Quantcast

Tactics of living in gun control zones

Discussion in 'Strategies, Tactics, and Training' started by leadcounsel, Jan 7, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. luzyfuerza

    luzyfuerza Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    757
    Location:
    RKBA-Friendly Utah
    Many posters to this thread emphasized that escape is almost always the best response to a threat. Especially when you're outgunned. True enough. But perhaps a little simplistic.

    This being strategy and tactics, are there other lessons that we who are armed can pick up on?


    For example, sometimes retreat is impossible. The wounded guard in the video does not appear to have been able to retreat. What options did he have?

    From the video, perhaps he acted helpless. Perhaps he begged for mercy. Whatever he did convinced the jihadi that he was no imminent threat to them and they left concealment and approached him to administer the final killing shots.

    He was unarmed, and so he's dead.

    If he had been armed, however, even with only a pistol, this behavior might have given him a chance at survival. Consider this:

    By acting like he was no threat to them, he convinced the idiot jihadi that they could safely leave concealment and approach him, thereby giving up one of the advantages provided by their long arms: the ability to take effective shots from distance. If the guard had had a handgun, and had practiced string 4 of the first stage of the IDPA classifier (two headshots to each of multiple targets) their poor responses to his tactics could have given him a chance. It might have been a small chance, but it would be better than the chance that the real guard got.



    Two lessons that I took from reading about this event and watching the videos:

    1) I need to practice taking fast headshots from unusual positions, like those you have to move into when wounded. Or if you only have limited cover or concealment.

    2) Anybody with a gun or knife who yells "Allah Akbar" is likely a threat to me and to my way of life.



    Going beyond the "GET OUT OF THERE" truisms, what other tactics could be used when we have only a pistol against long guns and retreat is impossible?
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2015
  2. FinnComm

    FinnComm Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    119
    Location:
    Finland
    I spend a lot of time in France and need to comment here!

    This is not actually true. There is not "near total gun prohibition" in France.

    Both hunting and shooting sports are very normal activities in France.

    You can buy all the usual pistols:

    http://www.armurerie-auxerre.com/le...-de-categorie-b/pistolets-de-categorie-b.html

    And semi-autos:

    http://www.armurerie-auxerre.com/le...egorie-b/fusils-et-carabines-categorie-b.html

    France has the highest number of hunters per capita in Europe. They are not hunting with peashooters:

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-fr...n-france-apres-le-foot.php?page=&pagination=1

    Even the current IPSC champion is French. Eric Grauffel didn't reach that level under a situation of "near total gun prohibition".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0CwHdsUIhU



    As I wrote elsewhere yesterday, our efforts to combat the anti-gun lobby would be much more effective if we stuck 100% to the facts and avoid statements that are open to question regarding accuracy.
     
  3. FinnComm

    FinnComm Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    119
    Location:
    Finland
    Exactly! :)
     
  4. FinnComm

    FinnComm Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    119
    Location:
    Finland
    In this situation, had the police turned up quicker, the last thing they would need is a gang of gun-touting, have-a-go-hero, John Waynes, getting in the way. This means each and every person with a gun in hand needs to be assessed and disarmed by the police, who have no idea if any of these Waynes was a terrorist in civvies.

    In Europe, the job of a civilian is to get out of the way, and then do their best to provide intel to the police:

    - number of assailants
    - description of assailants
    - what arms they have
    - location and direction of travel of assailants
    - number of casualties

    This sort of intel is much more valuable to the police when coming into a cold situation, than some unknown cowboy popping off pistol shots from a rooftop.
     
  5. coloradokevin

    coloradokevin Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,221
    That's good advice for most folks. I tell my family members the same thing: 1) First priority, save yourself. 2) Save anyone else you can save. 3) Fight the fight if you are backed into a corner.

    I'm in a profession that expects me to go to the gunfire. However, no one ever won a gunfight by getting themselves killed. Tactics are paramount in an asymmetric battle like that one. A few of the things I tell the guys who work for me to consider are:

    1) Find a position of cover
    2) Identify your route(s) of retreat
    3) Make distance your friend
    4) Take careful, aimed shots at the enemy

    I'd be 1000% more happy to go into one of these situations with a long gun in hand, and I carry one at work (as do most of my officers). Even without my rifle, I carry over 50 rounds on my person at all times (sometimes north of 60) for a full-frame duty gun, and I also bring a bunch of friends with guns to these fights. Taking these terrorists out as a lone citizen with a CCW pistol is going to be very hard. Remember, these are trained and prepared combatants, wearing body armor, carrying battle rifles, and outnumbering you 3-to-1. Closing distance is going to be very, very dangerous, and pulling off a head shot with a Glock 26 at 50+ yards at a moving and target who is shooting at you is going to be very, very tough (despite any claims to the contrary).

    Anyone could run right up with a gun in hand, throwing ammo carelessly at an enemy who is better armed than them, outnumbers them, and came prepared to fight. But, in doing so your chances of surviving the encounter go way down, particularly when the gunmen are trained shooters/fighters (like they obviously were in this case), rather than just being some disconnected kid who grabbed dad's gun before going to school.

    Honestly, the CCW holder in the best position to handle such a situation might be the "lucky" one who goes unnoticed by the gunmen, gets bypassed by the gunmen without getting shot, and is at close distance with surprise on their side when they decide to engage.

    As for the suggested scenario where a gun owner is available on the balcony level of an apartment just above the spot where such a shooting is taking place (where a camera operator was in this case)… well, that would be a very good thing, but seems rather unlikely. In that position it's an absolutely winnable scenario for the capable and equipped shooter.

    Obviously each person is going to have to make a decision if they're ever carrying when a situation like this starts. But, lets not pretend that this is an easily winnable fight.
     
  6. lemaymiami

    lemaymiami Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2010
    Messages:
    2,553
    Location:
    south Florida
    Read every response and noted that most don't seem to realize that the video clip everyone has seen was only at the very end of the incident (when 99% of the killing was already over...). The last moments included a quick sweep by the shooters and the execution of the remaining wounded officer. In my first post I avoided talking about specifics, but as a retired cop who actually ran a training unit for a few years, I still maintain that a competent officer is still terribly out-gunned if faced with assailants armed with automatic weapons that know how to use them (every armed citizen should think about that....) - and are probably armored to boot... Normal police response to this sort of situation doesn't end well historically. Of course young officers will try....

    By the way if your opponent is armored (or you suspect your opponent is armored) it's helpful to remember that most armor stops at or just below belt level - that means that hips, groin, and upper thighs are still quite vulnerable to aimed fire....

    One last observation. From my viewpoint those shooters are a lot farther away than the enhanced, zoomed in, video we're seeing on the tube.
     
  7. Trent

    Trent Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    23,675
    Location:
    Illinois
    http://abcnews.go.com/International/gunmen-paris-attack-trained-experts/story?id=28056240

    Later in the article it says;

    I know we're still beating this bush of "should a civilian intervene", but these are not the sort of people that a civilian with a handgun wants to go up against, solo.

    Hell, these aren't the sort of folks that the POLICE want to go up against.

    These are the sort of fellows that SWAT/HRT don't *want* to go up against, but train for anyway.
     
  8. mbt2001

    mbt2001 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,902
    Location:
    Texas
    Video Link to the recorded part of the shooting: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc6_1420632668

    To underscore Trent's points, these guys are moving together, offering independent targets; they are using "cover" in their movement; they are not spraying rounds, but aiming. To make matters more interesting, if I can use that word in talking about this horrifying video where people were brutally shot down, they have the bulky look of body armor, slings, reloads, and a general tactical presence.

    image.jpg


    See the position of the shooters? Suppose that officer had been armed and engaging the enemy, the shooters were moving to flank/pin the officer, which allowed the other shooter to flank and engage. The officer was a goner, armed or not.

    Personally, I am going to take this as the warning it is.
     
  9. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    16,529
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    I'm not saying I'd like dealing with it, but did you honestly take the time to look any of it up, or are you still basically equating all of Europe with the UK regarding firearms laws (which even those aren't quite as bad as much of the US hyperbole implies)

    1997 ain't exactly ancient history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

    The remainder of the rebuttal is speculative at best. Dozens of trained police officers, including SWAT, descended on two well armed and armored men (who were not trained), and suffered 18 casualties (not to mention property damage) in less than an hour before finally coming out on top.

    Yes, LAPD made some changes to tactics and armament following that incident, but I suspect a similar event would have a similar outcome today, a short 18 years later.

    For more recent examples of the tolls that a determined individual with no regard for their own life can exact, one only need look at some of the sprees int he last decade-particularly those on military installations.

    Bottom line, once again, is that gun rights and CCW have virtually no bearing on these types of attacks. To exemplify that, one only need recall the man in TX who tried to stop an armored individual with a long gun; he wound up dead, too.
     
  10. Trent

    Trent Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    23,675
    Location:
    Illinois
    Not to drift but relevant;

    French TV is reporting this afternoon that two of the shooters were brothers, and one of them had combat & training experience with the Al Qaeda jihadists in Yemen as recently as 2012.

    (As I write this the two are currently engaged in a fight with French special forces where they holed up...)

    The thing is, the earlier reports on these guys knowing their business were spot on, at least one (allegedly) has received combat training.

    This is *not* the scenario a concealed carry holder ever wants to run across *or* get involved in!

    I stand by my "get out" (unless you are cornered and have no choice) statements.. this was a precision strike operation on a facility that they viewed as an enemy combatant; and reports say they let people who weren't direct threats or on their "list" of targets go free.

    Now, if you WORKED there, and were faced with that level of violence against you and coworkers, yeah, by all means, fight like hell.

    But to get involved when you are undermanned, undergunned, etc.. not a good viable solution. You are *better* served if you have a vantage point like that giving a real time feed of what you are witnessing to the authorities on the phone; (not taking video of it to post on youtube or sell to a news agency as those French civilians apparently did......)

    Video is useful for evidence of course, but what the authorities need is real time updates of what is transpiring so they can coordinate the appropriate level of response and not put more people who are under-equipped in harms way.

    In the end it took French Special forces to resolve this - it's still ongoing, with running intense gunfire in the building they are holed up in, and explosions.

    That's just two guys.

    Don't ever underestimate what two or three guys who are trained, motivated, and heavily armed/armored can do....
     
  11. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    Okay a few points.

    I don't think ANYONE here is relishing the idea of going up against multiple well-armed and trained terrorists with long-guns. This conversation is about tactics if presented with this or a similar situation.

    I bet EVERYONE here agrees that rifles beat pistols.

    3 against 1, or whatever, are terrible odds. Duh.

    These above points should be abundantly clear... so not sure why the continued debate.

    But how do you survive and possible WIN this situation, and what does winning look like to you? That is a personal question to answer. Well armed. Yep. Planned. Yep. Possibly body armor. Yep. Can you defeat them? Absolutely. Do you engage? It depends, but if you do, it's winnable.

    Agreed.

    But THIS scenario, and others like it, are quite winnable. Take out 1 of these 2 with an ambush pistol from an elevated position, and you create a LOT of problems. The other guy loses 50% of his team and needs to then decide to abort, rescue his guy, flee, or continue on his own... injuries are a huge liability for a small group like this.

    I will give these guys credit - the managed to get armaments that are totally prohibited in France (AK47s and RPGs according to the news). It appears they *may* have had body armor, also presumably difficult to get. But body armor has vulnerabilities - legs and head and arms. To someone operating in a small team with no immediate extraction or larger force en route, being wounded in the leg or arm or otherwise immobilized is as good as dead. For instance, a 9mm shot to the left elbow means that the support arm is useless, effectively taking one AK wielder out of the fight. Hit him in the leg and he can't run well. Any blood loss in such a situation will cause dizziness and other medical problems for an attacker.... (I am not suggesting you can AIM to hit the elbow or hand or knee or whatever, but hits on flesh is the point I'm making, and even with a ballistic vest/plates, 75% of the body is still exposed including critical areas).

    Their shot groups on that windshield were well-aimed and not wild.

    However, I'd question the "well-trained" part. I'm no superstar Soldier, but have had infantry and advanced infantry style training, and in my training I know enough that you don't move in pairs like they did with no cover (you bound), someone must cover the rear, and you bound between cover... unless of course you don't expect resistance. But these guys didn't move very tactically. And of course the big picture is that they are misguided that they could escape long term. News is they are dead today, within 48 hours from the attack. Given the evaded and fled, that wasn't the desired outcome.
    police-paris_shooting-400x249.jpg

    If you observe, these men are both exposed in the street at the same time repeatedly, within 10 steps tightly together, and both facing the same direction at all times. That tells me they are undisciplined and NOT well trained.
    If you had to engage them with an AK or AR, they would be easy targets.
    102323111-paris-gunmen-victim.530x298.jpg

    010715_shep_mcfadden_640.jpg

    As for handguns from a rooftop, I disagree with Trent on many points, including the time to determine where gunfire is coming from instantly, or the danger level. NOTE - when you shoot from a window, you don't hang out of the window. You remain concealed within the room, standing back from the window. It makes it harder to find the window to return fire to. When you fire, you're target hears echos and when they look up they'll see dozens of possible windows with which to return fire. It would disrupt their operation and make them choose to stand in the street to engage, or flee/take cover EVEN IF YOU MISS them. Disrupting them is a win. It buys valuable time for law enforcement.

    As for "cowboys" with concealed guns, we have daily instances in the USA where CCW holders prevent/stop armed attackers. This is not dis-similar. Lots of armed attackers here are ruthless thugs willing to kill and armed with long guns or handguns. And if you pay attention you can see that armed people thrawt attacks daily.

    Lastly, this isn't a thread necessarily about FRANCE's gun control, or lack thereof. It was an off-handed general remark. I am no expert on France's particular gun control, but know in general that I CANNOT carry a gun there or get a gun if I visit. I did some light reading this AM here: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/daniel-zimmerman/mon-dieu-a-review-of-french-gun-laws/ and take it at face value with no indepth research because frankly I care little about France's laws.... Several categories A, B, C, etc. Cat A is similar to our NFA and totally banned.

     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2015
  12. bigmike1

    bigmike1 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2014
    Messages:
    1
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2015
  13. mbt2001

    mbt2001 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,902
    Location:
    Texas
    I guess this is proof that we see what we want to see. Moving in pairs, like they were is military/tactical.

    Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, Equipment (SALUTE)

    That video IS what I would do. That gave command more insight in to who these guys where, what their capabilities are, and clues to their identity and their set than just about anything else. In the immediate minutes of an attack, it is unclear that this is an isolated incident. A citizen is doing the BEST thing doing what this bystander did. Sorry, to say, but my 9mm or .38 wouldn't do as much damage as that video would do.

    The Attackers hit their objective proving themselves terrorist/criminal/murderers. The security of the building and proactive work of police and intelligence utterly failed. I make that point because after the attack, 1 other, maybe 2 died. Had someone engaged them, they might have made a beeline for the school or park or hospital across the street and made things MUCH worse. Of course I know where you are coming from leadcounsel, I just have a hard time answering HOW i would have engaged SUPPOSING that I did.
     
  14. Sol

    Sol Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Messages:
    899
    Does gun ownership in France correlate with income?

    Though you may be able to own guns in France, is this priviledge available to the common person?
     
  15. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    Point taken, and it should be underscored that videos and witnesses are crucial. And if all you have is a camera, then that's what you should do.

    But a dead terrorists in the street is also quite good information, and could save lives. Even an injured terrorist from a 9mm round in the leg or arm or neck for instance creates a significant problem for HIM and for his team. Now they have to deal with an injured buddy who is a liability. While 9mm is no death ray, it throws a wrench in the plan... which is a win.

    You don't know how big the attack could be. Maybe that car has a nuke in it and you're shooting them prevents the trigger man from detonating it. Or not. Maybe they're storming YOUR building and this is your opportunity to prevent it... a video recording your death still results in your death...

    Anyway, I get your points and being a witness is important. Returning fire is just more important in my view, IF TACTICALLY SMART AND POSSIBLE. I wouldn't rule out retreat. And I might - in THIS instance - just put a three round burst on the easier target, and THEN flee.
     
  16. Trent

    Trent Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    23,675
    Location:
    Illinois
    Not a bad plan. :)

    There are other factors here, which you touched on. These guys wanted to get away, to live to see another day. They aren't likely going to take the time to storm the *wrong* building to hunt down a lone person taking pot shots at them from an nTh story window. They are more likely to open up hard on that building while they continue on with their ingress or egress.

    Of course, that means anyone in the same vicinity as you (neighbors, friends, family, coworkers) are going to be taking incoming fire because you poked the hornets nest with the pea shooter.

    We saw in North Hollywood when the bad guys took fire they sprayed (inaccurate suppressive) fire through the streets in the general direction of the incoming rounds. And we've seen the reverse of this, when LEO's take fire, they tend to hose down the area the fire is coming from.

    Bad guys who "have a place to be" are still going to try to make that objective; they're on a mission after all. If you become a nuisance, and they don't have time to accurately hunt you down, they're still going to put a lot of rounds your way to keep your head down so they can get to where they intend on going.

    Yes, the dozens of inbound rounds aren't "on your shoulders" if others are killed because you stuck yourself in to the fight, because you didn't fire them, but they still are, in a very real way.

    Location matters too. It'd be a very DIFFERENT answer I'd give if I saw three guys in full kit and facemasks heading in to our local school when I was picking up the kids.

    There *is* a certain line to draw where each of us will probably consider our continued existence meaningless, and do anything and everything to intervene.

    This is where we come full circle.

    As leadcouncil has (successfully) pointed out, is exactly why the tactics of such a hopeless scenario could be envisioned for a mental ST&T game...

    If those guys open fire outside YOUR office building on a police officer / security guard and you see them coming towards the front door?

    That seriously and significantly changes things.

    You can dump a LOT of ammo, and fast, from a semiauto handgun down on their heads.

    MAYBE they won't be disciplined enough to stand there in the open and return fire at you, and they'll scatter or retreat.

    MAYBE you'll get a lucky hit or two in.

    MAYBE you'll buy co-workers an extra few precious seconds to barricade doors or escape out the back.

    MAYBE you'll die.

    MAYBE you won't.

    No two situations are going to be the same, but it is definitely worthwhile to examine those thoughts to avoid a "crisis of the conscience". A person who is prepared to die can fight without hesitation or fear.
     
  17. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    16,529
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    Yeah, if you have this guy's luck

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUT0yHLhOZM


    Otherwise, the odds are beyond heavily stacked against the private citizen with a compact CCW handgun. I'm not saying it isn't something we should contemplate, but 1) don't confuse contemplation with fantastical delusions of grandeur and 2) accept that the outcome of a lone CCW holder against such opponents is that he/she will probably wind up a martyr.

    I am not afraid of death. Truthfully, the only thing that I'm scared of, aside from harm coming to people that I care about, is becoming handicapped. But that does not mean I have a death wish, and even if it were one of those days I had my Glock 20 with a spare mag or two, I would still make every effort to find safety in the event that I was threatened by a pair or trio of men in armor and wielding rifles. If my family were in tow and I had to engage the gunman(men) to distract or cover while my children get to safety, that is exactly what I'd do. Otherwise, though, the only way I'm doing anything other than trying to not be noticed would be if I somehow got the drop on them. But engage head-on when severely outmanned and outgunned? Suicide.

    Anyway, on to:

    Information is outdated. Currently:

    http://www.weaponeer.net/uploads/fi...implified_and_preventive_arms__Legifrance.pdf

    Again, I ain't sayin' it's fabulous, but with a bit more effort, they can have nigh everything that is considered title I here, plus they don't have the same kind of language for short barrels, suppressor, etc.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2015
  18. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    @ MachIVShooter -
    I think we're talking past each other and I feel that you're not reading and/or cherry picking my posting....

    I'll copy/paste the parts you're ignoring.
    Winning doesn't necessarily mean toe-to-toe Magadishu or Fallujah sustained firefight pistol versus AK... Heck, not sure if that executed cop was armed or not, but if he was clearly an AK beats a pistol.

    Winning can be simply putting a few rounds on target to injure, disrupt, and distract/interfere with their plans. From the flanking elevated vantage point of 40 feet, aim, bang-bang-bang on the closest target, then move to cover or flee. That could be a win by distracting or even injuring or if you get lucky killing one of these two visible terrorists. I see nearly ZERO risk in this exact scenario. You could squeeze off an aimed double or triple tap before they could even observe where the rounds were coming from or return fire.
     
  19. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    16,529
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    Not cherry picking, just not quoting and replying to the things I don't disagree with ;)

    But when I do see a discourse-worthy sentence or paragraph, such as

    I want to talk about it. Like you seeing this as zero risk, where I see it as perhaps even worse than engaging directly-at least if you're concerned about others. As Trent pointed out:

    Every situation is obviously different, and if the dude is already hosing everyone with as many bullets as he can, all you might do is alter his vector. But as noted with this group, they had specific targets, and bypassed people who were not. But start shooting at them, you will draw their fire, jeopardizing not only your life, but anyone in your general vicinity who may have otherwise gone unnoticed and unharmed.

    Conversely, a situation like the movie theatre here in my state, yeah-perpetrator was going for maximum carnage, so doing just about anything would have been better than doing nothing.

    Things to think about.
     
  20. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    Or perhaps they burn through their finite ammo supply firing randomly at a concrete building (most apartment buildings are some form of reinforced concrete or brick and windows), also burning through perhaps 15 precious seconds for police to get closer to responding.

    Drawing their fire, let them dump a mag or two into the side of the building at random for 15 seconds. Perhaps that gives real victims on the street the necessary time and distraction to move to safety. Every bullet they put into the masonry is one less destined for a known person or cop or Soldier. And they definitely have a finite supply which is quick to burn through when firing in a dynamic situation.

    Let them deal with the fresh leg would if one of my shots got "lucky" - which by the way all of us can hit a man sized target at 40 feet with our selective carry piece at least once in a 3 round controlled fire series.

    And we saw on the video they got into a car to leave. Hard to shoot an AK angled upward from a car. So again, more opportunity to reign down fire into the top of the unarmored car. A ripe situation for a person even with a lowly 9mm pistol.

    And that's my point. A win can be injure, distract, have them waste time/resources, etc.
     
  21. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    16,529
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    But finite doesn't mean small.

    I hate to keep using the same situation as an example, but it just exemplifies soooo much that is relevant to this discussion.

    In the 1997 Hollywood shootout, the two perpetrators fired more than 1,100 rounds. What good would making them dump a mag or two at you do?

    Again, I am not saying that, if presented with an opportunity to make a difference in such a dire situation, that we shouldn't. What I am, and have been, saying is that in such an extreme case, it is unlikely that a CCW holder can do much, while at the same time very likely that he or she will add to the victim tally by trying to engage.

    I will only suggest that instead of looking at this specific scenario, try to take a larger, more generic view. It's easy to look at stills or watch video and Monday morning quarterback what we would have done if we were here, there or whatever, and knowing what we know now. Whole different ball game when you're actually in that fast paced and absolutely horrifying dynamic situation, without any intel, without the bird's eye view.............

    Try some force-on-force stuff, or even paintball. Dealing with other human beings in a real-world hostile scenario gives one a whole different perspective. It ain't nuthin' like Call of Duty.
     
  22. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    9,123
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    There is a lot to be said for intelligence, as well. Someone with an actual understanding of the basic capabilities of the weapons they are using along with an accurate assessment of their own capabilities and a very basic amount of actual experience in shooting can easily plan such an attack with planning.

    Case in point, based on my own experience. I am a retired Sailor who was trained to operate nuclear propulsion plants in the Navy. Such Sailors are typically referred to as "Nukes". One of the earliest phrases I learned in the Navy in reference to us Nukes was "A bored Nuke is a dangerous Nuke". It was tongue-in-cheek, to be sure, but also quite accurate. Very intelligent people who are not kept busy and challenged often spend their time thinking of ways to get into trouble.

    Every Nuke I ever knew aboard submarines, for example, had their own plan for how to take over the submarine. It was a mental exercise which demonstrated the depths in which Nukes actually understood how all the various systems of the ship are designed, built, and operated. And yeah...such operations had serious limitations, which were also understood.

    It's one of the reasons why Nukes aren't well liked by their spouses when it comes to watching movies about the Navy. We can't help but go "Mystery Science Theater 3000" all through the movies because we KNOW what the reality is.


    On ballistic missile submarines (Boomers), they run nuclear weapons security violation drills all the time. Way back on my first sub, they'd typically pick a crewmember of the drill team, give him some basic parameter about the scenario, then his job was to go out and commit the "security violation" (using appropriate drill props and tactics). The crew's response to the drill was then evaluated and lessons learned incorporated into the training.

    They NEVER picked a Nuke to initiate these drills...until one day they did. The Nuke in question had quite an understanding on just how he would go about committing such a security violation, if he had the actual resources, so that's what he did.

    First thing he did was remove his shoes for stealth. Then he purposefully avoided all movement in any passageway and stuck to moving about via the frameways and overhead structures. He booby-trapped hatches, took out key watch standers, picked off sleeping off-watch Sailors, and killed off every member of the security response teams.

    Soon the only people left alive were the actual watchstanders in the other compartments, the Sailors trapped with them, and the drill monitors. In fact, by the time the actual security violation was called away, there was no one left "alive" in the entire Missile Compartment. It's amazing how lethal tape grenades and paper knives are!

    The drill was secured and everybody convened in the Wardroom, where a smiling Captain said "OK, let's run the drill again!" He looked at the Nuke in question and said "This time, get caught!"

    My point is that the people here who, with all good intentions about intervening in such an instance as what happened in Paris, not only would stand little chance of success, BUT ARE ALSO VERY LIKELY ENTIRELY CAPABLE THEMSELVES IN PLANNING AND EXECUTING JUST SUCH AN ATTACK. (Assuming, of course, that they have what it takes to actually deliberately pull the trigger on innocent people, face-to-face.)

    Any given civilian society is NOT on any kind of combat alert, nor do they have any kind of training to respond in kind. And even those few members who may be present and who may have such training are very likely to be at an extreme tactical disadvantage.

    A great many people here are hunters and target shooters. The vast majority of us know that taking our time and setting up our shots is how we are best able to hit what we aim at. The majority of us are under no illusion about the accuracy of "spray and pray" tactics. So we wouldn't use such tactics.

    What would we do? Well, because the majority of us here ARE intelligent and understand the basics about shooting and planning, we would likely:

    - Have more than one plan to get away after the fact.

    - We know about body armor and would likely integrate it into our plans.

    - We know that rifles are better than sidearms and would thus be armed appropriately in terms of primary and secondary weapons.

    - We would choose ammunition more likely to cause the most damage, including to any armed response teams.

    - We would actually take the time to aim and control our shots from the very first shooting and wouldn't waste ammunition with "spray and pray" tactics.


    Against a generally unarmed civilian setting, this would be overwhelming. Against a rapidly deployed armed police response which is showing up with virtually no tactical knowledge of what's actually happening, we would have a tactical advantage.


    These people demonstrated EXACTLY such planning and execution. Do not allow yourselves to believe that there is any simple solution to countering exactly this sort of thing when it goes down, even for trained response teams, because there ISN'T.
     
  23. boom boom
    • Contributing Member

    boom boom Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,777
    Location:
    GA
    Not really sure what the recent posts re Paris have to do with gun-free zones. At this stage, we don't even know whether any of the slain were in fact armed. Nor whether any hypothetical resident of the surrounding buildings could have firearms.

    As someone who works daily in such an area and had to deal with emotionally troubled individuals in the past--I always carry the following--bright flashlight (200 lumen or above) with strobe, pepper spray, cell phone, and a heavy bookbag. Debating about whether to add a bullet resistant panel to the backpack. Have not carried a knife because our employment guidelines and law is muddled in that area. One other thing is that I note where all of the fire extinguishers and firehoses are as potential weapon in a jam.

    Question to others: if you could legally keep a firearm in your vehicle in the said gun free zone but it had to be secured in a locked container--would you do so? I am able to do so but do not like leaving an unaccompanied firearm even in a locked container. Furthermore, by the time that I reach my vehicle then escape and evasion are paramount when renders the firearm less useful in mass shooting situations. Reengaging after successfully navigating to your auto seems unwise to me but not sure about it.
     
  24. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    A heavy bookbag will do nothing but slow you down. I don't think a few books will cover enough body or be light enough to use effectively nor stop any common caliber pistol or rifle rounds. According to nonscientific testing, the 9mm will punch through 7 inches of books, the .45 through 4.5 inches of books, rifle rounds through 10+ inches of books.

    http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-31-the-books-o-truth/

    If you are truly worried, you can get a good condition surplus ballistic concealable vest designed to stop pistol and shotgun for under $200. Or a new really thin concealable vest for around $500.

    If you don't have a weapon or effective means of counter attack or self defense, your best bet is clearly to find cover, flee, and or observe/record from safety (in no particular order).

    In the Texas belltower shooting that man shot and killed and injured dozens of people up to 1500 feet away. He had to stop firing when civilians retrieved hunting rifles from nearby vehicles and put fire on him (police were also engaging him). Three cops and one civilian stormed the tower and shot and killed the shooter.

    Having said that - one incident (or even a few over decades) is not strong enough evidence to show a dedicated truck gun having merit. I think an unattended "truck gun" has almost zero merit, and is more likely a liability and subject to theft or hassle or even breaking the law... but it does have SOME merit under extremely rare situations. I can envision situations where it may come in handy, even if you are retrieving it to return to scene (although dangerous due to being mis-identified as the man with a gun...). Very situation dependent. On balance, an immediately accessible handgun while you are IN the vehicle is useful to thwart a car jacking. But a dedicated gun left in the car is IMO just asking for a theft or other incident and will never be used in a real world scenario as we are envisioning here.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2015
  25. Trent

    Trent Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    23,675
    Location:
    Illinois
    One scenario I can think of off the top of my head that would qualify is "School Play."

    I have to disarm to go in to a school, to see my kids in a school play. The last one I went to see, my daughter was in, and it was an excellent reproduction of The Sound of Music.

    Assuming you've seen the movie, remember towards the end of the movie when the nazi's came storming in to the auditorium to gather the father for his forced navy tour of duty?

    Well, the school play featured a dynamic entry of Nazi's with realistic looking guns at that point. I was sitting right next to the door of the auditorium when they slammed it open and came storming in.

    And my thought process immediately fired off... "Is that a threat? A school shooter? No. But if that were a school shooter that just kicked in the door, I could have tackled him and engaged with my knife; if there were multiple shooters, I'm 40 yards from my car; two doors between me and them, I have to prop the second open with my jacket so I can re-enter, I can take that off on the way, I can unlock the car as soon as I'm within sight of it, my keys are in my right pocket have to remove them before I use my jacket to prop open the door, I can then retrieve my sidearm from the center console, use my right hand to do so so it grips right, then make it back in to the building"... (and do all of that in under 30 seconds.)

    This is just a thought process ingrained in to me. Wherever I am there's a background process running on "where are likely threat vectors" / "where is my egress point" / "what weapons are available to me" / "what cover is available to me", and so on.

    When someone or something raises my spidey-sense-short-hair-hackles (such as a door getting slammed open near me, in that auditorium) my brain immediately starts down that checklist and the ONLY thing that I have to decide is "Act", or "Don't act."

    This is just part of having a defensive mindset.

    Part of having a defensive mindset is "do I re-engage".

    In the case of the school? My kids in there?

    Damn straight. I'm coming RIGHT the hell back in again, and I don't care what happens to me, my 5 kids are getting protected!

    Why? I have zero problem leaving my loaded handgun in my locked car when I enter prohibited places.

    In the example thought process I gave above my handgun is STILL integrated in to my defensive mindset even though it's out in the parking lot! And it could still play a viable role in the defense of loved ones even though I'm currently sitting in a gun free zone (in that example). Sure as HECK better than leaving it 12 miles away at home locked in a safe!

    When I travel, vacation, or whatever, I travel heavy. The further away from home I'm going, the heavier the ordnance I bring along, because come hell or high water I'm getting home again. Period. (Thinking civil unrest, natural disaster, whatever).

    This includes long gun(s) and a full compliment of ammunition for them.

    I'm perhaps more 'paranoid' than most when it comes to this - but if I have the cargo room, why not? Better safe than sorry. :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice