I wish I'd had a gun, not a camera

[ericire12]

One more good reason to carry.  I'm under no impression other than if caught in a similar situation, I'm maggot-meat walking if I do nothing. So I'm gunning for all it's worth.

Yeah, I'm starting to rethink the fact that I dont carry any extra mags.

[Fatman]

Yeah, I'm starting to rethink the fact that I dont carry any extra mags.

I always do.  It's tough being a realist amongst those living in a state of blissful denial. Seems if you actively plan for  defense, you're 'paranoid'.  To them I guess it's better to perish as a 'normal' person should when faced with violence. 

[SwoopSJ]

I am not a LEO, nor am I privy to the specifics of their training regarding engagement of hostiles.  That being said, as an armed citizen, I have no legal obligation to intervene in a terrorist attack either.  However, if I am armed and have even a little support, as these officers had in each other, I would consider it my duty to act instead of allowing innocent people to die.  Maybe I'm crazy, or maybe I would react differently if actually in that situation.  I would like to think the fear of a lifetime of regret would be greater than that of being shot, though.

Swoop

[SigShooter]

I basically agree with all the comments thus far. I fully intend to carry more ammo than just what will fit into the gun, ie spare mags. I also feel that the cops are called to a situation because the general public is under the impression that they have an obligation to intervene in an active shooter situation. If they will not intervene, I'd rather get a buddy to help me take care of the shooter, rather than have the cops guard the perimeter. Now we know why the Israeli's carry all the time. I don't remember any problems they've had in which a citzen did not solve the situation when the cops refused direct action. I do remember a recent event in which a terrrorist got ahold of a bulldozer and drove it down the street. I heard on the news that an Israeli citizen took a cop's gun and killed the terrorist. Problem solved. We could use people like that here in the US. And laws that let them take that kind of action without fear of prosecution.

[ericire12]

If they will not intervene, I'd rather get a buddy to help me take care of the shooter, rather than have the cops guard the perimeter.

if I am armed and have even a little support, as these officers had in each other, I would consider it my duty to act instead of allowing innocent people to die.

Swoop

Both very noble..... But I have to tell you, the only thing I would be concerned about would be getting out alive.

It may sound cowardly, but I have a wife and kids. I carry a gun to survive and to protect the lives of my loved ones. The only way I would engage an active shooter would be in a situation where I HAD TO  in order to get me and my family out alive.

Dont get me wrong, what you are saying is very heroic and I commend anyone who would commit such acts of bravery.... BUT my number one concern in a situation like the one in India would be to make sure my wife did not become a widow and that my kids do not have to grow up without a father.

When I am out and around town I usually am with my kids and/or wife, and in those situations the same rules apply. If I am alone and see a person being attacked by a bad guy, I would engage him if I had enough of a tactical advantage to swiftly end the situation (i.e. all the time in the world for a headshot) without any real danger to myself -- The element of surprise would have to be near 100%...... BUT there is no way in hell I would start a shoot out to save a perfect stranger if my wife and two little kids were anywhere close. 
 

[Sponsor]

[Fatman]

Not cowardly at all. Cowardly would be running and leaving your family on their own.  My personal instinct is to help if able, simply because it's my nature. 

If my wife and kids were with me, I've got to balance the two. My wife in the past has not acted properly when faced with a bad or possibly bad situation.

[Solus]

I have heard that the policy is slowly changing because of Columbine, but again, the LEOs are not obligated to intervene at any time under any circumstances. Their sole legal obligation as a police "force" (not on an individual basis) is to preserve public order.

Anyone with fairly recent LEO training want to comment on this? I'm guessing the training now is:
1. Call it in
2. Take cover
3. IF you can intervene and end the shooting without putting yourself or others at risk, intervene
4. Otherwise, wait for backup and/or the SWAT team

Here is a link where the work on this topic is discussed.  It is a long read with some links to other resources.  So if you are inerested, here it is.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6278

[jnevis]

First let me say, as I did on the MB Blog side, that the picture of the terrorist standing there (basically unarmed BTW, no mag in the AK) plus some footage of a couple of mall and school shootings should  be made into a commercial with a voice  over with "The Police can't help you until it's actually over" and a graphic stating "This only happens in 'Gun Free Zones'." 

Second, I recently completed a CrimJustice course with our local Sheriff as the instructor.  He was the SRT commander and taught "Active Shooter Response" for a number of years.  The policy here, and in a lot of other places, is that the first responding officer is to make entry and at a minimum locate and possibly neutralize an active shooter.  The days of "Hold and wait for SWAT" are over.  There is a lot of emphiasis on single and multiple (two-four) officer building clearing being taught at the Academy.  Active shooters and terrorists aren't planning on walking out and want the body count as high as they can get it.  Waiting for back up will only add to the count.  Plus as a "Duty to act" an officer is acting for the common good by stopping a shooter which is above the protect the individual rule.

Third, the officer that stopped the Utah Mall shooting a couple years ago kicked himself repeated for not having at least one extra mag.  He carried a 1911 but only had the 8+1 to use against a guy with plenty of firepower.  Even only one mag would have been 17 rounds to stop the threat.  Even if the AWB is enacted and the limit is 10 in a mag that's 21 available if you need it.  The extra weight/discomfort is nothing to needing it if the exriment impacts the rotator.  You as an individual may not be responsible to act but you should use all means available to you to escape and stay alive.  If that means going on the offensive to get to an exit so be it.   

my $.02

[cooptire]

Both very noble..... But I have to tell you, the only thing I would be concerned about would be getting out alive.

It may sound cowardly, but I have a wife and kids. I carry a gun to survive and to protect the lives of my loved ones. The only way I would engage an active shooter would be in a situation where I HAD TO  in order to get me and my family out alive.

Dont get me wrong, what you are saying is very heroic and I commend anyone who would commit such acts of bravery.... BUT my number one concern in a situation like the one in India would be to make sure my wife did not become a widow and that my kids do not have to grow up without a father.

When I am out and around town I usually am with my kids and/or wife, and in those situations the same rules apply. If I am alone and see a person being attacked by a bad guy, I would engage him if I had enough of a tactical advantage to swiftly end the situation (i.e. all the time in the world for a headshot) without any real danger to myself -- The element of surprise would have to be near 100%...... BUT there is no way in hell I would start a shoot out to save a perfect stranger if my wife and two little kids were anywhere close. 
 

I agree 100%. The only way I would intervene further would be if I had the backup of a trusted friend. They are not usually around when I'm out with the family so I don't see that happening unless I know 1,000% that the family is safe!

[Ichiban]

On a related note, it was almost one year ago that Jeanne Assam demonstrated the proper way to deal with an active shooter when he made the mistake of coming into her New Life church.  If I recall correctly, he had an AR, a shotgun, and a couple of handguns and ammo out the wazoo.  She had her Beretta 92.  Surely the last thing he expected was for someone to return fire and to confront him in an aggressive posture. 

Terrorists would probably respond differently, specially if they had any training.  I don't think she would have.