How to survive an active shooter video from Homeland Security ???

[CoRoMo]

Our government gives us this video.

In light of the video, I'd like to know what the purpose is behind the 30.06 sign prohibiting the possession of a concealed handgun.

What government bureaucracy would be the one to field that question?

I can only guess that the answer is to keep gunmen off the premises. But for some crazy reason, that gunman didn't follow the instructions of the sign.

Obviously, only those law abiding citizens adhered to the prohibition.

So again, what was the purpose of the sign? Surely it is not to disarm law abiding citizens in the event of an active shooter... right?

 

[Texan Scott]

Didn't bother to watch the video- I'm ASSUMING "Big Brother's" advice didn't consist of "shoot him before he shoots anyone else", which probably would've been the best response.

 

[GEM]

No - you should use improvised weapons. Hit him with the fire extinguisher or use your belt like Zorro's whip.

Never mention having flashlight, tac knife, pepper spray. God forbid a gun.

 

[gallo]

A step in the right direction. It's better than play dead or wait for the police.

 

[GEM]

I'm not so sure it's a step in the right direction from promoting firearms usage. Yes, the hide and flee advice is good.

The improvised fight info is rather common sense but I fear that it promotes the idea that you don't really need firearms. I've heard that said in this environment. It gives a false idea that you win in most circumstances rather than a last ditch attempt. It should mention that you should expect to get hit.

As I said before, close quarters tackling and bopping works. Expecting people in the well thought out theatre, lecture hall or Mumbai style attack to throw popcorn and staplers and laptops is used to say that guns wouldn't be efficacious. It goes with that hideous faked ABC active shooter show where they deliberately sabotages an armed response in simulation.

NO one says don't do what you have to and here's some tips. I object to the deliberate obfuscation of whether guns would be userful.

Here's a great policeone.com article and follow the link in also:

http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/5886134-Colo-massacre-A-dark-night-indeed/

 

[gallo]

It's a step in the right direction because at least the active shooter scenario is being acknowledged. It used to be that active shooter scenarios were dismissed as improbable as getting hit by lighting. They still are but unlike lighting, you can do something to better your chances.

Not everybody visits THR so for the government to tell the masses to fight back it's a huge improvement over comply, wait for the police, or play dead.

 

[GEM]

Got hit by lightning once. Didn't try to tackle it.

BTW, another rampage today and the story is not complete. At the Sikh temple, I heard on the tube that someone was shot trying to tackle the guy. At the Colorada church rampage, a brave woman shot the rampager.

That's why I say emphasing Fight - with the Mr. Coffee - begs the issue.

 

[rhodco]

That line at the end... "Evacuate whether others want to or not" reminds me of the World Trade Center stories where people were being told to go back up to their offices and wait for help to come. Screw that! Looks like they finally got it right on this one. If you see an opening to leave... you leave! The first priority, and the best advice, is to get low, run fast, and keep moving. CCW or not, I'm not going to engage an enemy that I can easily escape from. Fight only if cornered and no place to go.

I don't at all agree with the 2nd option they mention about finding a place to hide. No way! If the perp finds my hiding place I'm dead. If he blows up the building or releases some kind of gas I'm dead. My first and only option is to get out, and take as many others with me as are willing.

 

[OregonJohnny]

Here is my take on the rather obvious display of the 30.06 sign on the office front door in the video.

Let's say you are in the production meeting between DHS and the production company that made this video. Someone brings up this question: "Don't you guys think that CHL holders will wonder why we don't make mention of shooting back at the gunman with your CCW in our FIGHT part of the video? How do we take CCWs out of the equation, here?" Then someone else in the meeting says, "We should probably show the 30.06 sign on the front door, so everyone knows that the law-abiding citizens working in this office wouldn't have access to firearms at work. Then we don't have to worry about adding guns into the FIGHT section of the video."

It may not have gone exactly like that, but I'm thinking it was a purposeful placement to take the CCW out of the realm of possible "improvised weapons". Let's be honest, the first thing we High Roaders probably thought of while watching the video was: FIGHT = CCW.

 

[RmB]

Let's be honest, the first thing we High Roaders probably thought of while watching the video was: FIGHT = CCW.

The first thing I thought was fight = Security guard.... WHY DOESN'T HE HAVE A GUN???