Is THAT the active shooter?

[stansdds]

Malls around here seem to have a pretty strict policy. No firearms allowed. I avoid the malls as much as possible.


For a CCW permit holder, that permit does not make you a junior LEO. That permit allows you to carry concealed for your personal protection and defense. Moving in an active shooter situation with gun drawn can get you killed by a LEO or possibly another armed citizen.

 

[nachogrande]

MORE HERE.

Here's a page that has the stats: Concealed Carry Statistics: Quick Facts by State (2017)

Triple that # (for licensed CCW holders) here in FL, then double it(???) for those carrying without paperwork. I posted this scenario before: a busy WW at holiday time, somebody drops a light bulb & WWlll erupts.

 

[Ziggy2525]

...
That permit allows you to carry concealed for your personal protection and defense.
...

I’m not an attorney and I’m sure it’s unique to each state, but I’m not sure I agree with your “personal protection and defense” comment. At least where I’m at, your chp/ccw allows you to carry. Where I’m at the statutes for when you can use force and when you can use deadly force are independent of the type of weapon, and are separate from the chp statutes that allow you to carry in public.

The self defense statutes I’ve seen allow for defense of yourself and endagered third parties. That doesn’t make defending third parties wise, but I haven’t heard of a place where having a ccw limited use to just defending yourself, even if that might be the best choice.

 

[biku324]

Don't make cops' jobs harder by being yet another unidentified armed potential active shooter.

 

[Protected One]

Show your gun and you might hear screams and people yelling you have a gun. That might cause your skin to be perforated.

This is a good question for people to think about. Carrying a gun has a lot of responsibility that many people don't even think about. Carrying a gun can protect you or might get yourself killed.

So true. Many of us make it a point to think about these things in advance, practice shooting regularly, and take classes specifically to prepare us as much as possible. But I'm not convinced that most people (who carry) do that.
Those four words -"HE'S GOT A GUN" could be enough, in an adrenalin charged situation, to cause some to start shooting.

 

[oneounceload]

Make your way towards the nearest exit in a direction away from the sound of shots while keeping your loved ones close. DO NOT draw your weapon.

Absolutely; exit Stage Left immediately

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

We have a situation at our church. 8-9 of us carry every Sunday. Our church recently hired a deputy from the Sheriff's Dept. to be there every Sunday. I ask the Pastor Sunday if he had informed the deputy that there were armed members in the church. He said no. In a BAD situation this could cause one of our carrying members to be shot the LEO. Not good.

 

[BB57]

We are under no obligation to act. Take care of you and yours.

That's a valid attitude to have, but that's also part of the problem.

When seconds count, the police are minutes away. If you dig into the research on active shooter events in the US you'll find that the sooner the shooter is engages the fewer casualties will result.

You can also see the positive effects of the would be victims taking down shooters, even when unarmed. In Israel for example, people are raised from grade school on up with the mindset that if they see a terrorist, the best thing to do is to take him down with what ever means is at hand as in the big picture it saves countless lives.

There have still been shootings in Australia since their 1997 gun ban (and there are still illegal guns as they did another amnesty in 2017). But one of the key differences is that those shootings don't arise to the "mass shooting" threshold, in part because the would be victims are more self reliant and are much more prone to taking the shooter down, rather than just cowering in place and waiting for the police to arrive.

Diversity is a good thing, but it's no free lunch either. We also have a large number of metropolitan areas and high population density correlates with increased violence. Consequently, due to high populations densities and a great deal of diversity in race, religion, national origin, etc, we live in a violent country. When it comes to active shooters, we need to recognize that our personal defense rests in our hands, not the police, and that we as a civilized people have a social contract that obligates us to defend others when possible.

As others have said, once I've ensured my family and friends can exit safely, I'm going to be moving toward the sound of the guns.

 

[Muss Muggins]

That's a valid attitude to have, but that's also part of the problem.

Stay with your friends and family and continue to assure their safety. Don't become part of the problem . . .

As others have said, once I've ensured my family and friends can exit safely, I'm going to be moving toward the sound of the guns.

 

[biku324]

Let me plug liability insurance here...you can lose your home and life savings just to legal costs, civil and criminal, if you use your firearm. The legal system is no fun, and who decides what is utterly out of your hands.

It's really better not to shoot people if you can even possibly avoid it.

 

[7shooter]

So true. Many of us make it a point to think about these things in advance, practice shooting regularly, and take classes specifically to prepare us as much as possible. But I'm not convinced that most people (who carry) do that.
Those four words -"HE'S GOT A GUN" could be enough, in an adrenalin charged situation, to cause some to start shooting.

Several years ago I was exiting the mall with my cased trap gun that I had in for repairs when 3 obnoxious teenage boys started yelling “ Gun ! “.

Startled me. I ignored them and kept moving.

 

[Rpg]

A civilian who pulls a gun in public without an immediate, imminent and visible threat to life is an individual lacking skill and good judgment.

The idea of a civilian pulling a gun and moving toward a potential threat (running to the gunfire instead of away from it) suggests an individual harboring a Lone Ranger-Batman fantasy.

If you don’t have enough skill and confidence in your ability to present your handgun from the holster ONLY when the threat is imminent - when the threat is visible and immediate - your skill with your gun is suspect.

Most folks here are likely to carry a handgun that they can’t effectively use at distances that would be consistent with a shopping mall shooter. A 380 Bodyguard may be just fine for self defense at 7 yards or less, but is a pretty poor weapon to deploy when distances are greater.

A service sized pistol (a 1911, Glock 17 or 19 or similar pistol) is much more capable at distances over 7 yards, and is much more quickly presented than the j frames or small pistols commonly carried by civilians for sd.

The proportion of folks who carry and regularly practice at distances greater than 7 yards is infinitesimal. Likewise, the proportion of such folks who practice presenting their gun from the holster, shooting and hitting a target in 2 seconds at 15-25 yards is minuscule.

This leaves the civilian who pulls a gun on hearing gunfire in a public place, without having eyes on the threat, part of the problem in the eyes of responding LEOs not part of a solution.

If you don’t have the skill and confidence to leave your gun holstered until you can see the threat and would be justified in shooting RIGHT NOW, you need to rethink your ideas for sd.

Remember: your CCW doesn’t make you the Lone Ranger, or even a LEO. A LEO may be called upon to run to the gunfire: you, a civilian CCW, are not.

 

[Protected One]

We have a situation at our church. 8-9 of us carry every Sunday. Our church recently hired a deputy from the Sheriff's Dept. to be there every Sunday. I ask the Pastor Sunday if he had informed the deputy that there were armed members in the church. He said no. In a BAD situation this could cause one of our carrying members to be shot the LEO. Not good.

I'm MORE surprised that the deputy didn't ask!

 

[BB57]

Don't make cops' jobs harder by being yet another unidentified armed potential active shooter.

That officer's job is to take down the shooter, but that officer will almost always be seriously late for work. And there some elements of "us against the citizens" in your statement rather than acknowledging the potential benefits of mutual support.

The problem with your "just let the police handle it" approach is the research shows about half of all active shooters events are no longer active by the time the police arrive. The shooter concludes his business and either leaves, or he commits suicide. In that half of active shootings, the "job" of the police is to just clean up the mess.

In the half where police do arrive while the shooter is still active, the trend is fortunately toward the initial responding officer(s) immediately entering and engaging the shooter. That is slowly replacing the prior policies of treating active shootings like hostage situations where the responding officers just evacuate the area outside the building and then control and contain the scene until the SWAT team arrives, an entry plan is developed, and then executed.

During the time it takes for engage the shooter in some manner, the shooter is shooting more people and more people are bleeding out during the delays in ending the event and getting EMS staff on site. Even with the initial responding officer immediately engaging the shooter, that initial responding officer still will not be on scene for minutes - when seconds count.

----

You are correct about the "yet another unidentified armed potential active shooter" aspect of the problem.

If you have 2 or more armed citizens in the building, they also have a similar problem, but much of that can be addressed from a common sense perspective of observing the situation, who they are shooting at etc.

If you are able to call 911, report you are a good guy and give a description of yourself, the LEOs will at least be aware you are on scene and what you look like. On your part, if you stay in contact with dispatch, you'll also know when the police are on scene and you'll have a much better idea, when to put your gun down, lay on the ground and put your hand on top of your head.

Yes, the officer's job is more difficult as he can't bust in and treat it like a free fire zone, shooting at anyone with a gun, but that's more than offset by the other advantages an armed citizen brings - more immediate engagement of the shooter, forcing him to cover, slowing him down and reducing the casualty count, and a very high likelihood of ending the event before an officer even arrives to be placed at risk. That's a huge advantage as research also indicates about 1 in 3 initial responding officers who engage the shooter will be shot.

There is research that indicates that even unarmed citizens are fully 2/3rds as effective as the police in ending active shooter situations. Armed citizens are even more effective than unarmed citizens, and they are on site when the shooting starts and as such are the people best placed to take the shooter down soonest with the lowest possible number of casualties.

I'm not sure that's an option you should so quickly dismiss. Doing so is pretty arrogant.

 

[federali]

Tactics, Tactics, Tactics.

If you accept that poor judgment and tactics are more likely to get you killed than poor marksmanship or handgun selection, you need to think very quickly. My tactics include, not to draw fire towards loved ones. If I must shoot, I hope to separate myself from family.

Most times I'm alone. I recognize that getting involved could get me shot by responding police officers. Cops have a tough job to do and I'm not putting them down but they do tend to want to shoot the first person they see holding a gun. So, my window of opportunity is very limited depending on response times.

I live within shouting distance of three public schools and I have the weapons and skills to take down an active shooter should one strike at a nearby school. Yet, this would likely be a suicide mission so even if I hear shots and screams, I would keep away. Besides, while I would mean well, my armed presence could detract and delay police from entering the school and thus increase the body count.

 

[BB57]

​

Here's a page that has the stats: Concealed Carry Statistics: Quick Facts by State (2017)

I came from SD and concealed carry permits were common there. Part of that is the utility of the permit in avoiding the need for a NICS check, a handgun permit, or any waiting period for a handgun purchase.

The regular permit is also very easy to get - $10 and a quick visit to the Sherriff's office s all it takes in most counties.

SD also has a very strict interpretation of "concealed". It is not concealed if it is UNLOADED and carried in a trunk or other closed compartment (and glove boxes center consoles do not generally count in this regard), or if it is UNLOADED and carried in a case that is too large to conceal on your person. Otherwise, you need a concealed carry permit. Sitting on top of the dash, or in plain sight on the seat = concealed. Sitting in a holster on your hip with a coat covering all by the bottom inch or so of the holster = concealed.

The end result is that a concealed carry permit is very useful, even for people who do not conceal carry for self defense.

In SD there are about 870,000 people, and about 95,000 concealed carry permits. When you consider that about 225,000 of the population are under 21 and are not eligible for a permit, the percentage of adults with a permit is around 15%, or about 1 in every 7 adults.

It's not all cupcakes and roses however, as while SD has a pretty active gun culture and teaching of proper gun handling is more common than in non gun culture states, you have a greater potential for untrained people and or the village idiot carrying a concealed handgun when there is no training or live fire qualification requirement to help weed them out.

----

If you are an LEO in SD you recognize you will encounter armed citizens on a regular basis, even if only a fraction of them carry on a regular basis.

If you are stopped in SD for a traffic violation and you notify the officer you are carrying concealed, the response will most likely be along the lines of "just leave your gun in your holster and I'll leave my gun in mine". It's not big deal because they do it every day. If you're asked to exit the vehicle so the officer can confiscate the weapon, it's a signal that he's either new on the job, or he views you as the potential village idiot.

If you get pulled over in a state where concealed carry is uncommon, the officer will probably want you out of the car so he or she can confiscate the weapon. This creates all sorts of needless risks and safety issues, but the officer doesn't encounter the situation much and just doesn't know any better. If it makes him or her feel more comfortable , just roll with it.

----

Now let's apply this to an active shooting situation in SD. Church, shopping mall, whatever, if it's not a gun free zone, the responding officer(s) know that there will be armed citizens present (and even if it is a gun free zone, they'll strongly suspect there will be armed citizens present anyway). It's just the norm in the area and they'll be anticipating the potential for an armed good guy. It's not regarded as a "problem", rather just something to be aware of and it's figured into the situation.

Take the same active shooter event in MD and you'll have officers who rarely encounter armed citizens and who do not know how, or have not even considered how, to respond in that situation. To those officers an armed citizen is a "problem".

 

[Muss Muggins]

Take the same active shooter event in MD and you'll have officers who rarely encounter armed citizens and who do not know how, or have not even considered how, to respond in that situation. To those officers an armed citizen is a "problem".

Active shooter training, as well as law enforcement training in general, regardless of the jurisdiction, takes into account encountering armed citizens. If think that officers are comfortable with armed citizens during an active shooter situation, you are confused . . .

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

I'm MORE surprised that the deputy didn't ask!

Also a different deputy each Sunday. Not good.

 

[BB57]

A civilian who pulls a gun in public without an immediate, imminent and visible threat to life is an individual lacking skill and good judgment.

The idea of a civilian pulling a gun and moving toward a potential threat (running to the gunfire instead of away from it) suggests an individual harboring a Lone Ranger-Batman fantasy.

If you don’t have enough skill and confidence in your ability to present your handgun from the holster ONLY when the threat is imminent - when the threat is visible and immediate - your skill with your gun is suspect.

Most folks here are likely to carry a handgun that they can’t effectively use at distances that would be consistent with a shopping mall shooter. A 380 Bodyguard may be just fine for self defense at 7 yards or less, but is a pretty poor weapon to deploy when distances are greater.

A service sized pistol (a 1911, Glock 17 or 19 or similar pistol) is much more capable at distances over 7 yards, and is much more quickly presented than the j frames or small pistols commonly carried by civilians for sd.

The proportion of folks who carry and regularly practice at distances greater than 7 yards is infinitesimal. Likewise, the proportion of such folks who practice presenting their gun from the holster, shooting and hitting a target in 2 seconds at 15-25 yards is minuscule.

This leaves the civilian who pulls a gun on hearing gunfire in a public place, without having eyes on the threat, part of the problem in the eyes of responding LEOs not part of a solution.

If you don’t have the skill and confidence to leave your gun holstered until you can see the threat and would be justified in shooting RIGHT NOW, you need to rethink your ideas for sd.

Remember: your CCW doesn’t make you the Lone Ranger, or even a LEO. A LEO may be called upon to run to the gunfire: you, a civilian CCW, are not.

Your assessment is pretty accurate. Except of course your this also applies to virtually all law enforcement officers and should also read as such:

"The proportion of (LEOs) who carry and regularly practice at distances greater than 7 yards is infinitesimal. Likewise, the proportion of such (LEOs) who practice presenting their gun from the holster, shooting and hitting a target in 2 seconds at 15-25 yards is minuscule."

Before I transferred out west, I was a member in a club that held monthly practical pistol matches. We had very few LEOs involved, and most of the few that showed up usually only showed up once after scoring very low in the final results. We did have two FBI agents who started out equally badly but persisted long enough to start posting decent scores. Those guys were committed enough to actually practice on a regular basis rather than just to qualify twice a year.

The local PD and SO also used our club range for qualification. It was amazing how many officers failed to qualify on day 1 and had to come back on day 2 for more practice and eventual qualification.

---

I do however agree with you completely that armed citizens need to keep their firearms holstered until they encounter an actual imminent threat. Especially in states like SD where potentially every 1 in 7 adults at the mall could be pulling a gun. That could get chaotic in short order.

Of course...the potential for every 1 in 7 adults to pull a gun is one of the reasons why SD doesn't have huge problems with public mass shootings or school shootings as they are not likely to be all that successful.

There was a school shooting a year or so ago, but the vice principal took the shooter down, limiting the impact to 1 lightly wounded individual. Running to the sound of the guns is part of the culture out there - people feel a responsibility to take care of their own. Had everyone just ran or sheltered in place while they waited for the police to respond, the number of killed and wounded could have been significant.

 

[BB57]

Active shooter training, as well as law enforcement training in general, regardless of the jurisdiction, takes into account encountering armed citizens. If think that officers are comfortable with armed citizens during an active shooter situation, you are confused . . .

Don't twist the meaning or the context. "Aware of" and "able to account for the possibility" is not the same as "comfortable". That said, if you're not comfortable with armed citizens, then SD, WY, MT, etc are not states you'll want to work in as an LEO.

The irony of course is that if you choose one of the less gun friendly states, those states will tend to be states where violence and gun violence is a much greater problem and a greater threat to officers.