Preparing for School Attacks
2007-04-20 02:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
archershipshttp://www.killology.com/schoolattack.htm
Preparing for School Attacks
by Richard Fairburn and David Grossman
Preparing for School Attacks
by Richard Fairburn and David Grossman
If they still choose your site as their target ... you must respond quickly and forcefully. An analysis of active shooter incidents by co-Author Richard Fairburn suggests that even a Rapid Deployment team is unlikely to assemble in time to save lives.(1) In most incidents, the only chance available to save lives is an instant response by on-scene personnel or the first arriving officer. At this point we are not just seeking to defeat the attackers. One of the lessons of the 2004 Russain school massacre, as outlined in John Giduck's excellent book, "Terror at Beslan" is that we must attack immediately, with maximum violence, and no intention of pulling back or giving up ground. Attack the enemy hard and fast and DESTROY them before they destroy more innocents.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-20 10:41 pm (UTC)When this advice is combined with other advice, such as "more people should carry guns, because if the victims were armed, it never would have happened," the potential goes up for catastrophe caused by flawed understanding of the situation.
Think about it this way: A killer sows up at your workplace or somewhere else you are. You're armed. You hear "Pow! Pow! Pow!" and hear people screaming. You draw your gun and go racing around the corner, and you see people lying on the ground and some other people pointing guns at one another. What do you do?
Then a cop shows up. He sees people lying on the ground and you standing over them with a gun. What should he do?
no subject
Date: 2007-04-20 11:02 pm (UTC)Then add mistake #2. You raced around the corner. Unless you are an experienced peace officer, you do not go hunting for trouble. You be a good citizen, direct others to call 911, evacuate innocents from the line of fire, and if the situation moves, either put yourself in its path (giving you the advantage) or carefully follow.
YOU DO NOT RUSH IN.
In the scenario you pose, the police officer would shout "POLICE OFFICER! DROP YOUR WEAPON!" and then shoot anyone who didn't immediately comply or shout back something appropriate such as "OFF DUTY OFFICER! [name of agency] PD!"
The point this author is trying to make is that School Resource Officers / private security in the school environment should be competent and armed. In some places these critical qualifications are missing, either competence or armament (or both). Further, that waiting for the SWAT team is too late because half the victims have died of gunshot wounds while they are putting on their Kevlar and straps in the mirror.
The combination of patrol officers being trained to intervene in active shooter scenarios, and the importance of securing the scene quickly so that that the emergency medical system can save lives among the wounded, is much more important than whether or not a CCW holder is present.
I favor "shall issue" CCW. If you meet the requirements, you get the permit. I also favor a background check, psych profile, and forty hours of training including shoot-and-move.
Right now, the CCW process in California is like having trucks licensed by the Sierra Club instead of the DMV.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-22 07:18 pm (UTC)Very true. I think, though, that many of the "if everyone were armed, this wouldn't happen" arguments (which I recognize isn't the argument being made here) do sort of rest on the premise that if everyone were armed, people would rush in--which, I think, would often lead to disaster.
The people in a room entered by a spree killer aren't likely to have time to react, even if they're carrying weapons--and people elsewhere, as you correctly point out, would be better off calling 911 and then getting the hell away.
The point this author is trying to make is that School Resource Officers / private security in the school environment should be competent and armed. In some places these critical qualifications are missing, either competence or armament (or both). Further, that waiting for the SWAT team is too late because half the victims have died of gunshot wounds while they are putting on their Kevlar and straps in the mirror.
Now that is absolutely true. The presence of a well-trained and armed security force would likely do a great deal toward minimizing casualties and containing a spree killer in the kind of circumstance we're talking about.
I suspect that the cost of training and equipping such a security force, and the risk (which is not zero even if the force receives the best training available) of accidents, is usually not considered worthwhile when compared to the odds that a spree killer will show up. Spree killings are very, very rare--statistically, you are more likely to die from drowning in your own bathtub than to be the victim of a spree killer--so dedicating this kind of resource, and accepting the level of risk that goes with it, isn't considered worthwhile. Similar risk/benefit tradeoffs are made all the time, in everything from airline safety to laws mandating safety equipment in cars.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-20 11:47 pm (UTC)Or the badguys could deploy rear security.
Or the badguy could BE a cop.
Yep. It's much better to hide, unarmed, and hope he doesn't walk up and put a bullet in your head. Yep yep.
armed response
Date: 2007-04-20 11:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-20 11:54 pm (UTC)