Thoughts on active shooters
The profile of an active shooter is pretty interesting. Seems they give up pretty quickly when confronted and aren’t very good shots.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
April 7th, 2009 at 10:14 am
So you’re saying they’re French?
April 7th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Right, didn’t that dude who tried to shoot up a church a while back fold like a paper cup when the lady guard confronted him? IIRC she injured him and then he shot himself.
April 7th, 2009 at 10:23 am
That’s un-possible! I thought that when confronted with a firearm they just disarm them and use the gun to blow up a bus full of nuns and orphans…
April 7th, 2009 at 10:49 am
The “tower shooter” Charles Whitman at the University of Texas long ago was confronted (from a distance) by civilians and police returning fire with their own firearms. While this stopped him from killing more people with aimed fire, he kept firing until killed by a policeman and an armed (and very recently deputized) civilian. Perhaps his lack of suicide was because he was located in a secure area atop the UT tower. This is just a counter example to add to the database when testing the theory, which in general seems true.
Also, one off-duty police officer carrying concealed at Tacoma mall confronted that mall shooter and was severly wounded while also wounding the shooter, whose rampage thus ended; the shooter was captured shortly thereafter by other police. Likewise, the Tyler, TX courthouse shooter killed a responding armed civilian, whose sacrifice saved the life of the shooter’s son.
So there are indeed risks in going up against a mass shooter.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Mikee, I think you are mixed up on the Tacoma Mall shooter. The shooter was not injured, but Dan McKown (SP?), who apparently drew momentarily then re-holstered, was badly hurt. McKown was not a police officer.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Adequate return fire is the best response, and is exactly what the Brady Center is bent on preventing.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Mikee, When someone starts shooting, you can cower and pray they don’t kill you or you can engage them and risk getting killed or injured in the ensuing gunfight. The difference is between sheep and the sheepdog.
When you engage a shooter, you may die, you may be injured, you may save the day, you may only slow the shooter. But what you have done is interfered with his master plan and provided time and space for others to escape or engage, whether that is by killing him, containing him or slowing him down. We’re talking seconds here, which is all it takes to save a life or a dozen.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
#4 Mike,
The Tyler, Tx incident was not a spree killing, the perp was there to kill his estranged wife and was trying to kill his son when he was confronted by the ccw carrier. The confrontation saved the son’s life and I believe ended the attack at the court house. Apples and Oranges.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Thanks for correcting me on the Tacoma mall shooting, I was going from memory. I agree completely that engaging with return fire asap is the best option for dealing with murderous shooters. I only wanted to point out that not all shooters fit the profile in the linked article.
“Mozambique” is the technique I once read about in a Jeff Cooper column, in regard to making certain your target stays down. I agree with that, too.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I talked to Dan at one of the Gun Blogger rondies in Reno … he drew and tried to verbally confront the perp. He admitted that if he had started shooting immediately, he probably would not have been injured. The perp, after shooting him, holed up in a shop out of shock at having stumbled on a CCW person, and whined to the clerks about his sorry-assed Emo life until the cops arrived, at which point he quietly surrendered.
As for the Texas clocktower shooter … he was a Marine who lost it and went nuts … he stuck to his skill set, making him a particularly dangerous opponent.
April 7th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Not to defend these misfit toys, but a 50% hit ratio is not bad shooting. Compare, for instance, to the hit ratios for most police officers in violent encounters.
Of course, the policemen are often at the disadvantage of having to shoot at armed perps who are shooting back, unlike these psychos.
April 7th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Kristopher: Wasn’t Charles Whitman suffering from a brain tumor that affected his mental state?
April 7th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Fight back. A novel concept that must be justified. I need to think about it.
April 8th, 2009 at 6:58 am
Fighting back-
An idea that has developed over millions of years of evolution. From single celled organisims, to the model american. We all know self-defense is self-preservation.
Guess sometime before the single-celled animals, the Bradys and followers were created.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Just to be clear about the UT Clock tower shooting in 1966, Charles Whitman had a brain tumor the size of a golf ball which greatly impaired his mental state, and he was taking anti-depressants for those of you who follow patterns.