Stopping an active shooter

[Tez3]

Just like to say that not everyone does the 'sensible' thing and will actually run towards the danger in order to help. It's something veterans and serving military everywhere do.
British soldiers ran towards danger to help victims of Las Vegas shooting

 

[PhotonGuy]

Somewhat sorta, kinda.

The first rule of a gunfight (even if you don't have a gun) is MOVE! Moving targets are an order of magnitude harder to hit and this guy wasn't using aimed fire apparently. Don't stand around and try to determine where the bullets are coming from. Move.

Having a gun in a situation like this wouldn't help. Even if you had a rifle you would not want to return fire and shoot at the hotel as you could hit innocent people in other rooms.

 

[Steve]

I know it's frustrating to you but that's just not how laws work.

"Loophole" is what people call it when the law doesn't cover what they want it to cover, either ex post facto, or because they didn't write the law to cover what they thought they were.

There is a reason why laws are so detailed and specific. Lack of specificity means that whoever is interpreting the law can shift it one direction or another. That's why Maryland's Attorney General Maura Healey was able to interpret Maryland's "Assault Weapon" ban's language of “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon to ban rifles which were apparently not intended using the reasoning that, "If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a 'copy' or 'duplicate,' and it is illegal." Because the law lacked sufficient specificity, she suddenly decided to ban a bunch of guns, previously ruled as legal under the exact same law (it's important to remember this), that they were "copies" or "duplicates" because they shared a common operating system or could swap a component. So any gas-operated or recoil operated semi automatic rifle is a copy or duplicate. Any rifle which can share a barrel or a trigger with a named banned rifle is therefore a copy or duplicate.

It's not a loophole. That's just what people say.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Err.. couple of quick things. I'm not frustrated at all. well, I'm frustrated on a much higher level about things going on in our country, and this is a part of that. I'm sorry if you're getting frustrated. As I've said several times, there are some folks on this thread who understand what you're saying and just don't think it's the central issue. You clearly believe it's the entire issue, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean you're right and they're wrong. It's like if you're on a car lot and you need a pickup truck that can pull a trailer, and the salesman is telling you how great the 4x4 works off road. He's probably not wrong about the 4x4, but it just doesn't matter to you. You aren't disagreeing with that; you're really just trying to discuss something else.

When you say, ""Loophole" is what people call it when the law doesn't cover what they want it to cover, either ex post facto, or because they didn't write the law to cover what they thought they were." I think, "yeah. Exactly. That is literally the definition of a loophole." well, maybe not exactly. "Want it to cover" isn't quite right. It's less personal than that, I think. "Intended to cover" is more accurate. But mostly, yeah.

 

[oftheherd1]

Just like to say that not everyone does the 'sensible' thing and will actually run towards the danger in order to help. It's something veterans and serving military everywhere do.
British soldiers ran towards danger to help victims of Las Vegas shooting

Absolutely agree. Also quite often police. Parts of from the article:

"It was quite tough and I know it is a cliche but the training does kick in, it became second nature.

Trooper Zak Davidson, 21, from Hereford, said: "Training definitely kicks in and helps you keep a level head and the training we have done out here helps in stressful situations."

(My comment: Training does indeed kick in.)

The group, based in Norfolk, had been part of the regiment's 120-strong C Squadron, training in combat first aid at Fort Irwin in the California desert.

(My Comment: What incredible good luck for those the British soldiers were able to get to and treat.)

They are due to return home to the UK this weekend.

(My comment: We all, but especially the government of Nevada and Las Vegas owe them our gratitude. If they haven't been identified and thanked, I hope they are in the USA before they leave, and are again by the British military when they arrive home. I have no doubt they would be a little embarrassed, saying they were just doing their job)

Thanks for the link Tez3.

 

[lklawson]

Having a gun in a situation like this wouldn't help. Even if you had a rifle you would not want to return fire and shoot at the hotel as you could hit innocent people in other rooms.

So you're agreeing with what I wrote.

 

[drop bear]

Not really. Particularly given that planes have been used as weapons in high profile attacks before.

So have automatic rifles.

 

[drop bear]

Somewhat sorta, kinda.

The first rule of a gunfight (even if you don't have a gun) is MOVE! Moving targets are an order of magnitude harder to hit and this guy wasn't using aimed fire apparently. Don't stand around and try to determine where the bullets are coming from. Move.

The second rule is move to cover. This is harder because cover is loosely defined as a barrier which stops the bullets. What is cover from a 9mm pistol is not always cover against a .308 rifle, for instance. The corollary is that if cover isn't available, move to concealment. Concealment is a visual barrier which hides you and therefore makes it harder to be deliberately targeted.

The third rule is to return fire as quickly as possible, preferably while moving to cover or concealment. As a general rule no one wants to be shot and having your target shoot back creates a non-zero chance of you being shot, even if he's moving (to cover) while shooting at you. Most people understand that when your target is shooting back that they should hunker down. This usually means ceasing fire, reduced fire, and/or less accurate fire.

The fourth rule is to be the first to put accurate shots on target. This is hard to do but if you can put shots on the target, your chances of winning go way up. The more accurate the shots (to vital areas) the more your chances go up. The more quickly you put shots on target, the more your odds go up. While an attacker might be able to continue to attack you after he's been injured, he also might not, however, not being injured ensures that he is still capable of continuing to attack you. This rule is often (slightly erroneously) summarized as "The first person to put shots on target usually wins."

To be specific to this horrible event (may the murderer's soul be tortured for eternity), the recommendations are to MOVE to cover; walls, indoors, brick walls, hiding, etc. I do not believe it very likely that it would have been a great benefit to stopping the shooting had anyone in the victim zone been armed, even with a rifle. The murderer was active, according to official police timelines, for 11 minutes. It is not easy for people trained to it to track down the source of fire at that distance, hight, and location, deploy their weapon, and return fire. Particularly if it is not a two-person team with one acting as a "spotter." A few minutes of confusion followed by the team trying to find a good place to setup for fire, then tracking down the exact location as well as the requirement for much better accuracy than the murderer.

What made this murderer stop was apparently his discovery by the hotel security guard. Once he shot the guard, it appears that he stopped and likely committed suicide soon after. LEO was on the floor and in position in 11-12 minutes. I did not believe this at first. Heck it takes 8 minutes to climb the stairs to get the right floor. However, it has come out that a 8+ man police team was, by pure coincidence, right there on site and responded immediately (good training there!). But it was still well over an hour before LEO breached the room.

That said, if you are armed and do have sufficient training and practice, making difficult shots at distance, even with a pistol, is not only possible but has been done, as shown when Airman Andy Brown (AF Security Police) stopped the mass murderer at Fairchild AFB Hospital with a shoulder shot and a head shot from 70 YARDS using is issue Beretta M9 9mm pistol.

So would it have stopped sooner had any in the victim zone shot back? Probably not, but there is evidence to support a solid "maybe."

My bet? Move to cover.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Run,down,crawl,observe, aim,shoot.

 

[Buka]

 

[Paul_D]

However, Im thinking is there any way to stop this before it happens?

How Japan has almost eradicated gun crime

 

[DanT]

Having a gun in a situation like this wouldn't help. Even if you had a rifle you would not want to return fire and shoot at the hotel as you could hit innocent people in other rooms.

And also remember that he's in an elevated position and you have no idea where the shots are coming from. Returning fire even if you are sure of where he is will just get you pinned down behind some object and unable to return fire. You'll just make the people around you a target.

 

[Tez3]

How Japan has almost eradicated gun crime

I'm not sure how someone can disagree with this. It's not false news or made up, you might not like the way it is but as it's not your country, it's not your problem either. Think the 'disagree' needs an explanation.

 

[CB Jones]

I'm not sure how someone can disagree with this. It's not false news or made up, you might not like the way it is but as it's not your country, it's not your problem either. Think the 'disagree' needs an explanation.

Without getting too deep into politics....I disagree with taking away someone's ability to protect themselves or their families and for the most part disagree with it as a viable alternative in the US.

And "my country" was referenced in the article.

 

[Tez3]

Without getting too deep into politics....I disagree with taking away someone's ability to protect themselves or their families and for the most part disagree with it as a viable alternative in the US.

And "my country" was referenced in the article.

Then you should say so rather than disagree with the article because it makes it look like you think it's fake or false information which is unfair on the person who posted it.

I have never made any political comments on gun control and I don't intend to but I will say that what works for other countries works for them and is therefore not wrong for them. What you do is up to you however you don't like having your country criticised in turn don't criticise other countries which don't have your problems or concerns. The USA is unique where gun ownership is concerned, no other country has the same outlook on weapons nor has the need to feel they have to defend themselves. Whatever solution you find to your gun problems will be unique to you because other countries that aren't in a war civil or otherwise don't have the same problems.

 

[CB Jones]

Then you should say so rather than disagree with the article because it makes it look like you think it's fake or false information which is unfair on the person who posted it.

I have never made any political comments on gun control and I don't intend to but I will say that what works for other countries works for them and is therefore not wrong for them. What you do is up to you however you don't like having your country criticised in turn don't criticise other countries which don't have your problems or concerns. The USA is unique where gun ownership is concerned, no other country has the same outlook on weapons nor has the need to feel they have to defend themselves. Whatever solution you find to your gun problems will be unique to you because other countries that aren't in a war civil or otherwise don't have the same problems.

I would have been more than happy to explain why I disagree with the article to Paul D if he had asked.

The main reason I did not explain was I didn't want to get into the politics.

And regardless to what your opinion is I am still entitled to my own.

 

[drop bear]

And also remember that he's in an elevated position and you have no idea where the shots are coming from. Returning fire even if you are sure of where he is will just get you pinned down behind some object and unable to return fire. You'll just make the people around you a target.

And I assume get shot at by whoever is responding.

 

[Tez3]

I would have been more than happy to explain why I disagree with the article to Paul D if he had asked.

Why only him? All members see posts here and can ask.

And regardless to what your opinion is I am still entitled to my own.

And when you criticise others for not doing as you do that becomes more than an 'opinion'. My opinion on the subject is to each their own and not to criticise other countries for what they do.

 

[drop bear]

Without getting too deep into politics....I disagree with taking away someone's ability to protect themselves or their families and for the most part disagree with it as a viable alternative in the US.

And "my country" was referenced in the article.

And don't feel bad about giving someone else the ability to just mow down 50 dudes if he has a bad day?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm not sure how someone can disagree with this. It's not false news or made up, you might not like the way it is but as it's not your country, it's not your problem either. Think the 'disagree' needs an explanation.

I think he was disagreeing to it as a response to the post it was responding to.

 

[Tez3]

I think he was disagreeing to it as a response to the post it was responding to.

That's my point, we don't actually know do we? Just disagreeing with the Beeb would be pointless.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And I assume get shot at by whoever is responding.

Probably.