Is that “one two GO”, or “one two three GO”?
Or the Maverick Top Gun "on three…THREE…(two, one, which I’d never get to because I went on THREE!)?
Well, he’s a honey badger, so…
It’s also a lot easier even for a trained soldier to charge when you’re firing a weapon, when you have a dozen of your friends charging alongside you, and when your lieutenant/sergeant is in front leading the way. Doing it unarmed, by yourself is a lot more difficult, both physically and psychologically.
For you maybe. But for a sexual tyrannosaurus like myself, charging an active shooter is Tuesday night.
I’m totally going to use that in the “made up band names” thread.
I think that theory is bogus. Again, if you’re pointed in the right direction and poised to run, then sure, you do that. But in a spontaneous moment in life? No way.
How about a thought experiment: Let’s say that sometime in the next two weeks, someone 30 feet from you will fire a signal flare and a starter pistol into the air and stand there with flashing lights all over them. You’ll be awake when this happens, but other than that, it could be anywhere.
You get $1000 if you can reach that person within 2 seconds.
How much are you willing to pay to play this game?
I, personally, wouldn’t pay a cent. I can’t imagine I’d make it with any appreciable chance.
And that’s knowing that it’s going to happen in the next 2 weeks, as opposed to a thing that’s probably never going to happen to you in fifty lifetimes.
Here is a local (to me) example of where it worked. The kid had planned to kill several and then himself. Ended up shooting two, killing none, and he is alive to face punishment.
I’m pretty sure that I, and nearly everyone else, would still be sitting in exactly the same spot having not fully processed what had happened. (The remainder would be under the nearest table experiencing a PTDS flashback.) But to be fair to the OP, I don’t get the impression you’re supposed to do this completely unaware - just that once you get moving it won’t take you too long to cover the distance.
That said, unless you’re in a position to make your charge from someplace the gunman won’t see coming, I consider charging them to be tantamount to suicide.
A couple years ago one my co-worker’s brother tried that - rushing a shooter. He died. So my anecdote cancels your anecdote.
Yes, sometimes rushing the bad guy works. Other times it doesn’t. Risk your own life if you want, don’t risk anyone else’s on that tactic.
Exactly.
Great idea! So, is it mandatory psychological screenings for potential gun owners? Or, more efficiently, for everyone, just in case they ever try to buy a gun?
And to add on, in either case you don’t save anyone. You either stay put and don’t save anyone or get shot and don’t save anyone. The only thing that changes is that you get shot.
That’s a slightly different scenario. This would be more like “The person with the lights and starter pistol is standing in front of you and gives you a count down, also, you don’t have a choice, you’re required to play”.
Remember, this is about someone that’s going to attack you by hand or with a handheld weapon. The entire point is that since it would take [longer than] 1.5 seconds to run 21 feet, you should be able to outrun the attacker. Or put another way, you can’t shoot someone with a knife if they’re, say, 100 feet away.
In any case, the point of the entire thing was that there’s a certain distance at which, on average, an attacker can get to you before you can fire a weapon. If the attacker is too far away, it’s murder, if they’re too close, you may lose.
Here’s a great example how to deal with a knife wielding attacker.
While you cover it in the rest of the post, as an acronym ALICE is probably more complicated than just remembering Run, Hide, Fight. Run if you can, hide if you can’t run and it’s an option, and if you can’t do either fight to the best of your ability.
The latest shooting may make fighting seem less effective than it would be in general. The typical shooter isn’t a veteran Marine infantryman trained to deal with people that fight back. It’s probably ineffective to evaluate a general response in terms of the most dangerous situation - a highly trained shooter. The most likely situation, where the shooter has little or no experience firing at moving and/or fighting targets, is a better point to evaluate.
The bright side is running is part of the fight, flight, or freeze natural response. One of the natural reactions is the preferred option. Unfortunately, freezing in the open is really common. It’s basically the worst response possible when dealing with a mass shooter. Some of the widespread social messaging we have to programs like ALICE may actually serve to increase the freeze response and increase casualties. From a Psychology Today article about fight, flight or freeze:
If run and hide aren’t an option, the best advice is fight. It’s probably the most viable chance of surviving even if the odds are low. Mentally preparing with the thought that low odds is synonymous with no chance of defeating the “frighteningly dangerous opponent” is a problem. IMO that’s mentally preparing for “Run, Hide, Stand quietly while waiting to die.” I don’t like that list of options. I never heard that shot in anger during my military service. Maybe I freeze when it’s real for the first time. Maybe I don’t; I made a number of quick decisions that saved me from serious injury of death over the years. I’m not going to mentally prepare myself to fail when fighting is the only option left.
I’m not following you, here. The scenario the OP presents is that in response to a shooter showing up somewhere unexpectedly, you should rush them, and you can cover 30 feet in 2 seconds to take them out.
That’s pretty analogous to my hypothetical, and is totally silly. You can’t make it.
I don’t think there’s an implication that you’re specifically targeted. This is in response to the latest mass shooting news.
I agree with your video that the right response is to run away from an attacker as fast as you can.
I was thinking in terms of saving the most people and limiting casualties by rushing a shooter. I also was referring to a situation where we started conditioning ourselves to rush a shooter so maybe a dozen guys at once would attack rather than run. It is not always just about saving our own ass but we do want to give ourselves at least decent odds. With several rushing our odds would likely be better than it might be to run. Only about 25% of the shots are fatal.
(bolding mine)
Now read what you wrote and tell me you don’t see the flaw in your logic.
mmm
Help me out here. I see a situation where 30 might die as opposed to maybe 2 or 3.
Is that always true? I guess it depends what you mean by “in the open”. Of course, if a crowd outside is being sprayed with hundreds of rounds from an automatic weapon (like in Las Vegas) obviously freezing in place isn’t a good plan. But if you’re part of a crowd in a bar, it’s not easy to hide, and the shooter is picking out specific people one by one and aiming at them, isn’t a “stand quietly, don’t make myself prominent or noticeable” strategy reasonable?
Wow, that was a leap.
You know, we don’t let people drive a car without actually testing them to see if they know the rules of the road and can safely operate a vehicle. Why don’t we have at least that for gun ownership these days? And no, people with psychological/mental health problems of certain types should not be permitted to own guns. If the condition is transitory/treatable then gun use might be allowed so long as the condition is under control. If it’s not - no, they should not be permitted to own or use guns for the safety of the rest of us.
And, frankly, I wish our society was a lot more open about screening for and treating mental health issues not just for gun safety but because it would make for a better society with healthier, happier, more functional people. But that’s not gonna happen in my lifetime.
Now there’s a tag line. Get creative working on storyboards, we’re working through the weekend, people!