This is the current police theory and training. The "active shooter" response has changed significantly after Columbine. BUT, as always, be very careful with general rules. Statistics can be very accurate and predict general behavior very well but they can never predict any individual behavior. As Heinlein put it in one of his stories, actuaries can tell you exactly how many people will die in any large group, but they can never tell you exactly which ones it will be. And I know you are asking what this has to do with the topic at hand, so I will explain.drjoker wrote:Research shows that the old police tactic of setting up a perimeter while awaiting a SWAT team will just end up in lots of dead bodies because the response time is too slow. A SWAT team is unnecessary because these mass murderers and mad gunmen will usually commit suicide as soon as they lose control of the situation. For example, police arrive or a CHL arrives and fires a shot. The CHL doesn't even have to shoot the mass murderer. He/she can just fire one shot and hide and threaten to fire more. The mass murderer will then commit suicide and give up after that.
In the shooting in Utah at the mall, an off duty officer responded to the active shooter since he was on scene with his wife for dinner. The shooter not only did not suicide, but got into a running gun battle with the off duty officer, exchanging shots until enough backup arrived for the officers to win. If you do respond to the shooter, do not count on it being a couple shots. You might very well find yourself still in a gun fight when cops arrive (and that might very well be the confusions the liberals always yell about). The odds are against it, but the odds are also against winning the lottery and people do every year.