The Mall Defender Revisited

[Kurusu]

Most premisses here are wrong.

We are assuming a minority of armed citizens in a panick stricken crowd (by the way, that was, I think the reality). This scenario leaves the armed citizens in a precarious situation.

First. They, individually, will be outgunned against someone who premeditated an hideous attack.

Second. Being "individuals" they cannot possibly know if the next fellow who produces a gun is an allied or an unknown part of the problem.

Third. When LE arrives, anyone armed will be a target(hit by friendly fire is one of the worst ways to "kick the bucket").

Now imagine this. Almost everybody is armed...

An idiot attempts a mass killing.

I wonder how many seconds he would last.

Make this "common" on any attempts of this kind. I wonder how many "idiots", even those legally qualified as "morons", wouldn't have second thoughts before trying this type of "stunt".

Just a thought.

 

[delcrossv]

Now imagine this. Almost everybody is armed...

And that is where we have to head. CCL is a relatively recent change after a century or so with almost no one armed.

It's becoming more and more obvious each day that we as a society can no longer impose behavioral norms absent the possibility of an immediate use of force.

It's like dealing with a recalcitrant kid. "Because I said so" needs some backup.

 

[Ματθιας]

There was shooting at a Walmart in Baton Rouge, LA. Apparently, between two people a gun fight. What do you do? Is it a mass shooting?

Me? I'm getting out of the area.

 

[Xfuzz]

I'm an old retired guy now, but several times in my career I headed to the sound of gunfire while others were headed away. I'm pretty sure I still would. I know myself, and I just can't imagine hiding behind the kitty litter while some coward shot down innocent men, women, and children.

^^^
THIS.....in our DNA I reckon...

 

[Broke Hoss]

Our active shooter training is as realistic as the instructors can make it, and I applaud them for it. On at least 2 occasions they have inserted an armed LEO into the mix. One was a SGT in full uniform who was engaging the suspect when the initial team entered the building. I think it was 90% of the time; he was was shot by the first officers through the doors. The first responders went in looking for a shooter and engaged the first one they saw.

If you arm yourself, & especially if you are pointing/shooting that gun when officers arrive, I suggest you distance yourself from it promptly. You can't tell who is a good guy & who is a bad just by looking at them for a split second.

Just some more food for thought.

 

[WR Moore]

Someone mentioned hiding behind "pillars". Most structural pillars are I or H beams with the outside shape being something else to make it look good. So, whatever cover it may provide may not be as large/located where you think it is.

 

[Rastoff]

I'm an old retired guy now, but several times in my career I headed to the sound of gunfire while others were headed away. I'm pretty sure I still would. I know myself, and I just can't imagine hiding behind the kitty litter while some coward shot down innocent men, women, and children.

This is a common saying on the internet. However, not running toward gun fire doesn't make a person a coward as you imply.

The problem for most of us is, when you arrive at the gun fire, how do you know who the bad guy is?

 

[Sistema1927]

This is a common saying on the internet. However, not running toward gun fire doesn't make a person a coward as you imply.

The problem for most of us is, when you arrive at the gun fire, how do you know who the bad guy is?

And with no shield/badge nor tactical identification, how are others running towards the gunfire to know that you are not the bad guy?

Enough undercover officers have been shot by responding uniformed police to show that this is a bad idea.

 

[sigp220.45]

I'm saying what I believe I would do, based on past experiences. What others do is no concern of mine.

In the Wal Mart case I would:

A - know who the bad guy was because he would be guy with the AK shooting little kids, and

B - do what the nice officers tell me to do when they show up.

 

[delcrossv]

I'm saying what I believe I would do, based on past experiences. What others do is no concern of mine.

In the Wal Mart case I would:

A - know who the bad guy was because he would be guy with the AK shooting little kids, and

B - do what the nice officers tell me to do when they show up.

Seems reasonable.

 

[Sistema1927]

I'm saying what I believe I would do, based on past experiences. What others do is no concern of mine.

In the Wal Mart case I would:

A - know who the bad guy was because he would be guy with the AK shooting little kids,.

Hind sight is 20/20.

Do you expect that all mass shootings will look exactly like that? What if the killer is using a handgun? What if there are multiple shooters? What if he is not shooting when you show up, but instead reloading or maneuvering? What if....

There are way too many variables for you to determine what the situation is, and I still contend that showing up with a gun in hand, no arrest authority, no backup, no communications, and no law enforcement identification is a recipe for disaster. Sure, if the bad guy is in my face, and poses a threat to me and mine, I am going to do my darndest to neutralize him. Other than that I am looking for safe egress or cover.

 

[sigp220.45]

Hind sight is 20/20.

Do you expect that all mass shootings will look exactly like that? What if the killer is using a handgun? What if there are multiple shooters? What if he is not shooting when you show up, but instead reloading or maneuvering? What if....

There are way too many variables for you to determine what the situation is, and I still contend that showing up with a gun in hand, no arrest authority, no backup, no communications, and no law enforcement identification is a recipe for disaster. Sure, if the bad guy is in my face, and poses a threat to me and mine, I am going to do my darndest to neutralize him. Other than that I am looking for safe egress or cover.

Whatever works for you. You can always what-if yourself into inaction.

 

[Sistema1927]

Whatever works for you. You can always what-if yourself into inaction.

I can't believe that you wrote that. If anything, my plan is one of action, a proactive plan to protect my family and myself. That is why I am always looking for the exits and maintaining situational awareness. It is also why I avoid the "Four Stupids", always have my firearm, a reload, a good knife, and a powerful flashlight on my person.

Sure, I might do as you suggest, and rush to confront the shooter, and might get killed by him or by those who are trained and equipped to effectively deal with the situation. My wife might receive a medal of valor on my behalf, posthumously, and while it might give her some small comfort it won't pay the bills or keep her warm at night.

Inaction? I think not. Prudent and reasonable plan of defense? Absolutely.

 

[sigp220.45]

I can't believe that you wrote that. If anything, my plan is one of action, a proactive plan to protect my family and myself. That is why I am always looking for the exits and maintaining situational awareness. It is also why I avoid the "Four Stupids", always have my firearm, a reload, a good knife, and a powerful flashlight on my person.

Sure, I might do as you suggest, and rush to confront the shooter, and might get killed by him or by those who are trained and equipped to effectively deal with the situation. My wife might receive a medal of valor on my behalf, posthumously, and while it might give her some small comfort it won't pay the bills or keep her warm at night.

Inaction? I think not. Prudent and reasonable plan of defense? Absolutely.

Well said!

 

[CB3]

My view is that there is a significant mindset difference between defensive thinking and offensive thinking.

My default is defensive thinking and acting with family around.

Many conditions would have to be in place before I would enable hunter/killer mode, but I have confidence I could flip that switch. The rules and legalities of that set of actions differ significantly from the typical defensive mindset.

I don't fault anyone for preserving life through attempted escape.

However, there may be a person in a large crowd who has the grit, the training, the equipment, even some ancillary experience that would allow him/her to attack mass killer(s), no matter the cost. Attack mode changes mindset from defensive thinking. Priorities change. Actions change. Acceptance of risks change.

Goal number one: stop the killing.

Goal number two: intelligently deal with the aftermath very quickly.

There are so many "what ifs" that advance gaming of the possibilities is helpful. Armor? Bomb vest? Nearby bomb handled remotely? A team of killers? Handgun vs. long gun? Trained shooter? The list goes on, but at some point, despite unknown possibilities, the hunter/killer makes the "Go" decision based on the best information available. He accepts the risks because the benefits of stopping the slaughter are a greater priority. As much as anything, this becomes a moral decision as much as a practical one.

Statistics do show that even haphazard attacks against such killers delay or terminate the killing more often than the savior gets shot or killed. This does not mean the risks are low; it means resistance is usually effective. And effective resistance is even more successful, including putting together a team with another hunter. This too has been done.

Knowing who are good guys and bad guys has risks, but there are significant signs available to determine both types.

The amount of professional analysis after each shooting is significant. The discussion of potential and actual tactics is wide ranging. Scenario based training is available and applicable to a wide range of situations. If one is interested in learning about stopping a mass shooting, there has been and continues to be lots of information available. For instance:

Active Killer Advice Compendium | Active Response Training

But it always boils down to this one truth: it's an individual decision how to respond to such a situation given the information available. No one is likely to have all the available information, and not all information is accurate. When it's really "Go" time, a few will, most wont. Judging others' decisions in such a (potential) situation is not productive because no two people are going to think and react alike.

 

[delcrossv]

.....

But it always boils down to this one truth: it's an individual decision how to respond to such a situation given the information available. No one is likely to have all the available information, and not all information is accurate. When it's really "Go" time, a few will, most wont. Judging others' decisions in such a (potential) situation is not productive because no two people are going to think and react alike.

That's a good summation. It's pretty pointless to deride someone for a decision only they, in the moment, can make.

 

[Rastoff]

Whatever works for you. You can always what-if yourself into inaction.

I can't believe that you wrote that. If anything, my plan is one of action, a proactive plan to protect my family and myself. That is why I am always looking for the exits and maintaining situational awareness. It is also why I avoid the "Four Stupids", always have my firearm, a reload, a good knife, and a powerful flashlight on my person.

Sure, I might do as you suggest, and rush to confront the shooter, and might get killed by him or by those who are trained and equipped to effectively deal with the situation. My wife might receive a medal of valor on my behalf, posthumously, and while it might give her some small comfort it won't pay the bills or keep her warm at night.

Inaction? I think not. Prudent and reasonable plan of defense? Absolutely.

We read a lot of things on the internet. I'm sure that most of us would react in a similar manner if we found ourselves in the same kind of situation. We'll all have different nuances to how we'd personally handle any situation. Moreover, it's easy to sit behind a keyboard and say we'd do this or that as we're talking about what happened somewhere else.

I hope sigp220.45 didn't mean it this way, but it sure read like he was saying that if any of us that didn't run toward gunfire, we're cowards.

If I hear gunfire, I will assess the situation, my own state of readiness and ability to deal with whatever or if I should deal with whatever. If I'm there at the beginning and I see the shooting start, by all means I'm going to protect my family and myself first. That could be finding cover or dealing with the bad guy; it depends.

What I won't do is look down on someone else for taking care of themselves or their family (unless they put me in harm's way by doing so).

 

[flagman1776]

"This isn't Dodge City and you ain't Bill Hichock" (Mathew Quiggy, Quigley Down Under... a movie) but this is real life, we are discussing not a movie. If the shooter is competent, drawing on a drawn gun is likely suicide. Am I saying not to engage? No. But ducking, running, seeking cover may give you a chance to survive if surprised in the open by a hostile. If you are shot down where you stand, you don't help yourself or anyone else. A tactical retreat is sometimes the only sensible course. If he is distracted, reloading or ??? you may have a chance to effectively engage / counter attack. You need to be both brave and smart.

 

[fredj338]

We read a lot of things on the internet. I'm sure that most of us would react in a similar manner if we found ourselves in the same kind of situation. We'll all have different nuances to how we'd personally handle any situation. Moreover, it's easy to sit behind a keyboard and say we'd do this or that as we're talking about what happened somewhere else.

I hope sigp220.45 didn't mean it this way, but it sure read like he was saying that if any of us that didn't run toward gunfire, we're cowards.

If I hear gunfire, I will assess the situation, my own state of readiness and ability to deal with whatever or if I should deal with whatever. If I'm there at the beginning and I see the shooting start, by all means I'm going to protect my family and myself first. That could be finding cover or dealing with the bad guy; it depends.

What I won't do is look down on someone else for taking care of themselves or their family (unless they put me in harm's way by doing so).

If you are not adequately armed, trained & skilled, running to the gunfire because you think you should, could just be stupid & not brave. Kind of like not being able to swim & jumping in deep water to try & save someone. Never say never, but dont always say always.

 

[Ribwizzard]

I believe helping those around you move away from the threat would be your first duty. If trapped, and cant move away, then setting up a line of defense. Take charge and announce the fact that you are armed and willing to help protect those around you.
Running towards a situation like that, untrained in dealing with situations like that, would be irresponsible and may get more innocent people hurt. Just becouse one guy starts shooting, he doesn't give you the right to go shooting as well.