TexasCHLforum.com

There's some good information, although no surprises, in an FBI study on active shooter incidents that was released this month.

Details here.

It is informative because it includes cases where there were fewer than 3 fatalities (the criterion for mass murder) but where the intent and action was the same.

Looks like you beat me to it by a few minutes..
http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=74468" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry about that. Mods should close one or the other.. Mea Culpa.

Reason Magazine did a good rebuttal to this:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/24/active-shooters" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BLUF, just like a lot of things they changed the criteria to meet their message.

TresHuevos wrote:Reason Magazine did a good rebuttal to this:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/24/active-shooters" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BLUF, just like a lot of things they changed the criteria to meet their message.

This is not a simple call.

All the factors that Reason points out may influence the results in a field that is notoriously difficult to get decent comprehensive data on. The FBI's criteria picked up incidents where an active shooter was stopped by persons at the scene before he could kill three people and qualify under the more widely recognized definition. However, I think it's valid to say that just because he was stopped before he could complete his mission doesn't justify excluding the event from a study of these types of incidents.

The study certainly has its weaknesses. As Reason points out, it is neither exhaustive nor random. However, it also points out very useful patterns in the huge amount of data.

The finding that, in cases where the time frames are known, most incidents are over in 5 minutes or less should have everyone thinking. Waiting for the cavalry to come to the rescue is not a confidence inspiring strategy.

I'm still confused by the issue of calling something a "mass shooting" only if 3+ people are killed. If someone shoots 3, 5, 10, or 20+ people, but none of them die it doesn't count as a "mass shooting?" It seems to me that they've all got the difference between a mass shooting and a mass killing/murder/homicide switched up.

Excaliber wrote:The finding that, in cases where the time frames are known, most incidents are over in 5 minutes or less should have everyone thinking. Waiting for the cavalry to come to the rescue is not a confidence inspiring strategy.

Even when the incidents last longer, the cavalry doesn't inspire confidence. Columbine, Fort Hood, Beslan, Westgate, etc.

simianangel wrote:

Excaliber wrote:The finding that, in cases where the time frames are known, most incidents are over in 5 minutes or less should have everyone thinking. Waiting for the cavalry to come to the rescue is not a confidence inspiring strategy.

Even when the incidents last longer, the cavalry doesn't inspire confidence. Columbine, Fort Hood, Beslan, Westgate, etc.

I think, to be fair, that each of those tragic events were at those times pretty unique and the law enforcement agencies were not prepared for those events. Since then, many departments have begun training and planning for those type of attacks. Many departments here have implemented policies where in the event of an active shooter, rather than wait outside for reinforcements, a single officer can go in to engage the shooter.

I'm not blaming the cavalry but I think it's foolish to count on them to save you.

simianangel wrote:I'm not blaming the cavalry but I think it's foolish to count on them to save you.

True enough.

C-dub wrote:

simianangel wrote:I'm not blaming the cavalry but I think it's foolish to count on them to save you.

True enough.

DITTO

C-dub wrote:

simianangel wrote:

Excaliber wrote:The finding that, in cases where the time frames are known, most incidents are over in 5 minutes or less should have everyone thinking. Waiting for the cavalry to come to the rescue is not a confidence inspiring strategy.

Even when the incidents last longer, the cavalry doesn't inspire confidence. Columbine, Fort Hood, Beslan, Westgate, etc.

I think, to be fair, that each of those tragic events were at those times pretty unique and the law enforcement agencies were not prepared for those events. Since then, many departments have begun training and planning for those type of attacks. Many departments here have implemented policies where in the event of an active shooter, rather than wait outside for reinforcements, a single officer can go in to engage the shooter.

Yes, that is the current protocol in most agencies.

However, the laws of time and space must be taken into account. Do the math on how long it takes someone to recognize what's happening, reach a place where it's safe to make a call, communicate the information to the dispatcher, dispatch the call, travel to the scene, gather basic information, make an entry, locate the shooter, and neutralize him. Remember that during that entire time sequence, victims are being slaughtered.

If you come up with under five minutes, you're talking about a very lucky exception rather than an average you should use in planning.

I would suggest that counting on being one of the last targets so the police might get there in time to save you is not a robust survival strategy.

Sir Robin had a good strategy for events like that.