before he can fulfill his plan.

There is some evidence that the best course of action (from a citizen standpoint) is to attack the shooter. Disrupt his plan. Make him change his attack. If you're unarmed, this is heroic and not everyone is built to do this. I won't judge anyone who runs and hides during an active shooting scenario.

In broad, general terms, I think that the film is accurate and reasonably presented.

If you want to read more about actual lessons learned, go to the Hard Tactics Blog. They've got some good research there.

 

[Marquezj16]

It entirely depends on the exact circumstances.

Ok, using the scenario on the video. You are at work in a public building full of coworkers. You have your CCW with you. How do you respond?

I'll give an example. A hotel in Kabul used by UN workers was assaulted by enemies of Afghanistan. An armed man used his weapon to slow down the attackers while aiding others to escape.

 

[PawPaw]

Oops, double post. Sorry.

 

[9mm]

They teach "what to do" during an active shooter event.

Promote 2nd Amendment, stop gun free zones, allow work carry, [armed zone].

 

[BGutzman]

Stupid video.... #1 in almost any situation is situational awareness... It does no good to run if you run into the BG... Hiding only works until you give yourself away or the shooter notices you...

People tend to panic and all chaos breaks out... Situational awareness, prior planning and calm but quick action are a good start..

Running might also mean a boy in blue thinks your a threat if you suprise the officer... shouldnt be but it might be fatal....

 

[oldgranpa]

A lot of this comes from the old 1998 "Rules" started by Firearms Tactical....

http://www.firearmstactical.com/index.htm
see rule 3 for concealed carry.

As most have said it depends on the circumstances and running away may only get you shot in the back if you can't "run away". If in a parking lot it might be best to "hide" behind a car first. Just my opinions like everybodys. Who know what might happen??

og....hoping it never happens!

 

[9mm]

Someone should make a video like this[what to do if], then show a CCW holder pull his peice and showing the bad guy giving up.

 

[Smit]

Proper order: (if you are an unarmed innocent, which in most cases is the situation)

1. Run
2. Hide
3. Call 911, give description of shooter (clothing, ethnicity, etc.)
4. Lock/Barricade the door, turn off cell phone.
5. Wait for the police.

-If first aid certified, help wounded WITHOUT jeopordizing your saefty.

 

[ltc444]

As Murphy said: No plan survives the first contact intact.

Every incident is different. You do what it takes to survive.

 

[Marquezj16]

As a medic, I am a first responder. However my job does not begin until the scene is secure.

My work is a gun free zone. Our response is to evacuate if in immediate area. If not in immedicate area, then lockdown your section by locking doors or barricading, turning off the lights. Fight only if in immediate danger. It's how we train.

If off duty and I am at a public place, I will secure my immediate area, aid others to escape, and if in immediate area of shooter I will do my best to neutralize the shooter.

Seriously, a lot of things could go wrong, however it's not going to stop me from trying to do what I can.

 

[Lost Sheep]

As Murphy said: No plan survives the first contact intact.

Murphy may have codified the general principle of things that go wrong, but the author of the particular quote is (was) Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke (the Elder).


Chance favors only the prepared mind. (Louis Pasteur) Good to keep in mind when you are preparing your defensive plan.

When the everyone around you is losing their heads, having a plan that was good before first contact is far superior to having none. Prepare, train, perform.

Lost Sheep

 

[jnichols2]

The ONLY action that can always be listed first is:

1. Assess the situation (Do this quickly)

ALL other actions will stem from the assessment of the situation.

 

[Deaf Smith]

I'd rather go by the FOUR Fs....

Find 'em, Fix 'em, Fight 'em, and Finish 'em.

After all THIS IS SPAR... I mean THIS IS TEXAS.

Deaf