A Couple of Interesting Articles

[Styygens]

Riv --

I started typing something longer and then realized how much I was agreeing with you.

Although this:

...

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. .

Just to be argumentative... You are, of course technically correct. But in all your factual examples, did any of the tacklers fall backwards on the shooter? Or were they, by intention or happenstance, oriented so the shooter was in front of them? It seems like a perfectly natural reaction for someone taking action against a threat to orient themselves toward that threat.

So... You're just being nit-picky and mean. Don't make me rage quit.

...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

It does seem we're in agreement that the concept of applying some tactical advantage is valid. I did not say that "only shooting" was an acceptable tactical advantage. Clearly, surprise coupled with a high-percentage, gross-motor movement attack is often enough of an advantage. I was suggesting that the greater the tactical advantage the more likely it is to achieve success.

[Rivington]

But in all your factual examples, did any of the tacklers fall backwards on the shooter? Or were they, by intention or happenstance, oriented so the shooter was in front of them?

Hmm, if I remember correctly, the person who ended up shoving Amy Bishop out of the room was on her side—sitting next to her as the committee described why she wasn't getting tenure. Indeed, the people across the table (in front of) were the ones who got shot most easily. So, it really really does depend on the actual events, so a generic prescription is foolish.

[wetware]

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?

I can't believe I missed this. I'll make an attempt at it, but realize that this is a fairly massive undertaking for someone not being paid for it.

So here's what I'm going to try to do: Go back for the last 10 years and try to find all the active shooter type events I can and then categorize them into three types:

Civilian firearms illegal by state, federal or local laws.
Civilian firearms prohibited by owner of property.
Civilian firearms not prohibited.

From there we should be able to get a pretty good picture as to how it breaks down, how often people are able to get s significant unarmed defense up in areas where firearms are allowed versus firearms-based defense in places where they are allowed.

My stream of logic is pretty simple, though. In one of these situations people will respond with the best means available to them. Likely they'll run. If they can't run, then they'll stand and fight with whatever the are able to come up with. If they cannot carry firearms in that location a permit holder will not likely do so, as evidenced by the fact that they have made a fairly significant effort of time and effort to be legally allowed to carry elsewhere. To break those rules would jeopardize both their freedom and their permit. Thus they are stuck with tackling.

[Rivington]

So here's what I'm going to try to do: Go back for the last 10 years and try to find all the active shooter type events I can and then categorize them into three types

Why not just use the Daily Anarchist list of shootings, as that is what we've all been riffing on? (Also, half the work is done that way, even if the list isn't perfect, but no list would be.)

Here it is again: http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31...ge-statistics/

It is worth noting that on that list, some of the shootings are old. So the first shooting took place in 1949, in Camden NJ, when gun laws were freer (and indeed someone did fire at the shooter, though to no effect). There are also issues like CT, which on paper has strict gun laws, but in practice is a "shall issue" state. So you could take some portion of the list too if you like.