First off, I would like to say, it is pretty easy to compile information, and spin it in the direction you wish it to go. I read pro gun stats all the time, and anti gun stats as well. All you have to do is set the parameters for your stats to omit information, that does not get your point across.
I am sure the anti gun crowd could pick this apart, but I still find it interesting.
Active Shooter
Moderators: skeetshot, deerhunter338mag
- Corjack
- Administrator
- Posts: 10260
- Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:28 pm
- Location: Missouri
- Location: Booger county Missouri
- Contact:
Active Shooter
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 8729
- Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: San Antonio
- Location: San Antonio, Tx.
Re: Active Shooter
They did a good job with that comparison. The media casually mentioned the Orlando killer engaging a security officer or off duty peace officer at the door when he entered the building. They exchanged shots but after that no mention of the officer. We don't know really what transpired in that exchange but there was a armed person there to stop the bad guy. He just didn't get it done. Might have been the bad guy having an semi-auto rifle and the officer just couldn't get a good shot in or he lost the guy in the club and waited for help. Normally these days you're supposed to go on in and take the shooter down but there are situations where that might not be a good choice. One thing you can say about the Orlando shooter he had the floor plan down to where he could utilize the most cover (rooms) and present the smallest target to someone after him. Would really like to go into that club and see how it's laid out. Floor plans don't always tell the whole story either.
Bottom line where there are armed good guys the others present have a better chance of living. Without a good guy and his gun it's bad news.
Bottom line where there are armed good guys the others present have a better chance of living. Without a good guy and his gun it's bad news.
- SPEEDY
- Moderator
- Posts: 11282
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:50 am
- Location: Southern highland- Australia
- Location: Albury, NSW, Australia
Re: Active Shooter
Thats not right, you cant use facts in a firearms debate it should only ever be discussed as an emotional topic.
I'm soft and I don't care.
-
- Meister der jagd
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 1:01 am
- Location: Brisbane
- Location: Queensland, AUSTRALIA
Re: Active Shooter
As Mark Twain said " lies, damned lies and statistics".
At face value those statistics certainly favour our cause, but there is also some very relevant information that is not shown and that is what was the response policy / procedure of the responding agency ? Was their policy one of "cordon and contain" (first responders cordon and contain the shooter and then wait for specialist response) or that of an " active shooter" (crudely put ...the first responders go hunting for the shooter" .
In Australia most police forces now have an "active shooter" policy. The policy at the time of our largest mass shooting was "cordon and contain".
Personally I do not know how any Police officer could simply stand back and not go in to engage someone on a rampage, no matter what the departmental policy. But that is no longer an issue with the "active shooter " response.
Anyway, I'm not arguing with anyone's right to carry for self defence, or the effectiveness of that. I'm just pointing out that there is relevant information missing from that sheet to make an accurate comparison.
Cheers
Rod
At face value those statistics certainly favour our cause, but there is also some very relevant information that is not shown and that is what was the response policy / procedure of the responding agency ? Was their policy one of "cordon and contain" (first responders cordon and contain the shooter and then wait for specialist response) or that of an " active shooter" (crudely put ...the first responders go hunting for the shooter" .
In Australia most police forces now have an "active shooter" policy. The policy at the time of our largest mass shooting was "cordon and contain".
Personally I do not know how any Police officer could simply stand back and not go in to engage someone on a rampage, no matter what the departmental policy. But that is no longer an issue with the "active shooter " response.
Anyway, I'm not arguing with anyone's right to carry for self defence, or the effectiveness of that. I'm just pointing out that there is relevant information missing from that sheet to make an accurate comparison.
Cheers
Rod
Last edited by Rod on Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Corjack
- Administrator
- Posts: 10260
- Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:28 pm
- Location: Missouri
- Location: Booger county Missouri
- Contact:
Re: Active Shooter
I can see that. My research indicates the security was an off duty police officer, and he exchanged shots with the shooter. I am not sure why they let him keep shooting people for another three hours.
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 8729
- Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: San Antonio
- Location: San Antonio, Tx.
Re: Active Shooter
Rod wrote:As Mark Twain said " lies, damned lies and statistics".
At face value those statistics certainly favour our cause, but there is also some very relevant information that is not shown and that is what was the response policy / procedure of the responding agency ? Was their policy one of "cordon and contain" (first responders cordon and contain the shooter and then wait for specialist response) or that of an " active shooter" (crudely put ...the first responders go hunting for the shooter" .
In Australia most police forces now have an "active shooter" policy. The policy at the time of our largest mass shooting was "cordon and contain".
Personally I do not know how any Police officer could simply stand back and not go in to engage someone on a rampage, no matter what the departmental policy. But that is no longer an issue with the "active shooter " response.
Anyway, I'm not arguing with anyone's right to carry for self defence, or the effectiveness of that. I'm just pointing out that there is relevant information missing from that sheet to make an accurate comparison.
Cheers
Rod
Answered easily enough. At the time of Columbine the procedure was to contain the situation the best you could and let the SWAT team come in and take care of the bad guys. After Columbine the training switched nationwide that the first officers on the scene move toward the shooter and try to take him out. There are 2 mass shootings listed that would have been before the training changed. First, Luby's on Oct 15, 1991 and then Columbine, April 20, 1999. The rest were all after the active shooter training was implemented. So bottom line it didn't do much good in limiting casualties like one would have thought it would.
I suspect the security officer at Orlando simply didn't have the ability or the equipment to go after a guy armed with a rifle and handguns. The shooter did try to buy police body armor several weeks before the shooting which would have made taking him out even more difficult had he succeeded. Being that he was a security guard I'm surprised he wasn't able to buy it.
We can sit here all day long and criticize the club's guard for not getting the job done but when you're in that situation you have no idea how many there are either. If you pursue in the direction of the shots you may get taken out by one of buddies. Quite a few of these mass shootings are done by two persons. A lot of our training revolves around the concept that snakes travel in pairs. So where's #2? or ???? I worked the street for quite a few years mainly responding to burglars in action. Very seldom was it a one person operation. Usually 2 and sometimes up to 4 or 5 working together.
Bottom line had someone else inside that club had a gun things may not gotten as out of hand as they did. Remember this guy made multiple visits to the club and observed the scene. He would have known how many armed officers there were especially if they were in uniform. He was a trained officer who knew what to look for. Would have been nice had this establishment invested in cameras and a central viewing room on the premises where non-uniformed armed security would be to watch the big picture of who's coming, going, etc. It would be easy to have it on an IP address where it could be watched from any computer. Before I retired our camera systems could be monitored from anyone's computer that had clearance to view the system. If a shooter had come in and we weren't able to neutralize him before the SWAT team got there we would have given them the IP address and sent someone knowledgeable of the operation of the software to help them see what was going on. While all programs are similar there are differences.
We trained with members of the local SWAT teams and our officers were trained to go in and try to neutralize the shooter but even then it was not a one man show. One officer if possible should do what he can but normally would wait till the 2nd and 3rd got there. The ideal team was a 5 man team with 3 men in the front and 2 behind them. They move in unison down the halls with the front outside officers watching to the side and the center man watching the front. The two in the rear would actually hold onto the officer in front of them with one hand so they didn't get separated. Their job was to watch the rear and the rear sides in the event someone came up from behind them. In the training scenarios 'bad guys' would hide in rooms we passed and then come out behind the squad intending to shoot them as they moved forward. The 3 man team would be 2 leading and one behind covering their backside. Not ideal but much safer and much better than 1 man by himself. Waiting on the 2nd and 3rd officer to arrive was still a whole lot faster than waiting for a SWAT team to assemble and arrive usually well over a half hour away.
The day criminals start following the laws life will be wonderful. Ask any lefty, they'll tell you it's that simple.