What do you think? 'Active shooter response' tactical training

[Mia]

'Active shooter response' tactical training

(Max Rossi/Reuters)

A U.S. course teaches armed civilians to deal with an 'active shooter.'
A Colorado-based company specializing in weapons training is offering a "law enforcement grade" course to Americans who have permits to carry a concealed weapon. The first rounds of the course, called "active shooter response," took place in a closed Denver-area middle school last weekend.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/photos...training-offered-to-armed-civilians-1.3521779

 

[EricD]

I'm up in the air about it. I need to know more about it before I say something.

 

[clg114]

Being a armed citizen, I believe that anybody who is armed should have as much training as possible. My philosophy toward a "active shooter" situation is a little different. I carry so that I can protect myself and my loved ones. My attitude is that I do not want to shoot anyone and I do not want to fire my weapon any where except the firing range. Because of this mindset, I will retreat until I can not retreat any further. Then I will do whatever it takes to protect myself and my loved ones. However, I can see how one could be in a active shooter situation and have to deal with it. This is where training is imperative. I think that I have probably have had more training that most, but I still would love to take this course.

 

[Mr Allen]

I strongly disagree with it to be honest, there's enough people being shot in the US as it is without giving Joe Public free reign to run about shooting each other.

 

[clg114]

I strongly disagree with it to be honest, there's enough people being shot in the US as it is without giving Joe Public free reign to run about shooting each other.

Run about shooting each other? Really? I am armed so that I can protect myself from armed criminals. We have gun control laws to prevent those who should not have guns from having them. I will admit that they could be enforced a little better, but we do have the right to protect ourselves. I can assure you sir, that I do not run around shooting people.

 

[Judge]

I think we have to consider the context of such an article first and foremost. "Law Enforcement Grade course". The assumption that someone with such training who would ultimately be not only trained in such circumstances, but more importantly be formally and legally authorized to act as a police auxiliary and not simply an armed citizen on the scene of an active shooting prior to the arrival of law enforcement.

It's one thing to legally carry a concealed weapon whether or not one is deemed properly trained for it. The intent is for you to have the right to protect your own life and property. But not that of another citizen.

To my knowledge, a formally trained police auxiliary is just that- formally trained with POST and not simply what it takes to obtain a concealed weapons permit. I knew someone with such training. He had all the authority of a county deputy sheriff on or off duty even though his on duty time was minimal.

The publishers of such an article may have left out such concerns with the deliberate intent to promote controversy as well as publicity. Which apparently succeeded in this instance.

 

[Mr Allen]

Run about shooting each other? Really? I am armed so that I can protect myself from armed criminals. We have gun control laws to prevent those who should not have guns from having them. I will admit that they could be enforced a little better, but we do have the right to protect ourselves. I can assure you sir, that I do not run around shooting people.

That's the point though, you get guns to protect yourself from Criminals, the Criminals go out and get bigger/more powerful guns, it's a vicious circle that needs to be stopped IMO.

 

[clg114]

That's the point though, you get guns to protect yourself from Criminals, the Criminals go out and get bigger/more powerful guns, it's a vicious circle that needs to be stopped IMO.

Rich, please read this carefully because I have some very important points to make to you.

1: You said "you get guns to protect yourself". Not so. I get guns because I am a collector. A few years ago my wife and I started carrying for our protection because we are getting old. We both have carry permits and we both practice with our carry guns. The point is that we have the right to do this.

2: You said "The criminals go and get bigger/more powerful guns. Not likely. The gun control laws that are in place are there to keep people who should not have guns, from buying them. For criminals, that leaves what we call "Saturday night specials". Old, worn out guns in poor condition. As for "bigger/more powerful guns", I can assure you that you are just as dead whether you were killed by a 22cal. or 44mag.

3: I understand that the gun control laws do not do everything that we would like them to. There are always going to be bad people doing bad things with guns. All we can do is try to pass laws that will control who buys guns. You have to understand, we are not only from different counties but different cultures to. For the most part, in the US people want to have the right to arm themselves for protection if need be.

 

[Judge]

That's the point though, you get guns to protect yourself from Criminals, the Criminals go out and get bigger/more powerful guns, it's a vicious circle that needs to be stopped IMO.

The last time criminals effectively outgunned the authorities in this country was in New York on 09/11/01 and North Hollywood in 02/28/97. Terrorists hijacking airliners with box cutters and bank robbers using fully automatic military assault rifles.

Law-abiding citizens are still left only with the option of semi-automatic pistols and rifles. As for vicious criminals, they will use whatever they can get to perpetrate a crime and aren't too concerned with proportional responses. This hasn't changed.

The only party with a stake in this equation who actually has appreciably increased their firepower is law enforcement. Yet violent crime statistics seem relatively level. In essence, the "vicious circle" you claim, doesn't exist. At least not in our country. The only kind of weapon where I see criminals escalating things against both law enforcement and law-abiding citizens is out of control. The use of personal computing devices on the Internet.

 

[Rayner]

Active shooters? Nothing my Marlin .444 can't take care of. ( just kidding everyone).

 

[Rayner]

I strongly disagree with it to be honest, there's enough people being shot in the US as it is without giving Joe Public free reign to run about shooting each other.

In the UK what are you supposed to do when someone wants to break in to your home. My rifle has stood toe to toe on several times through the years when it was in the hands of my granddad. All over the United States from the Texas and Mexican border to the high country of Wyoming my granddad had the rifle with him. My granddad gave it to me when i moved out of my parents house.

 

[Mr Allen]

In the UK what are you supposed to do when someone wants to break in to your home. My rifle has stood toe to toe on several times through the years when it was in the hands of my granddad. All over the United States from the Texas and Mexican border to the high country of Wyoming my granddad had the rifle with him. My granddad gave it to me when i moved out of my parents house.

You own a gun? You are a ****ing idiot.

 

[Rayner]

You own a gun? You are a ****ing idiot.

I don't own a gun. I own multiple firearms, 4 to be exact the .444 just happens to be my favorite. guns I own were passed down from my granddad then on to me. What part of that makes me an idiot? I'm not braking any laws nor do I intend too what's wrong with that? You also haven't answered my question, what are you supposed to do in the UK when someone wants to break into your home?

 

[clg114]

You own a gun? You are a ****ing idiot.

Mr. Allen, I would like to respectfully suggest that you refrain from posting on this subject because you posts are making you look like the idiot.

 

[tree]

Rich Allen

"You own a gun? You are a ****ing idiot."

I don't believe possession of my late father's
.22 makes me any sort of mental subnormal,
"****ing" or not.

 

[metalminx24]

May I weigh in with a slightly different view from the UK?

I can see why folks who live in areas still populated by dangerous animals feel the need to arm themselves...although Andy grew up in Zimbabwe with rhinos and other things without being armed...but I see the point.

Fox-hunting is now banned in the UK, and has been for several years. Badgers haven't been hunted for sport for far longer. Both species are occasionally subjected to culls to prevent the spread of disease in cattle, but we're not all charging around on horseback shouting "tally-ho" and blowing bugles, and haven't for some time.

As far as protection from other people though...it seems like a vicious circle. We have many of the same social issues as the US, but because guns are more difficult to come by, the death toll is lower. That's not to say, of course, that there isn't gun or knife crime, just that it's less prevalent, at least in part due to availability of weapons.

I can understand that US people are grateful of their rights, and to say "if someone comes to my door with intent to kill me, I can do something about it". It's just very different in western europe, and most of what we see of US gun possession is tragedy on the news. It's a huge cultural difference, and it can be difficult to understand why a chance would be taken to allow people weapons when so many are so unpredictable.

Well, that's hopefully a slightly more balanced perspective, and to go back to the beginning of the thread, I'd like to think that the more training the better.

 

[wyverary]

Every time a topic like this comes up I have to respectfully remind people to stay away from politics as much as possible. Thanks.

 

[qwerty]

I think we have to consider the context of such an article first and foremost. "Law Enforcement Grade course". The assumption that someone with such training who would ultimately be not only trained in such circumstances, but more importantly be formally and legally authorized to act as a police auxiliary and not simply an armed citizen on the scene of an active shooting prior to the arrival of law enforcement.

It's one thing to legally carry a concealed weapon whether or not one is deemed properly trained for it. The intent is for you to have the right to protect your own life and property. But not that of another citizen.

To my knowledge, a formally trained police auxiliary is just that- formally trained with POST and not simply what it takes to obtain a concealed weapons permit. I knew someone with such training. He had all the authority of a county deputy sheriff on or off duty even though his on duty time was minimal.

The publishers of such an article may have left out such concerns with the deliberate intent to promote controversy as well as publicity. Which apparently succeeded in this instance.

how much training does it take to become a police auxiliary, like hows that work?
i am very unfamiliar with american gun laws n stuff, i find it kinda fascinating.
i am completely clueless, i have anecdotally heard that you guys are allowed to
purchase fully automatic firearms, heavy weapons and i also heard it's
completely legal to own a flamethrower lol?

over here it's very different, my dad had a couple of shotguns a .303 and a .22 for
shooting ducks, deer n rabbits respectively.

 

[Judge]

As far as protection from other people though...it seems like a vicious circle. We have many of the same social issues as the US, but because guns are more difficult to come by, the death toll is lower. That's not to say, of course, that there isn't gun or knife crime, just that it's less prevalent, at least in part due to availability of weapons.

Are you aware of Jamaica's Gun Court Act and the Suppression of Crime Act of 1974? It established not only state intolerance of private possession of firearms and ammunition, but also an entirely separate legal and penal system.

Yet despite such militant and intolerant state gun control, homicides by firearms have increased in Jamaica ever since. A classic case of where guns have been outlawed, so only outlaws have guns. For over forty two years. Thus the only "vicious circle" I see are claims that gun control absolutely works, when the reality is very different depending on the nation and people in question.

 

[qwerty]

Are you aware of Jamaica's Gun Court Act and the Suppression of Crime Act of 1974? It established not only state intolerance of firearms and ammunition, but also an entirely separate legal and penal system.

Yet despite such militant and intolerant state gun control, homicides by firearms have increased in Jamaica ever since. A classic case of where guns have been outlawed, so only outlaws have guns. For over forty two years. Thus the only "vicious circle" I see are claims that gun control absolutely works, when the reality is very different depending on the nation and people in question.

american gun norms are quite a big culture shock for me and i expect many others who are from a different country. i am seriously fascinated by it