Defense against an active shooter
- Thread starter Master Blaster
- Start date
- Status
I did in 1992 and wore it for a couple years.
Thank you! I try.
I told my wife about this thread and what I originally posted, that I could not leave women & children to die and she looked at me like "No ****".
My wife said she she couldn't either, she carries a Glock 19, she said she would have to remember to focus on the front sight.
@GEM - No internet cliché. I'm not leaving women & kids to die; if I get killed in the process so be it.
chicharrones
needs more ammo
Tough decisions.
Honestly, getting myself killed outright would be better than getting myself severely crippled. I’ve thought that over many times through the last couple of decades and I’ll just leave it at that.
Honestly, getting myself killed outright would be better than getting myself severely crippled. I’ve thought that over many times through the last couple of decades and I’ll just leave it at that.
Speedo66
Member
We were practicing head shots even back before I retired 13 years ago. At re-qual all of a sudden the range officer would yell "he's wearing a vest", which was the signal to start shooting head shots.
At stationary targets 25' away, there were still many misses. A moving target at the same or longer distances with adrenaline pumping, most likely with smaller carry guns in a chaotic situation, good luck.
Always keep in mind as in robberies, there may be a second person or more who are keeping a low profile but covering the active shooter in case there is resistance. You won't know who they are until they start shooting.
At stationary targets 25' away, there were still many misses. A moving target at the same or longer distances with adrenaline pumping, most likely with smaller carry guns in a chaotic situation, good luck.
Always keep in mind as in robberies, there may be a second person or more who are keeping a low profile but covering the active shooter in case there is resistance. You won't know who they are until they start shooting.
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Brendan McCown (Tacoma Mall shooting), a concealed carrier, was shot multiple times by a mall shooter and suffered permanent spinal damage. His tactics sucked. He was a concealed carrier and was armed at the time. He apparently drew his gun and reholstered it, fearing the cops would show up and shoot him instead. So, instead he raised himself from his position of cover and concealment and shouted at the gunman who then proceeded to shoot him. McCown was the last person shot at the mall and the gunman retreated to a record store where he barricaded for a while before giving up. McCown credits himself (or did in at least one interview) with having stopped the shooter. Honestly, his logic after the shooting was not any better than before the shooting.
John (Byron) Wilson attempted to engage a mass shooter in Houston and was summarily gunned down after drawing his gun and without firing a shot. He was shot through both legs. Even worse, police originally assumed he was a 2nd (bad guy) shooter and apparently treated him as such. He was just a Good Sam, attempting to protect his neighborhood. He will never walk again, at least not unassisted by mechanical devices.
The danger is real. Not everyone who tries to help comes out on top.
Case and point, in 2014, Joseph Wilcox, a concealed carrier shopping in Walmart, attempt to stop a revolution that was announced by Jared Miller who entered the store, fired his gun and announced the revolution. What Wilcox did not know is that Jared was accompanied by his wife, Amanda, and they had just killed 2 police officers at a Cici's Pizza nearby. Wilcox, upon sensing trouble, drew his Glock and advanced on Jared Miller, passing Amanda on the way. Amanda shot Joseph Wilcox in the thorax before he could stop Jared Miller.
What if you kill or maim women and kids and their adult male breadwinners? How would you "live with yourself" after that?
It really is an internet cliche, oft repeated by people who imagine themselves coming to the rescue of others without causing death or injury to others.
Elkins45
Member
Let’s be clear: if I’m alone then I’m planning on fighting with my feet. If I’m with my wife then I’m planning on herding her toward the closest exit as fast as we can go. But if I’m cornered my shooting plan is COM then pelvis. Although a better target in terms of immediate results the head is smaller and moves faster and less predictably. If a pelvis shot drops the shooter then I can hopefully put one in his melon a bit easier.
One thing I have always told myself is if I’m in a situation like this I would attempt to shoot from a crouching position so the trajectory of any misses or pass-through would be upward into the ceiling instead of into a bystander. Unfortunately I don’t have a place where I can practice this safely so I don’t have a muscle memory of it.
One thing I have always told myself is if I’m in a situation like this I would attempt to shoot from a crouching position so the trajectory of any misses or pass-through would be upward into the ceiling instead of into a bystander. Unfortunately I don’t have a place where I can practice this safely so I don’t have a muscle memory of it.
Old Dog
Member
First, yes, I did read the accounts I posted; I am very familiar with this incident. Not sure why you are compelled to dispute my post. Presumably, many onboard this forum are "not your average, everyday CCW person," not that it's necessarily germane to this topic. I merely pointed out one case where an armed citizen chose to engage an armed bad guy.
Not so much his tactics. His mindset. McCown stated at the time that when he drew, he saw that Maldonado was "just a kid" and then holstered in CZ-75.
I am unclear as to why some here seem to believe that anyone involved in this thread imagines themselves coming to the rescue of others. This is simply a topic of discussion. And I don't think I've stated outright or implied that we (all of us here as armed citizens) should intervene or that all of us have a duty to intervene in a critical incident involving a "mass shooter." I support the notion that if it is at all possible, vacate the area ASAP. However, I did say that, within the limits of one's training and skill level, given the totality of the circumstances, one may choose to intervene.
Yeah, I think we get it.
luzyfuerza
Member
Choosing to defend only oneself and loved ones is morally defensible.
Choosing to defend other innocents is ALSO morally defensible. Those in society who swear an oath voluntarily choose this course.
Waiting to decide which of these rules of engagement one will follow when he or she is caught up in a dangerous event leads to paralysis. Which can be deadly.
Whichever you choose, train for that choice.
But if you find that you can't perform the tasks required by your choice, you might need to rethink your choice. Or train harder until you can perform these tasks.
This also applies to the choice of weapons. In answer to the OP's question, if I had been hired to protect the innocent, I would want a PCC/carbine/rifle rather than a shotgun if I was to carry a long gun. Based on my training and experience with each of these weapon systems.
Choosing to defend other innocents is ALSO morally defensible. Those in society who swear an oath voluntarily choose this course.
Waiting to decide which of these rules of engagement one will follow when he or she is caught up in a dangerous event leads to paralysis. Which can be deadly.
Whichever you choose, train for that choice.
But if you find that you can't perform the tasks required by your choice, you might need to rethink your choice. Or train harder until you can perform these tasks.
This also applies to the choice of weapons. In answer to the OP's question, if I had been hired to protect the innocent, I would want a PCC/carbine/rifle rather than a shotgun if I was to carry a long gun. Based on my training and experience with each of these weapon systems.
Last edited:
Someone (psycho) in church, store starts shooting women, kids, I'm in there and armed as usual.
I'm no more likely to indiscriminately shoot in that situation than if approached by psycho in parking lot.
I can try to leave, save myself and nobody gets hit by a stray bullet of mine, just let a psycho kill them at will. Does that sound better to you?
Maybe I should just quit carrying anywhere, I imagine myself being able to make hits on attackers but what if I miss or a bullet over penetrates.
Maybe you should quit carrying too, lets turn it around, your question in the mirror:
What if you kill or maim women and kids and their adult male breadwinners? How would you "live with yourself" after that?
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Well, I will help you out. You specifically pointed out that this was a pastor with his family who engaged the gunman and that he didn't run away. Well, he wasn't just a pastor, and he wasn't with his family when he engaged the gunman. He didn't engage the gunman when he had a his first opportunity. Instead, he ran away with his family and got them to safety. Later, he did engage the gunman.
I see you read Wikipedia on McKown, not a great synopsis. I have looked at his actual interviews over the years. For McKown, it may be his mindset that led to the wrong tactics, but they were the wrong tactics. The is the man that carried a gun to protect other people and he has stated this repeatedly. This is the man that wanted to be a hero, also, his own admission. This was the man in an active shooting and holstered his weapon. This is the man that confronted the shooter without his gun drawn. He may have been behind cover and then stood up or he might have been standing up and the gunman just happened to be strolling by (later interview), LOL, either way, no gun drawn.
And McKown definitely said he was afraid of getting shot by the cops. This is from an interview with him shortly after the shooting...
When the shooting started, McKown, a mall store assistant manager with a license to carry a firearm, said he didn't know who was firing at whom. So he made a snap decision not to stand up and fire back. "It could be three policemen firing at one guy, and I could come out and be another target," he said.
...
"It's a young Arabic-looking boy ... with a ball cap on and an AK in his hand," he said, referring to the weapon he thought the shooter was firing, an AK-47 assault rifle.
"So I said, 'Put down the weapon!' " continued McKown. "Obviously, he was faster on the draw than I was."
This quote is from
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
By SAM SKOLNIK
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
However, it is funny how his story changes from interview to interview...
Gun drawn, McKown scanned for the shooter. But the gunshots stopped. Unsure what had happened, McKown tucked his pistol back under his coat — just as the shooter walked right in front of him.
"So anyway, I'm standing there like Napoleon Bonaparte, with his hand, you know, in his jacket," he recalls. "So I said, 'Young man, I think you need to put your weapon down.' "
https://www.npr.org/2013/01/29/170456129/armed-good-guys-and-the-realities-of-facing-a-gunman
and this one...
McKown pulled his gun. When he didn't immediately see the gunman, he put his gun back in his waistband. Seconds later he spotted the gunman, but it was too late.
"I'd spent my life carrying a gun to protect people and when the situation came, I failed," McKown says. "All I had to do was keep my gun out, but I didn't. I felt humiliated."
https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=20060506&slug=mallshooting06m
Oh, and the title of that last article?
A victim's regret: "I wanted to be a hero, but I wasn't"
Any way he breaks it down, his tactics sucked.
WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
I wonder..... let's say an active shooter with armor comes into the grocery store, and gives you a shot opportunity with a clean backstop. If you shoot him several times COM then dive for cover, and he's not going down, what are the chances he'll at least be distracted? What's the likelihood he's going to be more concerned about getting shot in the back than he was before?
What if you shoot at the pelvis instead, and injure him significantly enough to slow him down? Is that going to reduce his ability to murder the fleeing shoppers?
What if instead of setting your mind to either getting out safely, or fully stopping the threat, you just look for an opportunity to harass and wound the shooter, find cover and reassess the situation? This is pretty much where I'm at on the issue.
What if you shoot at the pelvis instead, and injure him significantly enough to slow him down? Is that going to reduce his ability to murder the fleeing shoppers?
What if instead of setting your mind to either getting out safely, or fully stopping the threat, you just look for an opportunity to harass and wound the shooter, find cover and reassess the situation? This is pretty much where I'm at on the issue.
Makes all the difference in the world.
One issue is that once the perp starts shooing, the rapid a panicked movement of other people could make the time intervals for a clean shot with a backstop so short and unpredictable that they could be very difficult to take advantage of safely.
This would be a good one for FoF exercises.
WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
You're absolutely correct about all those things. I totally agree. I personally would rather keep my mind open to the possibility that I might get such a shot. But I'm unlikely to run the length of the store searching for it.
There is no correct answer, morally, pragmatically, or tactically. It is up to a person to have the skill levels, mindset, cognitive, motor and perceptual abilities to discern what to do. You can play all the alternatives.
I could not live with myself - vs. can the people who depend on me have a shattered life? So I have some psychological sequela - however is it my duty to deal with that vs. the disruption of the lives of others that I care for?
There's no right answer determined by a mathematical formula. As far as the actions, as seen above, if you are going into a lethal force situation, you better have your head on straight about what you are about to enter. You are not a police officer to 'arrest' someone with TV commands or talk them down. In some serious FOF, we discussed a period of time where folks were training to almost always challenge. Some annoying folks did that in IDPA matches, where they challenged every target. FOF is great for a touch of a reality check. Role player has a gun on the bad guy who has, in fact, a gun in his belt. Can't beat a drawn gun? Well, while the drawn gun guy is blabbing, said bad guy draws and shoots him. That was the point of the exercise. The diversion of mental capacity to blabbing and you don't match the gun draw and shot. Force Science has documented this in simulated officer interactions.
I could not live with myself - vs. can the people who depend on me have a shattered life? So I have some psychological sequela - however is it my duty to deal with that vs. the disruption of the lives of others that I care for?
There's no right answer determined by a mathematical formula. As far as the actions, as seen above, if you are going into a lethal force situation, you better have your head on straight about what you are about to enter. You are not a police officer to 'arrest' someone with TV commands or talk them down. In some serious FOF, we discussed a period of time where folks were training to almost always challenge. Some annoying folks did that in IDPA matches, where they challenged every target. FOF is great for a touch of a reality check. Role player has a gun on the bad guy who has, in fact, a gun in his belt. Can't beat a drawn gun? Well, while the drawn gun guy is blabbing, said bad guy draws and shoots him. That was the point of the exercise. The diversion of mental capacity to blabbing and you don't match the gun draw and shot. Force Science has documented this in simulated officer interactions.
That's true. I read that one guy told his girl friend to look at what was happening between the concrete slats of a low fence. She demurred but he said they were too far away. That was the last thing he said, as you can see the point of this post. The mantra was that if you can see the shooter, the gun can see you in this sort of incident.
Just for info. In the California Taiwanese church shooting, the brave doctor who charged the shooter (and died) was reported to have some significant SD training but seemed to be unarmed. Don't know if this is true and what are the church carry rules in that locale. Given the propensity for some monsters to attack houses of worship, the folks who want to ban carry there or feel it offends their religion are fools. This is a touch of diversion, but just FYI.
fastbolt
Member
Well, that's why they have Manslaughter charges. To give someone plenty of time to reflect back upon their actions as they sit in prison. Involuntary, most likely (depends on the language of the statute of the state of occurrence).
fastbolt
Member
That incident was insidious in many ways, but also including how the suspect was on-site and 'mingled' with his intended victims for approx an hour beforehand. He also had the time and opportunity to chain the doors closed and reportedly place incendiary devices inside the church.
https://apnews.com/article/religion-shootings-california-1be9931f502664693afbdaa3f1cf6c57
One has to be suspicious, sadly, of new folks in a house of worship. We went to one in TX and sat in the back. My wife has a touch of mobility problems so we wanted ease of entry and leaving. When we were leaving, a touch early in the service, some old toot followed us around (probably a 'security' member) as we had to walk around a large semi circular hallway to the exit. I'm sure we look like a fearsome set of geezers. However, better safe than sorry. We went to our normal institution later. They had much law around the place.
danmc
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2020
- Messages
- 69
Didn’t Jeff Cooper say something about the rifle being the “queen of battle “? We are probably under armed with our EDC against someone with a rifle.
Dealing with getting your kid in and out of the vehicle baby seat, dropped at school, and dealing with a slung rifle plus accompanying magazines?
Even while lawful most people draw a line when a certain amount of inconvenience is reached with little perceived benefit.
We eventually reach a "magical tipping point" where hauling everything becomes cumbersome and it impacts quality of life.
Even while lawful most people draw a line when a certain amount of inconvenience is reached with little perceived benefit.
We eventually reach a "magical tipping point" where hauling everything becomes cumbersome and it impacts quality of life.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
