"Combat" distances in active shooter situations?

[Koda]

Nope. Most active shooter situations are not stopped by swat teams they're stopped by the first cop that gets there.

like Orlando. Like Umpqua Community College, San Bernandeno, Columbine, Newtown...

Gresham high school was stopped by the first cop that got there but he cornered the shooter into a bathroom stall. The cop had a rifle. Not the same role as an CCW armed citizen at all.

 

[Sgt Nambu]

If they are trying to kill you?
I think you're thinking of California.

Sarcasm ill becomes a member of your status and quality, deaf!

The thread appears to be about an active shooter. If this is a mall, etc, attack and the attacker(s) is half the mall away the PTB are going to go after you if you engage him/them. Especially if one of your rounds harms a bystander!
If I'm being specifically targeted, then it's cover and aimed rapid fire, to the best of my ability! Apples and oranges!


Just jackin' you around! One of the big reasons you are a member of status and quality is sarcasm!

 

[nwslopoke]

In the 90s back when there was actual "work place" violence, there was a guy in my reserve unit that worked in an LAPD maintenance depot. They fixed electronics. Anyway an ex-employee came in an walked passed a few people. Actually verbally engaged my friend, saying something like, "this ain't for you". Walked in the supervisors office and killed a few people.

From all the reports and things I've heard over the years, the intent of the active shooter sort of dictates the distance. If someone just wants to create mayhem I would imagine the biggest arena that will enclose the largest amount of people, like a mall, theater, fair. Also, it depends if the shooter is planning to escape or not. Look at Chris Dorner. The one that went after LAPD assets as few years ago. He had several active shooting locations but he planned to escape. It wasn't a one way trip for him...ok it was in the end, but he was going to keep going until he was killed.

 

[clearconscience]

If you look at the recent shootings in Oregon most were stopped because the shooter was challenge. Matched fire by fire.
Most of these cowards when faced with opposition will flee and commit suicide.

I wouldn't hesitate to fire a couple opposition rounds to deflect the shooter and back him into a decision to take his life.
It's not always the case and depends on the shooters motivation.
Whether he's a dumb kid, or a lone wolf terrorist.

 

[Koda]

I wouldn't hesitate to fire a couple opposition rounds to deflect the shooter and back him into a decision to take his life.

yes but if you haven't trained for such an event how will you know you will hit your target at those distances amid all the chaos, where will your rounds go if you miss, what's going to happen if you hit a bystander?

 

[The Heretic]

If you are looking at a longer distance, you're required to evade if it's possible.

Who or what is requiring evasion of an active shooter beyond the fact that it may be a good idea?

I don't know of any law in Orygun that requires that you evade an active shooter.

 

[The Heretic]

In the workplace, for most people, distance is more or less an academic issue as most employers forbid firearms at the workplace.

I don't worry too much about it - the probabilities are very slim - "normal" crime is a lot more likely.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

In any given "Active Shooter situation" you have way to many "What ifs" to really get into without thread hijacking.

I would suggest that one not get stuck in a mindset of if A happens I will do B.
Combat rarely happens as planned and not being flexible can get you killed.
You might even be better off not shooting and just reporting on what you observe.
It is hard to say what to do here while typing in comfort with my coffee ....

As I stated earlier knowing where you need to aim to hit at 50 yards with a hand gun and 100 yards with a rifle might be a good baseline to start.
Andy

 

[clearconscience]

yes but if you haven't trained for such an event how will you know you will hit your target at those distances amid all the chaos, where will your rounds go if you miss, what's going to happen if you hit a bystander?

I'm stating that knowing the background is clear and my shot channel is clear of people running.
I'm not trying to hit the perp, just get close enough to make them rethink their target/decision.


NYPD doesn't give an F about bystanders.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Sarcasm ill becomes a member of your status and quality, deaf!

The thread appears to be about an active shooter. If this is a mall, etc, attack and the attacker(s) is half the mall away the PTB are going to go after you if you engage him/them. Especially if one of your rounds harms a bystander!
If I'm being specifically targeted, then it's cover and aimed rapid fire, to the best of my ability! Apples and oranges!


Just jackin' you around! One of the big reasons you are a member of status and quality is sarcasm!

I hear you but an "active shooter" can be actively trying to shoot you.. from close to far.
You can either hit the target or not. I'd try to only take shots where I thought that I could hit, no matter the distance.
I think by law, in California, one is compelled to exhaust every avenue of escape.
This ain't California, thank God.

 

[clearconscience]

This is good write up, and it seems the solution from LEOs across the country is confront the threat immediately with force. The faster the threat is confronted the less people will die.
There are always variables, and every shooting is different. There is no way to be ready for every senario.
Be proficient, practice different styles, distances, different tactics, and most important: Carry Everyday!


http://m.policemag.com/article/2448/rethinking-active-shooter-response

 

[The Heretic]

Fifty yards is farther than you think. I live on 20 forested acres on a mountain outside of a rural area. If I step outside my house, no one direction, has a clear shot of 50 yards or more without something obscuring my vision of the target.

In my workplace there is no way I could take a shot at someone at 50 yards without quite possibly hitting an innocent person.

In a store/etc., the same is pretty much true. Even in a parking lot, any shot would be risky. There are just too many people in the foreground and background. It would take some luck and maneuvering to get into a position where a clean shot was possible such that if I missed I wouldn't possibly hit an innocent.

That is why active shooters choose these environments; they are target rich.

 

[Koda]

I'm stating that knowing the background is clear and my shot channel is clear of people running.
I'm not trying to hit the perp, just get close enough to make them rethink their target/decision.

This is good write up, and it seems the solution from LEOs across the country is confront the threat immediately with force. The faster the threat is confronted the less people will die.

The police arent shooting to miss... if your not trying to hit the perp, then your not justified in shooting your gun. Think about how you will become part of the investigation when the perp "rethinks" their target/decision to another person or direction. Think about how you will become part of the event when the perp shoots back at you now that you've blown your cover and missed... on purpose.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I'm not saying 50 yards for a handgun is marked in stone.
Or that you must be able to hit at that distance.
50 yards is indeed far for a handgun.

I was just thinking of the "combat" in the thread title.
In my experience my combat shooting has been done from "bad breath" distance to about 500 yards ( for some of my rifle shooting )
Again just my experience and not saying that it must be my way or else.

Being flexible in your thinking and not stuck in a fixed "I must to this if this happens" mindset is far more useful in a situation as described.
( not saying you or anyone here is doing that )
Andy

 

[clearconscience]

I'd take that chance with several lives at risk. In an active shooter situation with the possibility of a mass casulty rate I'm sure the people who's lives are at risk and the loved they would leave behind wouldn't mind.

Any shot over 30yrds +/- may be an off target shot.
You can practice all you want, adrenaline, stress, fear, chaos changes everything.

You can't practice those circumstances.

So the arguement is pointless.

Just like war. Supressive fire, move to cover.

 

[The Heretic]

This isn't hollywood and I am not trained in military tactics (I had a little bit of LEO training in shoot no shoot scenarios) - nor do I think military tactics would necessarily be a good idea in this scenario.

As mentioned, it is hard to say what a person would/should do in such a situation as it would be mostly chaos.

I generally don't go armed - I don't feel the need to most of the time, and 90+% of my life is either at work or at home. At work I can't be armed as I would be fired if discovered and I could forget about ever getting a job in my profession again as I would be blacklisted.

At home the scenario is not likely as there are few targets here and most are armed in some fashion - active shooters generally don't start a rampage in a sparsely populated mountain neighborhood where everybody and their dogs has guns. When I go armed here it is because something tripped my lights at night and it might be a bear or cougar - that is if I go out at all (it is usually deer or a neighborhood dog or a raccoon or skunk).

But if I was armed and in such a scenario, I would not be using "suppressive fire" in an area with innocents scattered all around, where the walls are thin and easily penetrated, where such shooting can windup injuring or killing an innocent.

The only shot I would take would be one where I would be sure of hitting the shooter and that would most likely be a very close distance.

 

[Koda]

I'd take that chance with several lives at risk. In an active shooter situation with the possibility of a mass casulty rate I'm sure the people who's lives are at risk and the loved they would leave behind wouldn't mind.

Any shot over 30yrds +/- may be an off target shot.
You can practice all you want, adrenaline, stress, fear, chaos changes everything.

You can't practice those circumstances.

So the arguement is pointless.

Just like war. Supressive fire, move to cover.

no, not even close to "just like war" were not talking about a platoon of enemy soldiers here.
I dont think the argument is pointless, you can train for stress and chaos its called building your muscle memory. Under stress your actions will default to the level of your training.

Your talking about firing warning or suppressive shots at an active shooter in the off chance it will change his mind, but then saying you cant practice those circumstances as if firing warning shots would be anything stress free. I just don't agree with that tactic at all it opens you to a huge list of liability. Warning shots are illegal just like "suppressive" fire is... Warning shots is considered the same as deadly force and if your life was not in danger your not justified to shoot and will be held liable to any change in outcome of the events none of which would give you credit for stopping the shooting.

 

[clearconscience]

To me it's all irrelevant. My family is more important than anything. My job is to keep them safe. If it comes down to liability and my kids living, liability goes out the window faster than the first bullet.

I'm not saying spraying bullets indiscriminately, or firing warning shots, but well placed, if there's opportunity, to get hesitation or fear in the mind of an attacker.
You can plan, practice all you want, more times than not unless your accustomed to high stress/chaotic environments where you can remain steady handed, and your heart won't be pounding your point of aim off by several feet. You shouldn't be shooting period.

How many LEO videos do you see where they are less than 10 yds, fire a magazine of ammo and hit nothing, or very few times.

Muscles memory won't save you during those times.

Better to do a bunch of push ups, sit ups, and sprint a 100 yards and practice shooting a different distances.
Have your buzzy tazer your anus, then keep rapping that tazer while you try to fire accurately.
Good luck.

There's a reason why they are telling LEOs to rush into active shooter senarios now. Get there quick, to assume the threat. If you wait, more people die.

Just like the kid in clackamas, when he saw a CHL holder, and then heard LEOs rushing in. He ran away and offed himself.
Same with Reynolds HS.

That won't always be the case, but it helps.
Personally I would engage and have my family run. If he's shooting at me, he can't be shooting at my family.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Lots of good ideas all round! I am going to take SgtNambu's recommendation and get the hell out of any situation if I can. I have Zero responsibility to engage a shooter in defense of others, my prime directive is to get me and mine out of there, If I have to shoot to be able to do so, then so be it. Once outside the threat arena, then I can decide IF I may need to bring the fight back to the shooter, but likely not, unless I can get to my rifle! If caught up directly, then it's on and I will keep shooting at the tango until he is no more, or I go down! Up close, I have a chance, but as the distances increase, so do the chances for missing, or worse, hitting a bystander! This is something I simply cannot risk! I think we as CC folks feel that we have an obligation to help if we can, but the reality is that often, there is no choice or chance for us! Still, To have the slim possibility of being the One and only person in place when things go sideways makes being armed much better then not! In that, I will always be armed, my chances of living through something are better if I have armed options available!

 

[Koda]

I'm not saying spraying bullets indiscriminately, or firing warning shots, but well placed, if there's opportunity, to get hesitation or fear in the mind of an attacker.

that's trying to apply reason to someone who has gone off the deep end but I digress...
What is a "well placed" shot? It doesn't matter what you call it, its considered using lethal force and you need to understand the legality of using lethal force. Your going to be held responsible for each "well placed" bullet and its going to destroy something that your not legally justified in destroying and the fact that you purposely didn't aim at the suspect is admission that you weren't justified in firing your gun. You should read a book called Deadly Force by Massad Ayoob, he discusses "well placed" shots in there.

here is an example of a "well placed" shot...