A gunman opens fire in public place. If everyone charged at him would they limit the total number of casualties? I’m assuming the shooter has a hand gun and not something like a fully automatic assault rifle. I think they would because the shooter would have to take time to reload or change guns. If you get to him B4 he can reload you stop the casualties at the number of shots in one weapon. Of course there are a number of variables but could it work?
Yes. Mass, human-wave attacks are very hard to stop. Unfortunately, it takes highly-trained and motivated troops to continue the attack while taking heavy casualties. Not the kind of behavior you would expect from a random crowd with escape routes. As for the reload…well, I can swap mags in my 9mm in less than 2 seconds. How far can you run in that length of time?
I often wonder why no one jumped on the guy at Virginia Tech. Would the casuality list have been less. One can only postulate. But he had to reload at least 4 or 5 times…
That is difficult to answer as you identified that there would be a lot of varibles. One would be if the shooter had a large caliber hand gun and would expect to only have to shoot the victims once before they were disabled. Another consideration would be the mindset of the shooter. Does he want to kill all that he/she fires upon, or just wound? Reloading a semi-automatic handgun can be done fairly quickly depending upon the skill of the shooter.
I am more concerned with why you would ask that. Is it an experience you had or someone you know has had? Or is it just to fight ignorance?
Sgt Schwartz
I brought this politically incorrect rant up on another board:
The responses ranged from “You’re going to hell for this” or “What would you have done, tough guy?”
Yes. Monday Morning quarterbacking always has the answers.
It would certainly work with a handgun. We have discussed similar scenarios in general before. It should take 4 highly trained people at max to stop an armed gunman shooting from an open position. Imagine the gunman being at the center of an X and 4 people charging into the center in a coordinated fashion from each point of the X for a surprise take-down. No one can shoot well enough and fast enough to take down more than two of them especially since they are converging from back and forth, left and right. However, it is likely that one person or possibly more will be hurt or killed themselves but the main problem is the coordination of effort under those types of circumstances.
Bullshit. Unless those people were already within 10 feet a semi-competent gunman could cap all 4 before they got near him. I’ve trained in situations where you have to engage multiple targets from different directions, and I can get a double-tap off on 3 different targets in less than 3 seconds. I repeat my observation above: How fast can you run? You would never get the people into position for your hypothetical take-down.
20 feet per second or so. Mossad Ayoob demonstrated a guy 30 feet away closing in under 2 seconds (pro witness for a self defense plea, IIRC)
Yes a bunch of people (6 or 7) rushing a shooter could take him down and save more lives than the 3 or 4 he’ll shoot, but any one individual is probably safer hiding and hoping they’ll be spared. The flight 93 folks didn’t act until they knew that by doing nothing they were all going to die.
It would only work if the shooter was rushed en masse. If you charge the shooter alone, you’re dead. Without the ability to coordinate with the crowd around you, this wouldn’t work.
Yeah, one of my professors told our class right after the VT shootings that his plan was that, if anything like that happened, we all rush the shooter. I called “bullshit” for two reasons; first, I’m bigger and quicker on my feet that anyone else in the class and I know I’d be the first one there and the first one shot; in my middle age, I’ve come to value life very much. Second, when I was in the Army, we trained to defend our tactical operations center against commando intruders, and the instructors hammered into our heads that the faster we moved against the intruders the better our chances of survival. We soon learned that this was to counter the natural response to move AWAY FROM the threat. So if armed, trained soldiers had to be drilled repeatedly to attack a threat, how do you think unarmed college kids or office workers (very few of whom nowadays are veterans) would fare?
We all like to think we’d be the hero in the room. But heroes act without thinking; it never occurs to them to fail, and that’s what makes them heroic. Only one thing creates a person who reacts to threat by attacking it, and that’s training. I’m willing to bet anyone that the young men who barred the door to the classroom with a table were once athletes; the professor who survived the Holocaust was conditioned by his experience to resist evil almost intuitively.
The rest of us? We’ll run, like we’re supposed to.
Right, if we all rush him at once we can take him down when he’s only got 1 or 2 of us. Now, I need volunteers to be the first 1 or 2 in line.
The problem with your scenario is assuming that frightened, confused people with no formal training in a situation like this would even think to react this way.
I agree that most people would run and hide, it is the natural reaction. I am just surprised that none of the people involved were one of the kind that run the other direction.
It seems that this situation is a variation of the prisoner’s dilemma in game theory.
From the point of view of the group as a whole, it might be better for everyone to charge the gunman. However, looked at from the perspective of each of the individuals, their decision is either to run or hide (or even freeze), with some finite possibility of getting shot, or to charge the gunman, which significantly increases that individual’s chance of being shot.
It’s easy enough to say that the overall harm would be reduced if everbody charged, but to each of those specific bodies who might be personally harmed, the better individual choice would be to bug out.
I think Winston Churchill had a quote about this on a larger scale. Something like: “Pacifists are people who hope that the alligator will eat the other people first.”
But getting back to the OP. Of course it depends on a lot of variables. In many situations, yes it would help…a lot. And I’m pretty sure there are numerous incidents in Israel where this was proven to be true.
So, all the mass murderers with 2 handguns just shoot off all the shots, then reload both of them at once? Or do they unload one, then keep the other handy while reloading the other? If you have to pause to reload one, I totally see a mass charge working. When the killer has another handy, not so much.
I don’t think anybody has ever done a study, or would be able to determine the firing patterns of these nutballs. But reloading takes a matter of a second or two, and getting up, into position and attacking would take far longer.
Perhaps some were, and were inevitably killed. A mass charge, after all, requires a mass, not a lone would be hero. Any people inclined towards that tactic who aren’t idiots will realize that a lone charge will accomplish nothing, and they have no way to start a mass charge in these circumstances. They might try blocking the door or an ambush, but a frontal assault by one unarmed guy is a terrible tactic against a guy with a gun.