Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: A Taste of Federal "Active Shooter" Training

  1. #1
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331

    A Taste of Federal "Active Shooter" Training

    Well- I went a public forum training session earlier this week. Valid points about making a decision to as when to engage an "active shooter" and when to hide. They covered in detail about exiting a building with "hands in sight" as so LEOs can readily identify your innocence. etc. etc.

    Throughout the discussion of the "fight" option the LEO discussed how various "ordinary" items could be used as a defensive weapon, ex. stapler, scissor, etc. They then stressed that it is against the law to carry any weapon into the federal building. Oh, thanks guys, I didn't realize this already.

    Then they asked "who here knows what a gun shot sounds like?" Only about 5% raised their hand. The lead LEO stated, "I'm surprised that's quite a few!" In another portion he stressed, law enforcement will likely have a badge and a weapon so you can identify them from the shooter.

    They extended the discussion to include hypotheticals like being in a shopping mall, and other situations. Not once did they even mention of possibility of law abiding bystanders being armed. They painted an image that regardless of where this hypothetical situation would occur the only other party with a weapon would be LEOs, and they would be identifiable as such. Now granted, I'm sure as hell not going to risk my own life by drawing my weapon during an "active shooter" situation unless my family or I are directly faced with the threat, that does not mean another law abiding citizen wouldn't draw if he/she has a clear line in a safe direction.

    It's disgusting that in a country where we all have the "right to bear arms" (with the right validated as "extending to all law abiding citizens" SCOTUS 2008) that its fully expected only the "active shooter" would be armed, and that LEOs will assume and presumably shoot any good samaritan neutralizing the situation would be shot on site.

    I learned an important thing this week: I will not protect any citizen, ever, except myself and my family. But hey, it's DC so what should I expect? I can still decide on which part of my clothing I display my security badges when on client site, so I guess I have some type of freedom, right?
    Last edited by cirrusly; 06-15-2014 at 02:23 PM. Reason: Correction to minor verbiage and typographical errors.
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by cirrusly View Post
    SNIP...Throughout the discussion of the "fight" option the LEO discussed how various "ordinary" items could be used as a defensive weapon, ex. stapler, scissor, etc. They then stressed that it is against the law to carry any weapon into the federal building. Oh, thanks guys, I didn't realize this already.
    That right there would be a perfect time for a VERY sarcastic "Oh! Thank goodness! I thought we were completely at the mercy of any armed criminal that decided to disregard the laws, but now I feel SO MUCH safer."

    Quote Originally Posted by cirrusly View Post
    Then they asked "who here knows what a gun shot sounds like?" Only about 5% raised their hand. The lead LEO stated, "I'm surprised that's quite a few!" In another portion he stressed, law enforcement will likely have a badge and a weapon so you can identify them from the shooter.
    Only 5%? And this was training for armed security, right? Even my mother (who is only recently starting to turn from a passive to more active supporter on the pro gun front) knows what various pistols, rifles and shotguns sound like (you should see her point out the safety AND sound mistakes relating to firearms when watching an action movie at home); I'm so proud.
    On the other hand, did they even try to mention the possibility of a plainclothes/undercover cop pulling out a weapon (and badge, I suppose)?

    Quote Originally Posted by cirrusly View Post
    They extended the discussion to include hypotheticals like being in a shopping mall, and other situations. Not once did they even mention of possibility of law abiding bystanders being armed. They painted an image that regardless of where this hypothetical situation would occur the only other party with a weapon would be LEOs, and they would be identifiable as such. Now granted, I'm sure as hell not going to risk my own life by drawing my weapon during an "active shooter" situation unless my family or I are directly faced with the threat, that does not mean another law abiding citizen wouldn't draw if he/she has a clear line in a safe direction.
    Reinforcing the "only ones" notion... sickening.

    Quote Originally Posted by cirrusly View Post
    It's disgusting that in a country where we all have the "right to bear arms" (with the right validated as "extending to all law abiding citizens" SCOTUS 2008) that its fully expected only the "active shooter" would be armed, and that LEOs will assume and presumably shoot any good samaritan neutralizing the situation would be shot on site.
    As I said above, sickening to see the "only ones" mentality pushed as if it were gospel.

    Quote Originally Posted by cirrusly View Post
    I learned an important thing this week: I will not protect any citizen, ever, except myself and my family. But hey, it's DC so what should I expect? I can still decide on which part of my clothing I display my security badges when on client site, so I guess I have some type of freedom, right?
    One of the first threads I posted to was regarding this very question: should we intervene (translation: put ourselves at risk in bodily/legal terms) to save a known anti? A friend who happens to be anti? A stranger?

    I've seen the question worded differently, but the answers are more diverse than 64-pack of crayons. I can tell you my stance, but it probably won't make sense to you since it is a VERY personal decision.

    This whole thing makes me wonder (and fear) whether the training will soon find itself disseminated throughout the states...?
    Last edited by Rusty Young Man; 11-10-2013 at 11:29 PM.
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  3. #3
    Regular Member Kopis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by cirrusly View Post
    Then they asked "who here knows what a gun shot sounds like?" Only about 5% raised their hand. The lead LEO stated, "I'm surprised that's quite a few!" In another portion he stressed, law enforcement will likely have a badge and a weapon so you can identify them from the shooter.
    :
    what if the shooter is an LEO, employee or someone who is using a stolen uniform?


    A lot of shooting and violence is stopped by citizens but it's rarely reported on by national media.

  4. #4
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by Kopis View Post
    what if the shooter is an LEO, employee or someone who is using a stolen uniform?


    A lot of shooting and violence is stopped by citizens but it's rarely reported on by national media.
    Yup.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  5. #5
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331
    Forgot to mention one person started asked, "Why don't we screen everyone that enters the premises!?"

    For those who don't know- they already screen ALL visitors. This person was arguing that everyone should be screened through the airport-type screening each time they entered the premises. Obviously screening every employee, every time he/she entered the building would be wildly inefficient. For instance you leave to get coffee or lunch and go through 5 minutes of screening to renter?
    Last edited by cirrusly; 06-14-2014 at 05:49 PM.
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  6. #6
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331
    And the same woman in my previous post also argued...

    The presenters discussed assisting disabled people during the "active shooter" situation and if you are going to exit the building, consider assisting those disabled individuals in hiding somewhere. They also stated, "only assist those disabled colleagues who WANT to assistance." So, (half jokingly) he said, "don't force your colleague Joe into a broom closet if he does not want to go."

    This woman condescendingly explained that in the situation you should force them into the closet regardless, because with the commotion what if "they can't make a decision?!"

    The WORST part of all of this is not that your tax dollars go to her large salary, or that you're paying my bill rate to sit and listen to this; rather it's that her vote counts the same as your vote and my vote in elections.
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by cirrusly View Post
    And the same woman in my previous post also argued...

    The presenters discussed assisting disabled people during the "active shooter" situation and if you are going to exit the building, consider assisting those disabled individuals in hiding somewhere. They also stated, "only assist those disabled colleagues who WANT to assistance." So, (half jokingly) he said, "don't force your colleague Joe into a broom closet if he does not want to go."

    This woman condescendingly explained that in the situation you should force them into the closet regardless, because with the commotion what if "they can't make a decision?!"

    The WORST part of all of this is not that your tax dollars go to her large salary, or that you're paying my bill rate to sit and listen to this; rather it's that her vote counts the same as your vote and my vote in elections.
    In that case, I suggest a mandatory IQ test for this lady, as well as a mental competency test and psych evaluation because " she became hysterical when asked to think of an active shooter situation".
    On the other hand, maybe it's best not to set up any precedent?
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •