CCW tactics thought

[Darknight]

I have read a lot of posts about the Aurora shooting on this forum. A lot of people are saying that they would take cover first. Although I agree with that initially, one has to always evaluate what they are using for cover in an active shooter scenario. I have actually never shot at a movie theatre seat, but if I were a betting man I would bet an AK round would go right through it and then through you.

The other issue here is the confronting of the active shooter. Most say that they would not confront, but would rather use cover, evade and then fight back if necessary. In reading up on a lot of the shootings in the last few years, the number one thing I noticed was that when confronted by another person with a gun most all of them have given up quit easily. They are mostly just cowards preying on the week and ultimately they don't want to die either.

As far as the body armor stopping the bullets from small caliber hand guns and the bad guy not feeling it; maybe if he was on pcp, but if you don't think he's going to feel it, then just take a baseball bat pad up and have someone give you a line drive in the chest and let me know how that feels. Most CC guns have hollow point ammo that is made for maximum stopping power with little penitration. Bottom line is your gonna feel it.

 

[Riot]

I have read a lot of posts about the Aurora shooting on this forum. A lot of people are saying that they would take cover first. Although I agree with that initially, one has to always evaluate what they are using for cover in an active shooter scenario. I have actually never shot at a movie theatre seat, but if I were a betting man I would bet an AK round would go right through it and then through you.

Although you are correct in the assessment that an avergage movie seat will not stop a 7.62x39 (FYI, the primary gun used by James Holmes was a S&W M&P AR-15 in .223), the act of "taking cover" means to duck down; creating a smaller profile target against the shooter. Also while the chairs are not COVER, they do provide CONCEALMENT against a shooter- thus making yourself harder to hit. Do you honestly advocate looking to see what gun and ammunition is being utlized by a shooter before ducking behind some chairs? I think not. The key here is to realize the limitations of your environment and adapt appropriately.

The other issue here is the confronting of the active shooter. Most say that they would not confront, but would rather use cover, evade and then fight back if necessary. In reading up on a lot of the shootings in the last few years, the number one thing I noticed was that when confronted by another person with a gun most all of them have given up quit easily. They are mostly just cowards preying on the week and ultimately they don't want to die either.

Which shooters? You cannot bulk every shooter with the actions of a couple shootings...I can name a handful- even recent shootings- where the shooter only stopped shooting after he was dead. Did the person engaging him with return fire save lives? I can say with little doubt that YES, the act of occupying the shooter's attention probably saved lives. Nevertheless, my job with my gun is for my safety and that of my immediate family...not saving your life or your family. What that means is that I'm not going to go out and play hero with anyone and you shouldn't advocate that either. I carry my firearm for SELF DEFENSE, not for YOUR DEFENSE. Running around with your gun out is asking for trouble. If the shooter, himself, doesn't take you out then another CCWer might or even an off-duty cop.

As far as the body armor stopping the bullets from small caliber hand guns and the bad guy not feeling it; maybe if he was on pcp, but if you don't think he's going to feel it, then just take a baseball bat pad up and have someone give you a line drive in the chest and let me know how that feels. Most CC guns have hollow point ammo that is made for maximum stopping power with little penitration. Bottom line is your gonna feel it.

So what you are saying is that people are more likely to be stopped if they are wearing a vest than if they weren't? Unless you hit a vital organ, a determined individual can be shot several times and still function. Wearing a vest protects those vital organs- meaning that you can still function even with a 10-ring hit.

I have personally seen people get sprayed, tazed, beaten and shot that have continued to fight even though the weapon did exactly what it was suppossed to do. Those people had no drugs in their system...most, however, had a history of mental illness and could not feel any pain at that time.

Bullets aren't majical man stoppers. They have limitations and are even designed to not "over penetrate" a human being. Add armor and you have a variable that all major bullet manufacturers have not accounted for (mainly because they don't want to be known as "cop killer" bullets). Sure the dude will be bruised and will probably have a few broken bones (i.e. ribs) but that, alone, is not going to stop someone. Heck they probably won't even know they were hit by a bullet until the adrenaline subsides. It's called the "flight or fight" response for a reason.

 

[Darknight]

Riot; We made the same point on topic of the movie theatre seats. Being aware of the limitations of the cover you may choose is wise and was my point. IF your not a sheeple you would be one of the guys that realizes this long before sitting down with the popcorn. It doesn't matter what the caliber, it could have been a 9mm, and I still don't think a movie theatre seat would have stopped it. I agree with ducking so as not to presnt a larger target for the shooter. As far as which shooter, well if you read my post it says the Aurora shooting. Was there more than one shooter in the theatre? I thought there was only one and as such I was perfectly clear.

Your reference to recent shootings and bulking them together may be correct, depending on what you consider recent, however you didn't quantify recent; is that one month or two or is that in years. I did quantify my sampling to the last few years. So I was clear on that as well.

I did not advocate confronting every shooter as a civillian. You are reading a lot into what I posted. You are correct that not every shooter stopped when confronted. But, I didn't refer to every shooter. Making a decision to confront an active shooter is a personal choice given the immediate circumstances and everyone on this forum would have a different opinion about it. I did just give my observation and opinion though; just as you did.

Expecting a gun to just stop someone dead in their tracks is just in the movies. It is possible though and has happened. I believe I covered the penetration of ammo that most, I hope, are using in their off-duty and CC weapons. I sure wouldn't want someone using an FMJ for over penetration issues like you pointed out. Hollow points are not made to penetrate as much as they are made to expand and use thier energy to stop someone; which is what I believe I said in not so many words. Just because you shoot someone directly in the heart doesn't mean they are going to stop either; People have had their hearts shot with very large holes in them and manged to return fire.

I have had the same experience with tasing and pepper spraying someone. It doesn't just stop them in their tracks and nor is it designed to do so. Those impliments are designed to TEMPORARILY disorient, distract or otherwise incapacitate an individul giving you time to gain physical control of them or do a tactical retreat. That was my point with the body armor and shooting someone while they are wearing it. You are going to feel it and it will get your atttention if not for just a second or two. That may give you time to do a tactical retreat and get the hell out of there or close some realestate between you and the shooter to your next cover, whichever your goal may be.

I didn't want to write a book on the issue to explain myself. I guess I was overly presumptuous that most people on here understood basic tactics and ballistics. To each his own.

 

[Thebastidge]

I can't disagree with the options presented by official Active Shooter training (in order):

Get away
Hide
Engage

However, the important thing to know BEFORE a situation happens, is the criteria that invalidate the first two options. The first two options can in some cases, be taken off the table before you have a choice to make.

In Aurora, this was the case. There was no evacuation path, and no cover to be had. The only rational option was to engage with a firearm, but every single one of those people had failed to prepare themselves for it.

The discussion is not whether you have a duty to defend other people (although you DO have the right. The law allows you to defend third parties just like you are allowed to defend yourself and your family.) The discussion is about what tactics are most effective in accomplishing the goals you set for yourself, whether that is defense of the inncoent in general or just yourself and your family specifically.

In most of the active shooter cases that have cropped up since we started studying the issue, it has been determined by best judgement, that the shooter is going to continue until stopped or at least confronted. Whether killed, incapacited, or startled out of their fugue state.

 

[Riot]

Riot; We made the same point on topic of the movie theatre seats. Being aware of the limitations of the cover you may choose is wise and was my point. IF your not a sheeple you would be one of the guys that realizes this long before sitting down with the popcorn. It doesn't matter what the caliber, it could have been a 9mm, and I still don't think a movie theatre seat would have stopped it. I agree with ducking so as not to presnt a larger target for the shooter. As far as which shooter, well if you read my post it says the Aurora shooting. Was there more than one shooter in the theatre? I thought there was only one and as such I was perfectly clear.

Your reference to recent shootings and bulking them together may be correct, depending on what you consider recent, however you didn't quantify recent; is that one month or two or is that in years. I did quantify my sampling to the last few years. So I was clear on that as well.

I did not advocate confronting every shooter as a civillian. You are reading a lot into what I posted. You are correct that not every shooter stopped when confronted. But, I didn't refer to every shooter. Making a decision to confront an active shooter is a personal choice given the immediate circumstances and everyone on this forum would have a different opinion about it. I did just give my observation and opinion though; just as you did.

Expecting a gun to just stop someone dead in their tracks is just in the movies. It is possible though and has happened. I believe I covered the penetration of ammo that most, I hope, are using in their off-duty and CC weapons. I sure wouldn't want someone using an FMJ for over penetration issues like you pointed out. Hollow points are not made to penetrate as much as they are made to expand and use thier energy to stop someone; which is what I believe I said in not so many words. Just because you shoot someone directly in the heart doesn't mean they are going to stop either; People have had their hearts shot with very large holes in them and manged to return fire.

I have had the same experience with tasing and pepper spraying someone. It doesn't just stop them in their tracks and nor is it designed to do so. Those impliments are designed to TEMPORARILY disorient, distract or otherwise incapacitate an individul giving you time to gain physical control of them or do a tactical retreat. That was my point with the body armor and shooting someone while they are wearing it. You are going to feel it and it will get your atttention if not for just a second or two. That may give you time to do a tactical retreat and get the hell out of there or close some realestate between you and the shooter to your next cover, whichever your goal may be.

I didn't want to write a book on the issue to explain myself. I guess I was overly presumptuous that most people on here understood basic tactics and ballistics. To each his own.

Since you chose to be condescending in your replies, I guess I'll have to do the same...what you advocated in your previous post was to not take cover because movie theater chairs don't stop bullets and that even though someone is wearing armor, your pistol is going to be effective in neutralizing the threat. The only thing you were "clear" about in your previous post is that you have no idea what gun James Holmes actually used and your lack of knowledge as to the combat effectiveness of an armed, determined active shooter with armor in an obvious position of advantage.

The three things you need to survive a violent encounter are SPEED, SURPRISE and VIOLENCE OF ACTION. From the sounds of it, James Holmes had all of the above....he even threw in gas and fired off rounds in the air to add to the chaos to create a "target rich environment". Standing up to engage said shooter is going to get you shot and or you may shoot innocent bystanders in the process. That theater was PACKED with people. Imagine everyone running in every which direction because everyone was in condition WHITE before the incident.

If I was in the theater, I would have tried to lay low until I could take advantage of the situation (i.e. engage while he was reloading).

True, it sucks and I may even get shot through one of those cheap plastic theater chairs by his modified S&W M&P AR-15 to an AK, but I've improved my odds. I took cover, assessed and attempted to engage at a position of advantage to me, not the shooter.

Also, there is nothing wrong with choosing to have FMJ bullets in a spare magazine just for such an encounter. Many times I do just this- I have a third magazine with FMJ to go through cover more effectively. You just have to realize that the likelihood of over penetration is higher with FMJ than with JHP.

Lastly, there were several active shooters (even more recent than James Holmes) that only stopped after being shot dead by the police...

Wade Michael Page (Sikh Temple Shooter)
Thomas Caffall (<broken link removed>)
Jeffrey Johnson ( <broken link removed> )

So to say that active shooters "are mostly just cowards preying on the week and ultimately they don't want to die either" is a naive statement at best. Many are cowards, but they are willing to die for their cause or want to "suicide by cop" to avoid living with the consequences of their actions. Some, however, use the shootings as political statements and like the added attention that a courtroom causes (such as Anders Breivik, the Norway Shooter). The only constant variable is that it takes a sick, twisted, mentally disturbed individual to shoot innocent, unarmed people. A cup of plastic, red flowers with glitter being thrown at them may get them to stop shooting, or a bullet to the brain stem will get them to stop shooting...you take your pick.

 

[mjbskwim]

So I am sure many of us have thought about many situations where we might have to use or gun for defense of ourselves or others. We have seen in our minds how it might play out, how it should play out.

I have seen all the headlines about the recent movie shooting, but have not read the actual stories. I assume (you know how that goes) many of us see an incident where there is on clear aggressor in a reasonably well lit area. Probably a smaller area like a gas station or such.

Now take this movie theater situation. Over 100 people, in a dark area with loud outside stimulus (the movie) going on. Who do you shoot at if you feel you need to shoot? Anyone with a gun? Could that be another "CCWer" on defense? Is there only one shooter?

Now you have your gun out in an active shooter situation. How do you keep from being seen as the active shooter by another "CCWer"?

Just some more things to think about, I dont have the answers.

One of the big things is actually seeing the situation unfold.
If you walk on ot a situation and don't see who actually started the shooting,how do you know who to shoot?
Maybe the first shooter YOU see is the one defending themselves?
Maybe the bad guy is playing the victim now

In the theater situation,they seemed to have clarity of who the BG was.Nobody else started shooting.(even though some tin hats said there was more than one shooter)
So in the confusion and with everyone taking cover,and you trying to take control,shouting commands that nobody can make out,the BG undresses and assimilates into the crowd.

Now you are the shooter or at least the guy with the gun.

I think in most of these type situations,taking cover or trying to exit are your best bets.Unless someone is pointing the gun at me,I'm leaving ,instead of firing on anyone

Or are you willing to stand up and unload on the shooter? Get clean hits.
Maybe you try to shoot from cover and another person gets in the way,trying to flee?
Do you think you can walk away like the NY cops will?

Sucky situation to be in,but if self or family preservation is foremost,drawing and shooting doesn't seem to be the best bet,unless the BG or anyone has a gun trained on you and yours.

 

[Thebastidge]

First- the NYC guy was not an Active Shooter. He was a simple murderer who walked in, killed his target and walked out without offering violence to anyone else. The necessary response to that is entirely different than to an Active Shooter. An Active Shooter doesn't stop until he is stopped. All of the wounded in the NYC incident were wounded by the cops. Then he *apparently* committed "suicide by cop" by presenting a firearm and using it to draw their fire without actually firing himself. Chances are good that guy would have gone home and ate a bullet if the cops hadn't confronted him on the street. I am NOT blaming them for THAT, because there's now way to know for sure and they didn't have that information available at that time.

The Texas A&M guy was not an Active Shooter. He was a pissed-off guy who opened fire when he was confronted with an eviction order. Not trying to justify, simply to understand tactically that people confronted in their territoriality will react violently, often enough. He was being kicked out of his home. Dogs will bite when confronted on their own turf, and so will people.

The response to the above situations is necessarily differen than to an Active Shooter because of the motivations of the shooter.

However, MANY Active Shooters may well be stopped by a simple, effective action. The Aurora piece of crap surrendered to cops with no resistance. It's extremely likely he would have fled if there had been ANY effective resistance. If you look at the pattern for Active Shooters, they still aren't walking into gun shows, police stations, or Appleseed. They all pick nominally "gun-free zones."

Ultimately, if there's no cover, only concealment, you have no choice about escape and hide. That's my point about being instantly ready to confront. Even if you're unarmed. You may still be able to take down the gunman, even if you're shot in the process, even if you're unarmed. If you have a family to protect, this should be on your mind. Bravado aside, it's the third triangle of risk management: Avoid, mitigate, accept. You may get shot. You may get killed. There are zero guarantees. But there are better and worse ways to go out. Grovelling on the floor ineffectively while waiting to be killed doesn't appeal to me. (Getting shot and/or killed DEFINITELY doesn't appeal to me. That's why I carry, even where the signs say not to: in my jurisdiction, such signs have no force of law in themselves. If the proprietor of such a place makes a big deal about it, they'll lose my business.)

 

[Misterbill]

For all of you guys thinking you may be the hero here, I will ask this personal question:

How many times have you been present in the immediate vicinity of an unexpected shooting?"

If your answer is NONE, than I have to ask you to out of honesty, to bow out of this discussion because frankly, you've never been there and have NO idea how you would react. BRAVE MEN sometimes freeze, That's a fact. So this is no imputation on your personal character. But the honest answer is, if you haven't been there, "I DON'T KNOW."

That's a fine answer. Nothing wrong with it. And we all hope that in the event, we'll do the right thing. But until you've been there, "I DON'T KNOW," is the only honest response.

I HAVE been there, on two, really crappy occasions, both of which I wish I'd missed. I wish I HADN'T been there.

On both occasions I was not armed.

I'm the kind of idiot (and I mean that, it's not good for a long life-span) that "Rushes to the sounds of the guns." I only know that because that's what I've done.

But I know that FIRST AND FOREMOST, I took cover, grabbed those around me and physically slammed THEM into cover (usually before they knew what was happening) FIRST.

Only then did I look to see what I could do to be of use.

That's my experience, from real situations in which bullets were flying my way.

Given all the variables in this shooting, I seriously doubt that I would have been able to deploy a CCW weapon effectively. I sure as HELL would have had it in hand, but using it in another matter.

Not trying in any way to denigrate anyone else. But that's my experience and the experience of a lot of other very experienced people. If you have never been in this kind of immediate life-threatening situation, you simply don't know how you will react.'

Knowing that truth is far more useful than internet posturing. FWIW. -Bill

 

[Thebastidge]

Do mortars and rockets landing within a few feet count? If so, then yes. I have even been stuck in the middle of flat ground with no choice but to drop and hope it didn't land directly on top of me. I've been in a soft skinned vehicle with mortars walking toward me (50 yards, 25 yards in line and "is another one coming?" Who knows?") and had to ditch from the driver's door and get to a bunker.

Do close-by shots in my neighbourhood that I couldn't determine the direction of count? Close enough to merit putting people on the floor? Then yes again.

Everybody encounters novel situations of stress and danger. It's a popular thing to say you don't know until you've been there. It's even got some validity. But if you train yourself to be the person you want to be, you will be. I'm not talking about bravado. I'm talking about making a conscious decision as a man; "what kind of man do I want to be?"

If you want the pyschology behind that, Dave Grossman's books "On Combat" and "On Killing" are instructive.

A great deal of who we end up being, is modeled on what we're expected to be. A great deal of those expectations come from within.

 

[Botte Hork]

Thebastidge: Have your responses in some of these high adrenaline battle situations surprised you? I mean, you have received a lot of training, you get mentally prepared, but have you found that you looked back at some situations encounters and were surprised with how you responded or handled the situation? I can imagine training and preparation only go so far and the actual situation bringing out something you hadn't thought.

I hope I express myself clearly enough and I hope you don't take offense. I'm just very interested in hearing from someone who is now there, having never experienced anything even remotely close.

 

[Thebastidge]

If you train to do something, you tend to do it the same way under stress. LTC Grossman's books on combat tell a story about police officers in the bad old days training at the range. Hard-nosed training Sgts didn't want to clean up brass after everybody, so they constantly barked at people to pick up brass. These were officers with revolvers. The officers became conditioned to dump the spent brass in their hand and put it in their pockets to avoid having to chase it down afterwards.

Subsequently, many officer-involved shootings showed a dead officer, with a partly-reloaded revolver and 6 empty shells in his pocket. They took the time to put their brass away rather than reloading as quickly as possible.

Properly reinforced training imake you capable of great things, and improper training can get you killed. The highest level of training builds in decision points from a limited menu of options specific to certain conditions and allows your decision loop to be semi-automated. It's important to train "mindfully". This goes along with refuting "practice makes perfect" and substituting it with "perfect practice makes perfect."

If you train, and "game things out" in your head in a consistent, realistic fashion, you'll be surprised at how calm you seem to yourself and others in the moment. The reaction generally comes a little later.

Now, I'm still not going claim "been there, done that" status with real combat vets. I have not been in a position to return fire during an attack, but I have been in dangerous situations which called for action in emergencies and got the adrenaline flowing- first responder at accident scenes, minor medical emergencies with family, etc. You'd be surprised what you're capable of, and the naysayers are only contributing to the problem by undermining your confidence. Don't listen to them. Have expectations for yourself, and become the man you want to be.

 

[lamrith]

A great deal of who we end up being, is modeled on what we're expected to be. A great deal of those expectations come from within.

This struck a particular chord with me. This expectation is often formed and molded from a very young age by our parents and neighbors and how a person is raised. Yes training can provide that expectation later in life, but some of people recieve that formation of expectation at a very early age by who raises them and how.