A Couple of Interesting Articles

[DerAuslander]

Yup.

You still don't get it.

[Rivington]

Sweet, no facts, no reasoning, no counter-logic. I win.

[DerAuslander]

Sweet, no facts, no reasoning, no counter-logic.

That's because you haven't proved me wrong.

[Rivington]

That's because you haven't proved me wrong.

Had I "proved" anything, there would be no possible recourse to facts, reasoning, or counter-logic. Stick with contemplating my sexy kung-fu dreams.

[DerAuslander]

Had I "proved" anything, there would be no possible recourse to facts, reasoning, or counter-logic. Stick with contemplating my sexy kung-fu dreams.

I would, if I wanted to read the latest Gorean novel.

[Rivington]

I would, if I wanted to read the latest Gorean novel.

Now I'm hot.

[Styygens]

The only real takeaway one can get from looking at Actually Existing Rampage Shootings is that doing something is better than doing nothing. Have a gun? Go for it! Don't have one? Looks like you should probably go for it anyway, because the cops aren't going to show up in time. That this simple conclusion makes you piss your saffron panties has little to do with me, or what you imagine I advocate.

I'm thinking this is the bottom line, which is one reason why police departments changed their tactics against active shooters.

But I'm also thinking there is merit to the point someone made earlier that unarmed responses are more effective because armed attackers often target unarmed individuals -- therefore raising the number of instances in which unarmed responses are successful.

A certain number of unarmed responses are successful due to sheer luck, and others are successful due to some tactical advantage -- such as simply surprising an over-confident attacker with audacity to mount a counter-attack, or attacking from behind, etc.

It seems you are advocating the use of a lesser tactical advantage (surprise and tackling) while DerAus is advocating responding with a greater tactical advantage (returning fire).

I'm not a military man, but I do believe there is a reason soldiers don't spend more time learning how to tackle enemy shooters than they do on the rifle range and rehearsing immediate action drills. I think it's because there's greater tactical advantage in those later tools than in rushing forward to tackle enemies and therefore a higher rate of success.

Just my $.02; I eagerly await having the holes in my thinking exposed.

[Permalost]

I'm not a military man, but I do believe there is a reason soldiers don't spend more time learning how to tackle enemy shooters than they do on the rifle range and rehearsing immediate action drills. I think it's because there's greater tactical advantage in those later tools than in rushing forward to tackle enemies and therefore a higher rate of success.

A soldier's job is more complex than taking down a single crazed gunman by oneself (despite what MCMAP suggests), so saying soldiers train to shoot, not tackle, therefore shooting is superior, isn't really comparing apples and oranges here. Soldiers work in organized groups with weapons that can coordinate across distances to achieve a variety of objectives.

I've heard it said that the defining characteristic of a warrior is the ability to close with the enemy. This is one reason that modern combatives incorporates sport grappling- it forces you eyeball to eyeball with a resisting person. The circumstances may dictate to shooting from behind cover, or going for the tackle, but the main thing is to take action, not lament your current armaments. This is basically what Riv said, so I don't really see what's being argued anymore.

[Rivington]

I'm thinking this is the bottom line, which is one reason why police departments changed their tactics against active shooters.

Yup.

But I'm also thinking there is merit to the point someone made earlier that unarmed responses are more effective because armed attackers often target unarmed individuals -- therefore raising the number of instances in which unarmed responses are successful.

It's certainly a possibility. I asked that poster—who actually made a slightly different claim, about locations where firearms are allowed—to show his work. He hasn't yet. Will you take up the call to show your work?

A certain number of unarmed responses are successful due to sheer luck, and others are successful due to some tactical advantage -- such as simply surprising an over-confident attacker with audacity to mount a counter-attack, or attacking from behind, etc.

The same is the case with armed responses from both civilians and police. Luck and some tactical advantage (or disadvantage, like the shooter has armor and the armed civilian or cop doesn't, which has happened) plays a role in every encounter. I've even made a guess as to why tackling works as well as it does: they seem to work best in school environments, where people actually train in tackling, and where the shooters tend to be small and weak, and don't have much practice in shooting lots of people. That's an example of tactical advantage, I think you'd agree.

It seems you are advocating the use of a lesser tactical advantage (surprise and tackling) while DerAus is advocating responding with a greater tactical advantage (returning fire).

I'm not advocating anything. Indeed, please review the thread and quote anything I've said that you read as "Always tackle, never shoot" or even "All else being equal, tackle rather than shoot." I guarantee that you'll find it nowhere except in your head, and in Der Aus's.

What I am actually doing is going through a list of shootings and pointing out that when Larry Correia writes "The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started," (emphasis mine) he is factually incorrect. In most cases, armed civilians weren't there when it started. Unarmed ones are. You can have whatever opinion you like; you may not have your own facts. Nobody can.

A second thing I am doing is ignoring appeals to Imaginary Shootings, in which the premise of the shooting event is that there a) will be cover for an armed counter-shooter to run for and b) will be time and space for the armed counter-shooter to run for it. The reason I am ignoring these appeals is because when looking at actual shootings, sometimes there is no cover and sometimes there is no time and space. Sometimes shooting still works best—as in the case of an armed security guard shooting someone who attacked a church. Sometimes it doesn't.

I'm not a military man, but I do believe there is a reason soldiers don't spend more time learning how to tackle enemy shooters than they do on the rifle range and rehearsing immediate action drills.

Do you think the solo (or occasionally dual) rampage shooter attacking a school, church, fast food restaurant, or workplace is a military issue? Heck, do you think the three people who tried to tackle Hassan at Fort Hood were poorly trained, or stupid? Or did they simply do the best thing they could given the situation they were in, whether it worked or not? We could ask the same about the cop who was wounded by Hassan and then relieved of her weapon by him too.

I think it's because there's greater tactical advantage in those later tools than in rushing forward to tackle enemies and therefore a higher rate of success.

You're making an appeal to the Imaginary Shooting, specifically the one in which you have placed the would-be tackler in front of the shooter so that he thus must start "rushing forward." Why not contemplate an Imaginary Shooting in which the tackler is behind the shooter, or the one where there is no cover, etc. It's not like there are so many rampage shootings that we can't actually go through them on a case-by-case basis and see when tackles fail and when shooting back fails—I've already done that work as well as one can do given the few minutes it's useful to spend on a bulletin board doing do. Rampage shootings aren't homogenous.

It's easy enough to imagine any set of conditions in which shooting back would work, and in which shooting back would not work. It's simply more useful to look at actual shootings and what tends to happen. What tends to happen is that by the time the cops show up, lots of people are dead, unless someone does something. In some cases, what someone does is shoot back—sometimes that works, and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes, one need only brandish a gun. Sometimes shooting back means dying. Same with tackling, or chasing someone away, or shoving them into another room.

What is interesting is that tackling seems to work fairly often. That may be because there are more tacklers around than shooters, but it's clearly also the case that nobody is told to tackle when faced with a gun—but it happens anyway, and works anyway, surprisingly often.

[Styygens]

A soldier's job is more complex than taking down a single crazed gunman by oneself (despite what MCMAP suggests), so saying soldiers train to shoot, not tackle, therefore shooting is superior, isn't really comparing apples and oranges here. Soldiers work in organized groups with weapons that can coordinate across distances to achieve a variety of objectives.

Perm,

My point was that soldiers seek to achieve and apply some significant tactical advantage over the enemy. I wasn't seriously suggesting they tackle people.

Cops, using a completely different set of rule of engagement, also seek to apply a tactical advantage in violent situations. That's why they carry an array of tools to apply different levels of force, or why they call in back-up.

And, I would suggest, both of these examples ideally seek to apply the greatest possible tactical advantage -- overwhelming advantage, if achievable. (Although "overwhelming" is likely -- hopefully? -- defined differently in the two contexts.) Experience shows that the greater the tactical advantage applied, the greater the chance of success.

I don't think this principle of applying a greater tactical advantage changes in regards to civilian violence.