engaging the active shooter

[9mmepiphany]

Right, which is my point that two 'trained' professionals in a real situation couldn't put rounds on target without hitting no-shoots when confronted with an armed adversary. So the idea of 'suppressive fire' for the average patrolman seems troubling for me.

I don't buy into suppressive fire either.

However I'll not that the incident you are referring to and that of an active shooter are somewhat different and would justify different approuches

 

[tuj]

I do agree that the idea (strictly for professionals) of *engaging* the shooter in some way until backup arrives is a good one; it re-directs (hopefully) his attack from unarmed innocents to at least a somewhat-armed professional.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If you consult the chart I linked, you'll see that IIa vests are not rated for 357 Magnum, and I assume 357 Sig. These calibers are not rare amongst permitted citizens.

Right but even the lowly IIa vest will still stop most common concealed carry calibers. IIIa, as noted, will easily stop your .357 mag and .357 sig caliber.

If you look around, you will find that IIIa vests are not uncommon either.

As to suppressive fire, I went to some considerable trouble to track down where I read that. Take it for what you believe it's worth:

http://www.naturalnews.com/038391_gu...ders_cops.html

Great, source for the claimed teaching of unaimed suppressive fire is by an unnamed detective who has never been in a mass shooting event who is of an unknown department and of unknown credentials quoted in an article by the "health ranger." In short, you don't have a credible source for the claim that apparently nobody else has heard of . As I said, I don't know of any LEO agencies that are teaching to use UNAIMED SUPPRESSIVE fire for mass shootings and certainly not for mass shootings at schools. You see, they are responsible for where their rounds go.

I do agree that the idea (strictly for professionals) of *engaging* the shooter in some way until backup arrives is a good one; it re-directs (hopefully) his attack from unarmed innocents to at least a somewhat-armed professional.

Yes, but they aren't going to engage with unaimed suppressive fire.

As for body armor, at one time it was possible to get ceramic plate 'Ranger' armor, which as I understand will stop 30-06. If someone is wearing that serious of armor, I don't know that they will even feel a 9mm or .380. There was that case in CA a while back with two bank robbers who had full armor and were shot multiple times until one of them got hit in the foot, I think the other did himself in. They didn't seem to feel or exhibit any injury when they were shot on the armor. So I wouldn't want to rely on the shock of the impact if using a pistol caliber against armor; go right for the head.

At one time? You can buy Level IV ceramic armor today if you wish. People wearing it will feel a 9mm or 380 round. I feel it every time somebody walks up and wraps on mine with their knuckles to see if it is really hard or not.

The bank robbery you are talking about is the North Hollywood BOA robbery. Both robbers were wearing homemade and unique body armor and both were shot multiple times in areas covered by armor and in areas NOT covered by the armor, primarily by 9mm rounds fired at long ranges (75-150 yards). I watched the incident live. One of the most bizarre things I recall is one robber getting a water bottle from his car after laying his rifle on the top of it, opening the water, and drinking. Then his body jerked two or three times from impacts as he drank. He screwed the cap back on, tossed the bottle in the car, picked up his rifle, returned to firing.

 

[COLOSHOOTR]

Many shooters have been described as having worn body armor but how many were actually just a load bearing vest or some type of tacticool outerwear?

Also remember that even standard body armor (there are several "levels" of protection) will not defeat some higher energy handgun rounds, and that even if penetration is stopped, I understand it still hurts a fiar bit, which can serve to temporarily disable the shooter and/or interrupt his OODA loop.

Also consider that active shooter training has evolved to the point that LEOs are taught to utilize unaimed suppressing fire, in the hope that the shooter will follow pattern and withdraw/terminate when faced with opposition.

Here's a brief review of body armor protection levels, with a chart:

http://njlawman.com/Feature Pieces/Body Armor.htm

I must have missed the part in training covering the unaimed suppressive fire.... Spray and pray suppressive fire would not be tolerated in a Law Enforcement environment!!!

As for armor you better be carrying a long gun to get though most soft body armor. Even a level II vest will stop most handgun threats and only "special threat" round will go though and most such rounds will be shot from subguns or sub cal rifles where the barrel length gives that handgun round some extra velocity. On the other hand most vests that end up in the civilian market are expired and may or may not stop rounds depending on how much use they have seen and how they were taken care of. Also, most mass shooter types are cowards though and one shot to the vest will likely take the fight out of him and break a few ribs in the process so chest shots would still be effective and hurt the BG A LOT!!!

 

[paramedic70002]

1. I take issue with "trained professional" when they requal once or twice a year on a square range while standing still and shoot at paper on board targets to score a minimum 70%, and perform like that. More like textbook NON professional.

2. I don't think anyone but Jerry Clower (famous comedian who once said "Just shoot amongst us, 'cause one of us needs some relief!") is suggesting shooting into the crowd and hoping for a hit on the BG. If you can sling lead in his general direction safely (over his head into a backstop) that might be enough to end the attack.