TexasCHLforum.com

My employer has rolled out a new policy regarding Workplace Violence. The crux of the training is how to identify and prevent violence in the workplace. But the training also addressed how to react to the worst case scenario... an active shooter. They showed this HPD video as the main talking point:



I found it interesting at :59 that they took the second to pause and show that BG walking through a door posted with 30.06.

I wanted to ask a question about gun-free zones and 30.06, but didn't want to make a political statement in the training session. I am considering emailing the Security Manager who gave the course to make my observation and ask for his opinion about 30.06. He has background with the Secret Service. He made a few comments about how strict gun laws don't prevent workplace violence or mass killings, but other than that he is required to give the company line. Our company has a gun free policy both at all of our manufacturing facilities and at all of our administrative facilities. They are posted 30.06 and 30.07.

Not a bad video, since it at least mentioned fighting with (improvised) weapons. Nice, also, the highlighted uselessness of 30.06/07 for public safety. The video could have included the statement if your company allows it and you have the license, a responsibly carried gun is a wholesome thing. Ten feet back behind a copier with a handgun is less dangerous than hand-to-hand at two feet with a fire extinguisher.

Our annual policy retraining video stressed the need to report any worker bringing a firearm to work. The company is from up north, doesn't have a clue about things like parking lot vehicle storage. Or, frankly, the real way to be prepared for an active shooter.

Still, I would not unnecessarily violate company policy. Not me, nossir. On those rare occasions I go to company facilities, I go as a potential victim.

But as a teleworker usually working by myself in a building I personally own, not leased to the company, or working from my home office, well, cough, I behave only to the extent I can bring myself to. Even if I never bare my teeth I prefer not to defang.

My house or my personally owned office, my rules. The company has the option to fire me, I maintain defensive options. Besides, I don't bring guns to work. They are already here.

Run, Hide, Fight is actually the standard for active shooter training here in the US. Even if you are armed, run/hide/fight is a very reasonable approach.

In Europe, they are teaching Run/hide/report.

With companies that post a 30.06, they NEED to provide armed security, at least 2 agents at all working hours as well as security in their parking lots. IF they decide not to then they need to be held responsible for what might happen. Just saying....

YES, I instantly noticed that they gunner walked right past the 30.06 sign. Did he not see it because it was white on clear glass? I don't understand why he would break the law like that! Perhaps he didn't speak English OR Spanish, maybe the sign needs to be in more languages!

canvasbck wrote:Run, Hide, Fight is actually the standard for active shooter training here in the US. Even if you are armed, run/hide/fight is a very reasonable approach.

In Europe, they are teaching Run/hide/report.

I had never seen the video before, but I knew the mantra and immediately recognized that it had been used recently during the "active car/knife" attack at Ohio State.

canvasbck wrote:Run, Hide, Fight is actually the standard for active shooter training here in the US. Even if you are armed, run/hide/fight is a very reasonable approach.

In Europe, they are teaching Run/hide/report.

Well that explains it! That is NOT an (unarmed) Security Guard, he is simply a "Security Monitor".

canvasbck wrote:Run, Hide, Fight is actually the standard for active shooter training here in the US. Even if you are armed, run/hide/fight is a very reasonable approach.

In Europe, they are teaching Run/hide/report.

In Europe, they are teaching Run/hide/report your impending death.

Why do I find the mantra of run/hide/fight questionable?

To me it sounds hollow.

My mantra would be: Find cover and shoot back.

Corporations especially are loath to allow employees personal guns to protect themselves.

They'd rather a flock of unarmed sheep if a killer of innocents shows up.

Better to let a killer do his thing than face a potential lawsuit because the employees were armed and defended themselves...though I don't know why lawsuits of the unarmed/unprotected killed/wounded family members won't occur...

Abraham wrote:Why do I find the mantra of run/hide/fight questionable?

To me it sounds hollow.

My mantra would be: Find cover and shoot back.

Corporations especially are loath to allow employees personal guns to protect themselves.

They'd rather a flock of unarmed sheep if a killer of innocents shows up.

Better to let a killer do his thing than face a potential lawsuit because the employees were armed and defended themselves...though I don't know why lawsuits of the unarmed/unprotected killed/wounded family members won't occur...

I think that it the mentality that has been drummed into people's head to "Call 911" or "Call the Police" or "Do what the BG tells you and don't resist."
No answers from me other than to do what I do - Carry with my LTC and practice to upgrade my proficiency.

TreyHouston wrote:With companies that post a 30.06, they NEED to provide armed security, at least 2 agents at all working hours as well as security in their parking lots. IF they decide not to then they need to be held responsible for what might happen. Just saying....

YES, I instantly noticed that they gunner walked right past the 30.06 sign. Did he not see it because it was white on clear glass? I don't understand why he would break the law like that! Perhaps he didn't speak English OR Spanish, maybe the sign needs to be in more languages!

The shooter was not in violation of 30.06. I never saw a hand gun, only a shotgun and therefore he did not violate 30.06 (assuming he also had a LTC which you must have if you are going to violate 30.06). I feel better about that. He was in a gun free handgun zone. I could have legally had my KelTec sub2000 with me if I were there.
The guard did not appear armed although I can not be sure about that.
Run, hide and fight are good choices but I could fight better if I was armed and that's why everyone on this forum has a LTC. Obviously some business do not want to allow us to really "fight".
The help will come soon-sure. 3 hours in Orlando.

bblhd672 wrote:

canvasbck wrote:Run, Hide, Fight is actually the standard for active shooter training here in the US. Even if you are armed, run/hide/fight is a very reasonable approach.

In Europe, they are teaching Run/hide/report.

In Europe, they are teaching Run/hide/report your impending death.

That's true.

They call it Run / Hide / Tell.

Insanity on a continental scale.

rotor wrote:

TreyHouston wrote:With companies that post a 30.06, they NEED to provide armed security, at least 2 agents at all working hours as well as security in their parking lots. IF they decide not to then they need to be held responsible for what might happen. Just saying....

YES, I instantly noticed that they gunner walked right past the 30.06 sign. Did he not see it because it was white on clear glass? I don't understand why he would break the law like that! Perhaps he didn't speak English OR Spanish, maybe the sign needs to be in more languages!

The shooter was not in violation of 30.06. I never saw a hand gun, only a shotgun and therefore he did not violate 30.06 (assuming he also had a LTC which you must have if you are going to violate 30.06). I feel better about that. He was in a gun free handgun zone. I could have legally had my KelTec sub2000 with me if I were there.
The guard did not appear armed although I can not be sure about that.
Run, hide and fight are good choices but I could fight better if I was armed and that's why everyone on this forum has a LTC. Obviously some business do not want to allow us to really "fight".
The help will come soon-sure. 3 hours in Orlando.

This is what I thought was ironic. I assume that the camera work was to show that he was going into an area where guns aren't allowed. But the ironic part is that the 30.06 sign that they showed only bans license holders from carrying handguns. It isn't even intended to ban that man from carrying a concealed shotgun.

Abraham wrote:Why do I find the mantra of run/hide/fight questionable?

To me it sounds hollow.

My mantra would be: Find cover and shoot back.

Corporations especially are loath to allow employees personal guns to protect themselves.

They'd rather a flock of unarmed sheep if a killer of innocents shows up.

Better to let a killer do his thing than face a potential lawsuit because the employees were armed and defended themselves...though I don't know why lawsuits of the unarmed/unprotected killed/wounded family members won't occur...

Run or hide could be like deescalation. If a shooter doesn't have targets, part of the problem is solved, and I'll admit it - I want the option to run or hide. Sun Tzu said a wise general knows what battles to fight, and what battles to avoid, or something like that. Just don't take my option to fight, either.

"Run or hide could be like deescalation."

Deescalation?

I'm not fully understanding, but if you mean fewer targets because people simply aren't seen or there to be shot, I guess I understand what you mean, but find the word more appropriate when I'm the actor in a potential altercation I can halt by being mature, if you will...

When a crazed gun man is mowing down innocent people, somehow the word "deescalation" doesn't come to mind.

Fighting back/Self Defense are words that come to mind and I'm not going to concern myself with "deescalation" when a mad man is on the loose...

Abraham wrote:"Run or hide could be like deescalation."

Deescalation?

I'm not fully understanding, but if you mean fewer targets because people simply aren't seen or there to be shot, I guess I understand what you mean, but find the word more appropriate when I'm the actor in a potential altercation I can halt by being mature, if you will...

When a crazed gun man is mowing down innocent people, somehow the word "deescalation" doesn't come to mind.

Fighting back/Self Defense are words that come to mind and I'm not going to concern myself with "deescalation" when a mad man is on the loose...

I prefer the ALERRT Center's interpretation of Avoid / Deny / Defend.

From a strictly personal survival standpoint for persons not armed with firearms, this is how the options line up in view of lessons learned from past incidents:

Avoidance - not being where the shooting is taking place - is the most successful survival tactic.

Denial - (sheltering with barriers between you and the shooter) is the next most successful survival tactic.

Active defense is the only remaining viable survival tactic when the other two aren't available and is only effective within touching distance of the adversary. It may be available when the other two are as well, but from a strictly survival likelihood standpoint, the other two carry less risk and from that perspective are better choices.

Persons armed with firearms have the full range of options available to them. Avoidance and denial are still personally safer when available, but a firearms counterattack done with surprise from a position of cover and at an engagement range within the effective range of the defender's weapon and the shot placement ability of the defender is very likely to be successful from both a personal survival standpoint, and from the standpoint of saving other lives as well.