An unarmed woman stops an active shooter; what that means, and what it doesn’t
Before I tell you about the brave woman who talked a school shooter into surrendering in Georgia last week, let me tell you a quick cop story.
Back in the mid-90’s I worked for a small police department in Southeast Texas. One of the officers there, “Rick”, was known for two things: being a smart-aleck, and having no concept of officer safety. One afternoon Rick received a call about shots being fired on a residential street. When he drove onto the street he saw residents standing in their yards looking toward the other end of the block. He drove further down the street until he saw a man and woman standing together in their front yard. So he pulled over, got out of his car and walked into their yard to ask if they had seen anything.
Around the time he stepped onto their grass, Rick noticed a couple of things: the woman was crying and hunched protectively over an infant. The man looked furious, almost out of control. He was behind the woman, had one arm wrapped tightly around her like he was holding her there. And in his other hand, he held a pistol in the air.
At this point, Rick should have recognized the horrible situation he had put himself in; the man could have opened fire at Rick, who wouldn’t have been able to return fire without hitting the woman and child. The irrational man could easily have killed Rick, his wife and the child. Rick should have drawn his weapon as he backpedaled to the cover of his patrol car. He should have ordered the man to drop the weapon. He should have gotten on the radio to call for backup.
Instead, Rick simply walked up to the man and said, “Give me the gun.” The man didn’t respond. Rick reached up and took the gun out of his hand, went back to the patrol car and locked it in the trunk. Then he walked back to the man and handcuffed him.
When I heard about this incident, I thought, That was the stupidest way any cop could ever have handled a shooting call. Later I found Rick at the station and asked him, “What the hell were you thinking?”
Rick dismissively answered, “I knew he wasn’t going to do anything. I already know I’m going to die in a plane crash some day, so I wasn’t worried about that guy.”
I couldn’t believe that Rick, or any cop for that matter, could have that mindset. I guess he figured, “It all turned out okay, so I must have done the right thing.” Rick later left the department to pursue a new career. In aviation.
What lessons did I learn from how Rick handled that shooting call? I learned not to drive into a call with my head up my [censored]. I learned to keep an eye out for the nearest cover. I learned that sometimes an officer can be an idiot, get lucky, and the situation still turns out alright. But I definitely didn’t learn from Rick how to handle a shooting call.
This week, much of America needs to learn something similar. Just because something turned out well, doesn’t mean it was handled well.
On August 20th, an unarmed bookkeeper named Antoinette Tuff stopped a school shooter by talking to him. The shooter, 20 year old Michael Hill, walked into a Georgia elementary school office with an AK and several hundred rounds, took Tuff and others hostage, and exchanged fire with police officers. Tuff talked to the shooter, expressed sympathy, gave critical information to the 911 operator while Hill fired at officers, and eventually convinced Hill to drop his weapon and surrender.
Over 800 students were in the school when Hill, apparently intent on mass murder, walked in. According to an article in the Huffington Post, Hill announced his intentions to the office staff and loaded his weapon in front of them. Yet, in the end, nobody was killed, nobody was wounded. Antoinette Tuff is being recognized as a hero. In my opinion, she absolutely is. When faced with what appeared to be a madman intent on mass murder, she had a choice: run and hide, or risk her life to engage the shooter in a sympathetic conversation. She chose to risk her life and talk to him. And it worked. She deserves all the praise she can get.
But no, that doesn’t mean all active shooter situations should be handled with unarmed empathy instead of armed self-defense.
Surprisingly, the Huffington Post’s story about the incident (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/22/antoinette-tuff_n_3792683.html) didn’t seem to have a “See? We don’t need armed teachers!” angle. Some comments to the story, on the other hand, are just what I expect from typical HP readers, and by extension much of the left.
Here’s a small sample of comments from HP:
“Interestingly, the usually vociferous gun advocates don’t seem to have much to say about a terrible situation averted using intelligence versus firepower.”
“A true hero. So much for Rush Limbaugh’s and the NRA’s childish and over-simplified contention that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
“Note to NRA……What stopped a bad guy with a gun was a good WOMAN WITH A HEART! What a concept…”
“I guess a little bit of love and understanding is more powerful than bullets.”
“How highly unAmerican. We shoot first and ask questions later round these parts.”
“Too bad SHE didn’t have a gun too, then this could have all been prevent…oh, wait.”
“Hey NRA how do you deal with a BAD guy with an assault weapon? With a GOOD person who is compassionate and has a brain.”
Get it? If you’re intelligent, you don’t need a weapon. Armed defense, even defense of children, is only for us dummies.
As an almost 20 year police officer and former active shooter instructor, I’d like to make a few points for anyone who believes Ms. Tuff showed us the “right” way to handle active shooters. To do this, I have to ask them to please put aside the desire to simply throw out a snide remark, and actually engage in critical thinking instead.
First, I’ll say this: Hill should have been shot as soon as he walked into that school. This may sound harsh, especially considering what we’ve discovered in hindsight. According to Hill’s family, he suffers from bipolar disorder and ADD. His words and actions to Ms. Tuff indicate to me that he wasn’t a violent sociopath hell-bent on mass murder, he was a troubled young man desperate for attention and sympathy (which Ms. Tuff provided). Hill was the kind of man who was receptive to dialogue, not the kind of guy who would only stop killing if he was killed himself.
But nobody knew that at the time. All anyone knew was that a man walked into a school with an AK and announced his desire to kill. If we as a nation allowed teachers to carry, or mandated armed police or security in schools, a good person with a weapon could have immediately engaged, and kept engaging until Hill was incapable of pulling a trigger.
In any potential active shooter situation, the suspect should be disabled through the use of lethal force as soon as the threat is recognized. No, that doesn’t mean we dump a magazine on anyone we think might do something dangerous. It does mean that if a 20 year old walks into an elementary school with an AK, we ask ourselves a few questions. Is there a good reason a 20 year should be in an elementary school with a rifle? Does the school have an AK marksmanship class this man teaches? Is there some school-sanctioned AK-47 event going on that day? Is there some reasonable, rational explanation for a troubled-looking (based on his booking picture and description) man to walk into a school with an AK? If the answer to those questions is no, then someone needs to make a reasonable, rational decision to respond with force.
In this case, Hill made the decision even easier by announcing his intention to kill and loading his weapon in front of the staff. If even one of the staff members had been armed, they could have drawn on Hill and engaged him before he loaded the rifle. But what happened instead? Hill was allowed to load the weapon and fire at will. Had he decided to do so, he could have killed a lot of people. The entire outcome was left in his hands, he had total control of the situation. The fact that he decided not to kill any students or staff, and failed to kill the police officers he shot at, doesn’t mean this incident is proof that teachers or staff shouldn’t be armed. It means he failed to carry out what he intended to do. It was the school shooting equivalent of the man who tried to blow up an airplane with an underwear bomb but only managed to set his genitals on fire. It’s objectively NOT a lesson on how to prevent school shootings in the future. As far as handling future active shooters, maybe we shouldn’t make plans that require the cooperation of the guy who’s trying to murder people.
Anyone who insists that this incident was solved by unarmed empathy alone needs a reality check. One aspect of this incident that keeps being ignored, or at least hasn’t gotten the attention it deserved in the press, is that police officers had closed distance on Hill and engaged him with gunfire. Hill was under pressure and facing death when he surrendered. If Hill was like the “typical” active shooter, once the threat of his death appeared (and not death at his own hands, which he would control), suddenly the fantasy was over. It wasn’t fun anymore. The police officers who fired at him may have pushed Hill to listen to Ms. Tuff’s voice of reason.
Finally – and this is a big one – we should consider the big picture. Rather than listening to rather immature voices crowing over the alleged victory of an unarmed woman over an active shooter, we should ask ourselves this: why, eight months after Newtown, was a mentally ill man able to walk unopposed into an elementary school with an AK? Why have we as a nation chosen to follow the same paths and policies that enabled the Newtown massacre?
Despite the anguished, indignant handwringing from the political left about gun control, even the strongest proponents of “tougher” gun laws acknowledged they wouldn’t work (witness VP Biden’s impromptu speech to supporters in the White House). We know that new gun control measures, even if they were implemented perfectly, would take years before having an effect. So why have huge portions of the government and public chosen to throw time and money behind symbolic efforts which, even if they had been passed, still wouldn’t have prevented Michael Hill from carrying an AK into a Georgia elementary school?
The answer to that is, of course, “blowing in the wind”. It’s all about the show, with no more impact than words from an old folk song. I don’t have a clue why someone would choose to make a statement rather than actually handle a problem. But I do know this: no law stopped Michael Hill from murdering people last week. A sympathetic woman, police officers with guns and Hill’s own failure of will did. Our children’s defense shouldn’t consist of the faint hope that a murderer will respond to kindness, any more than a police officer should expect an angry moron firing a pistol in the air beside his wife and child to peacefully give up his gun.
Those who point to last week’s incident as proof that homicidal violence can be defeated with kindness need more than just a proverbial hard slap across the face. They need to be ignored and their ridiculous words disregarded by rational people. The next time some pathetic aspiring mass murderer walks into a school with a rifle, he should be met by armed, trained staff who are willing to defend children with immediate lethal action. He shouldn’t be met by unarmed, hopeful leftists who truly believe their kind words can protect my children from a murderer’s gunfire.
AVAILABLE AS AN EBOOK ON AMAZON, iTUNES/iBOOKS, BARNES AND NOBLE AND AT TACTICAL16.COM
Filed under: Cops | 37 Comments
Tags: active shooter, Antoinette Tuff, school shootings
chrishernandezauthor 
I agree with what you say except for your view on your former comrade Rick. Crazy? Maybe. Crazy brave? Definitely. I think we could use more cops like him.
Walter,
Rick did not show bravery. He put the outcome of the situation in an angry, irrational, armed man’s hands. That’s not smart or brave.
I agree with Chris. That wasn’t bravery. That was a simple refusal to acknowledge risk. If Rick had gotten killed, that woman would have been next. How can you help someone else if you are shot? I’m a patrol supervisor and I would have the ass of one of my guys if they handled that call like Rick did.
Very well said Chris, like you said, it seems harsh but you are correct. Just because this story had a happy ending without any bloodshed, does not mean it is safe to assume this will be the case every time (or God help us, make it a “strategy” for dealing with shooters). As one meme correctly says, we have armed guards for EVERYONE of “importance” in this country, why not our children?
Scot,
Surely you’re not suggesting that just because the children of the president and senior government officials have armed protection, that we lowly subjects deserve the same protection? 🙂
Talking him down was a strategy and since she was unarmed they only strategy. As one would say luck is better than skill when you have none
and she was lucky,
We know from prior experience that often luck is not what one can rely on and instead just another victim like the many at Newtown In the same position.
Chris you nailed it.
Eck!
Thanks Eck. It’s amazing how the “luck” part of this story is being ignored, along with the fact that police were shooting at the guy.
Needing more cops like “Rick” is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have heard so far today.
Rick, as related in the story, and Antoinette Tuff, both had one thing in common; they willingly chose to allow someone else, in both cases a deranged, highly dangerous person, decide their fate for them.
Not only their own fate, but possible the fate of many other innocent people, as well. That is not bravery, that is the epitome of cowardice. They have passed the responsibility for their own safety to someone else because they lack the moral and physical courage to do the right thing when faced with deadly force.
So the man with the gun shoots Rick, his wife, the child, then goes down the street to an elementary school and shoot 20 more children, all because Rick didn’t do his job and protect the public. Yeah, we need some more of that….
Ms. Tuff was extremely lucky, and I’m glad she was there and took the actions she did. But the fact remains, a tragedy was averted because the bad guys CHOSE NOT to create one. If he chose the other course of action, what would the headlines be saying now? She would have been a victim as well as possibly many innocent children.
Is putting the safety of our children or even society as a whole, in the hands of homicidal people the right way?
Luck is not a valid course of action. I choose not to depend on luck and the benevolence of a criminal for the safety of my family.
Mac,
exactly right. Hill chose not to commit a massacre. He wasn’t stopped, he wasn’t forced, he simply made the decision not to murder. And that decision was helped along by police who were shooting at him, and Ms. Tuff who talked to him. Nobody should look at this incident and think “This is how every school shooting should be handled”.
I believe the administrators in Newtown had tried to talk/confront the murderer, unarmed, and were the first ones gunned down. Same type of strategy, different outcome. You’re right, it is all dependent on the shooters’ mindset, not how you can talk to them.
Yup. At Newtown, Adam Lanza shot the glass door out and walked into the school firing. He gave no opportunity for dialogue.
My grandfather had a saying. “Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while”, That’s what happened here. It was a very rare exception, it was not the rule.
Agreed, Doc. I’ve made some dumbass mistakes and gotten away with them. But they were still dumbass mistakes.
The bit with Rick sounds like a scene out of “Justified.”
Sounds more like a scene out of a Darwin Awards book to me. 🙂
I wonder if the well-thinking journalists of the HP would be able to set themselves in practice their new theory especially after the typical sound of the AK’s bolt back in battery….
As we know that there is some games for which one mustn’t play to win, i wonder if these HP journalists are pretty hurry to set themselves in practice their new theory
François
Francois,
Unfortunately, I can pretty much guarantee that the average HP reader will never carry a gun, and if they’re faced with an active shooter they would in fact refuse to take action against him.
We don’t need armed police in every school–we already have enough police, and we already have what should be minor disciplinary problems turned into legal matters, already have too much “don’t take matters into your own hands, let the authorities sort it out”.
We also don’t need unwilling liberals being forced or even strongly encouraged into carrying guns-that will cause more trouble than it cures. What we do need is to allow adults in schools the same voluntary access to guns as most other places, to allow but not require school employees (and parents) to carry if they are legally allowed elsewhere. It won’t cure the problem, but it will reduce it drastically–
Agreed on some of that. We do have a problem in society with people who make everything a legal issue when they could just work it out themselves. But I don’t think the possibility (well, guarantee) of that outweighs the protection police provide to school students.
About not encouraging liberals to carry guns, I see your point. Not everyone should be armed. Those who understand the threat and are willing to train and prepare for it should be allowed to carry.
We should be asking why some bi polar person is allowed to buy an AK-47.
They’re not. People with mental issues are barred by law from buying weapons. But there’s almost no way to enforce the law. Nobody has access to a database of who has mental problems. Initial reports are that Hill borrowed the weapon from an acquaintance.
Building a strategy based on a cooperating enemy might work once in a while, but don’t count on it happening the next time.
Randy,
Obviously you’re not a typical Huffington Post reader. 🙂
Agreed Chis. In my opinion every situation in life has a “what if” clause….what if the gunman would have dumpped a magazine the second she degan her approach, the situation could have and most likely would have been worse. Now, same scenario but she was trained and carrying, chances are that the situation would have been over before unessasary risks had to be taken (50/50 chance Im going to die along with a bunch of children when I get up to try and talked this guy down). Being armed and TRAINED, in my opinion, gives me better odds of winning that battle and preventing unessesary loss of life.
J,
Exactly. Carrying a gun doesn’t guarantee that I’ll win a gunfight with a criminal. But it guarantees I won’t die as a helpless victim.
“Speak softly but carry a big stick. ” – W. Churchill on diplomacy.
Teddy Roosevelt said that
Agree with much of what you said, but not all. The shooter could easily have been wearing bulletproof armor (like the Aurora theater shooter). In which case, shooting him first would have been completely ineffective. Second, it’s not easy to shoot a human being. It takes training. It takes reflexes. Even then, it’s hard to do. We are socialized not to attack others. Yes, that can be overcome with training. I doubt very much if university teaching programs will start courses on “shooting a crazed teenager.” Seeing somebody come in with a gun and start loading it after verbalizing his intentions? Okay, MAYBE somebody would have had time to shoot him first. That person would have had to be either carrying a loaded weapon on his person (while at a school) or have to unlock a drawer or shelf to get the gun, making himself a target. Even if you shoot at a human, can you hit him? Most people who use guns practice with paper targets. Hitting a moving target is different. Going deer-hunting or whatever, that’s also different. Killing a human crosses a line that most people can’t do.
But suppose you’re special. You have a loaded gun on your person. You comprehend the situation as soon as the impending criminal (who hasn’t done anything illegal yet) announces that he’s going to kill and pulls out a gun. You grab your gun and you shoot. Maybe you have great aim and hit him, and maybe he’s dumb and hasn’t bought a bulletproof vest off the internet. Maybe you shoot several times and he (the person who has still, at that point, done nothing illegal) is dead. At that point, anyone who has heard your gunfire has grabbed their cell phone and called 911, reporting gunfire at a school. You hear the sirens approaching and police in armor storm the building, looking for the man with the gun. Bang: you’re dead.
Ivy,
First, thank you for your comment. Despite the fact that I am about to tear your opinions to shreds, I do honestly appreciate your willingness to speak up here. As I’ve said before, I don’t want this site to become an echo chamber, where I write opinions to an audience that parrots them right back to me. Dissenting opinions from reasonable, intelligent people are extremely valuable to national-level debates, and to me personally as a way to ensure my views don’t contain logical fallacies.
Second, your post leads me to these conclusions: you have zero tactical training, knowledge or experience. None. Nada. Zilch. And you probably only discuss topics like this with like-minded people who never challenge your blatantly ridiculous assumptions.
I’ll start with this: “The shooter could easily have been wearing bulletproof armor (like the Aurora theater shooter). In which case, shooting him first would have been completely ineffective.”
This statement alone is enough to prove that you have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ve been wearing body armor on a regular basis for almost 20 years. As a cop I wear soft concealable armor, and as a soldier overseas I wore either a military issue IBA vest with protective plates, or a plate carrier with no soft armor. I know the capabilities and limitations of body armor very well. “Bulletproof” vests leave significant areas of the upper body exposed (head, neck, abdomen, etc). They have seams that rounds can penetrate. Soft armor does not stop all calibers. I find it hard to believe that you’ve never heard of a single incident where a police officer was shot and killed, even though he was wearing body armor. It happens at least dozens of times every year. I can’t believe you’ve never heard of a soldier being killed by small arms fire, even though he’s wearing heavy body armor. As a cop wearing body armor, do I no longer have to worry about being shot? I know officers who were shot, one of whom was killed, while wearing body armor. No, bullets don’t become “completely ineffective” if the suspect is wearing body armor.
Next: “…it’s not easy to shoot a human being. It takes training. It takes reflexes. Even then, it’s hard to do.”
As a longtime cop and two time combat vet, I’m aware that becoming proficient with a weapon takes training. I’ve actually had quite a bit of it. However, I’m also aware that we have about 20,000 gun homicides every year. Based on media reports and just about every gun-related murder scene I’ve ever been on, it’s pretty damn easy to shoot a human being. I don’t think the kids who killed the Australian student recently were weapon experts. Neither was the young mother in Georgia who repeatedly shot a burglar last year. Because actually, it’s pretty easy to shoot someone if you have the will. Weapons are designed to be ergonomic, easy to use with a minimum of training. The weapon I carry is extremely easy to operate, with no external controls. You just draw, point it at your target and pull the trigger. With a few hours of training on the range and the correct mindset, just about anyone is capable of shooting a human being with it.
“Seeing somebody come in with a gun and start loading it after verbalizing his intentions? Okay, MAYBE somebody would have had time to shoot him first. That person would have had to be either carrying a loaded weapon on his person (while at a school) or have to unlock a drawer or shelf to get the gun, making himself a target.”
The entire point of allowing teachers to carry at school is to have them carrying at school. Yes, they should have the weapons on their person. With reasonable training, someone can draw and engage within a couple of seconds. Do you think an active shooter is an eagle-eyed, sharp-witted genius who sees all movements made by everyone in view? Why do you assume that drawing the weapon would automatically make the teacher a target? And what about situations like Columbine or Virginia Tech, where some teachers heard shots outside their classrooms for several minutes before they saw the shooters? Is it possible those teachers could have drawn their weapons long before the shooters were in view?
Your perspective is extremely common among many anti-carry people I’ve debated. You assume the shooter is a tactical genius, all-seeing and unstoppable, while the average good-guy with a gun is so outclassed that he might as well just give up and die rather than fight back. You are objectively wrong about this. Most mass shooters have been untrained, unskilled cowards who folded as soon as they were threatened by good guys with guns. George Hennard stopped shooting people at Luby’s as soon as he heard an officer fire a round into the ceiling. Cho at Virginia Tech shot himself as soon as he heard officers breach a door with a shotgun. Adam Lanza shot himself as soon as he heard police sirens outside. These guys are not SEAL ninja Delta Force Rangers. They are cowards, usually with no tactical training or even awareness, who are only enabled to commit murderous rampages by people like you who view them as mythical, omnipotent gods.
“Even if you shoot at a human, can you hit him? Most people who use guns practice with paper targets. Hitting a moving target is different. Going deer-hunting or whatever, that’s also different.”
You need training and a good understanding of your and your weapon’s capabilities to hit a human. At close, defensive pistol range, the average shooter can hit a human. We’re not expecting an armed teacher to take an active shooter out at 100 yards with her Beretta .380. We’re talking about shots fired within about 10 feet, within a classroom or office. Again, untrained criminals do it all the time. And trained people perform better with a weapon than untrained criminals.
“Killing a human crosses a line that most people can’t do.”
Standing there and doing nothing before someone kills you crosses a line. Taking no action at all as a murder massacres children crosses a line. You think the resistance to killing another human is so great, people would literally rather watch someone murder dozens of children than take action to stop them?
“But suppose you’re special. You have a loaded gun on your person.”
How is that special? Hundreds of thousands of Americans (and that may be a low number) carry a weapon on their person every day. That isn’t special. I’ve carried a weapon on my person daily for almost 20 years. Strangers have no idea I’m armed. Having a weapon doesn’t make anyone special and isn’t some far-fetched idea.
“You comprehend the situation as soon as the impending criminal (who hasn’t done anything illegal yet) announces that he’s going to kill and pulls out a gun. You grab your gun and you shoot. Maybe you have great aim and hit him, and maybe he’s dumb and hasn’t bought a bulletproof vest off the internet. Maybe you shoot several times and he (the person who has still, at that point, done nothing illegal) is dead.”
This is one of the more astounding parts of your post. So a guy walks into a school with a gun, announces he’s going to kill people and draws the gun, and you make the point, twice, that “he hasn’t done anything illegal”? In Texas he has, as well as any other state that doesn’t allow weapons in schools. Besides that, he’s presented an imminent threat to everyone in the area. The only reasonable response is the threat or use of lethal force. If you draw your weapon, he sees it and drops his, then no need to fire. If you draw your weapon and he’s still armed, engage and keep engaging until he’s no longer a threat. If you think the armed teacher has now committed a crime, you need to brush up on criminal law.
And the vast majority of active shooters and criminals in general are “dumb”. Do you think criminals always wear body armor? How many active shooters wore body armor? Can you think of any besides Holmes in Colorado?
“At that point, anyone who has heard your gunfire has grabbed their cell phone and called 911, reporting gunfire at a school. You hear the sirens approaching and police in armor storm the building, looking for the man with the gun. Bang: you’re dead.”
And here’s another beloved fallacy of the anti-defense side: don’t fight back, because the police will immediately kill you. Unfortunately, a police response takes time. At Newtown, police arrived in about three minutes. At Virginia Tech two fully geared-up SWAT teams were on campus when the shooting started. They still took several minutes to reach and enter Norris Hall. Chances are, if you encounter an active shooter at a school you’ll have several minutes before police show up.
And police today are trained NOT to shoot someone just because they have a weapon. We know many people can be legally armed at a shooting; teachers in some districts, off-duty cops, plainclothes cops, parents with concealed handgun licenses, etc. Simply having a weapon does not mean the police instantly shoot you.
And in your scenario, the armed teacher kills the bad guy, hears police sirens and hears the police “storm” the building (which is something else we don’t do; again, please take some time to learn something about this subject), but is still holding the weapon when police reach her? She couldn’t put the weapon back in the holster or simply drop it during the several minutes it takes them to arrive?
I hope you understood my point. Your views on this subject are devoid of actual experience or knowledge, riddled with fallacies, formed by unrealistic myths, and probably supported by legions of others with fallacious, unrealistic beliefs who tell you that you’re right.
What amazes me is that so many of you who oppose armed defense lack even basic knowledge on the subject, yet still feel justified making sweeping pronouncements about it. How does that happen? There are subjects I refuse to debate because I don’t know anything about them. I have opinions on them, but no actual knowledge or experience. So I stay quiet about those subjects because I know my uninformed opinion adds nothing to the debate and just makes me look stupid. I might ask questions, I might say, “I don’t know anything about this, but what about…” and ask a question. But I would never tell a doctor he’s wrong about medicine. I would never tell an economist he’s wrong about the economy. I’d never tell a pilot how to fly.
But many people who are anti-gun and have zero knowledge, training or experience with guns feel completely justified telling me, a longtime cop and combat vet, the “real truth” about armed defense. More often than not they say it’s futile to even try to fight back against an active shooter (as you did). Active shooters are just so amazingly skilled, nobody could possibly win against them. It’s better to just give up and die. It’s better to just let them walk into a school and mow down masses of children. “For god’s sake, please don’t make the situation worse by shooting the worthless, unskilled, untrained, cowardly piece of crap who’s massacring helpless people.” So help me, I can’t think of a more pathetic mindset than that.
Chris,
Good write up and insight. Awhile back an Eagle Scout did a similar thing in a high school lunch room. Got a medal and a write up in Boys Life.
Just because some people can be talked down doesn’t mean every active shooter wants to be talked down.
I have always heard that you negoiate from a position of power.
Yup. Tuff talked to him, but cops were shooting at him. He was no longer in charge, they maybe didn’t have all the power but they were getting it.
Good to see you again, Mack.
Hey Chris Nice post.
Even if we both agree that we disagree about gun control;-) i totaly second you about this one, this woman is a really brave one and must not be forgotten, but she was lucky i mean really lucky, i agree about the fact sometimes you must have faith but only if you don t have any other way to solve the problem.
Even if i stand still against armed teacher, a properly armed/trained security team would have been really useful therel.
from our european point of view it s still surprising to see the gap beetween the number of school shootings and the number of actions to prevent them….
Once again i m against the fact to allow teachers to carry guns but i have to admit that at least people pro-armed teachers are offering a solution against those shootings..
Hey Chris we need to get you on CNN, MSNBC, and FOXNEWS to share your views on this subject. Slap the liberal America across their face and make them spit out their couscous and listen to logic. Personally I feel that a school system should have armaments to protect our children.
There are no tools available for teachers and staff to fight back. Even a can of riot pepper spray is unavailable at 99.999 percent of schools I would wager.
We need trained individual teachers who are willing to commit to a yearly training scenario / competency who will intelligently investigate gunfire and respond with the appropriate action. They need to be armed, armored, and, most importantly, volunteer for the training.
A rifle, a bag of medical supplies, and armor should be accessible to whoever is willing to volunteer for the school and it’s children. We have fire extinguishers all over the place. To put out fires. Let’s have the tools available to put out madness.
Fantastic article, and fantastic responses to comments. I am a liberal, a Huffington Post reader, a teacher, and a parent. I also have my concealed carry license and 100% agree with this article/author. I am rather tired of all the stereotypes/generalizations.
Teachers should be able to be trained as Reserve Police:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2992149/posts
I’m a teacher and veteran, and I think letting teachers be trained and armed as Reserve Police has merit:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2992149/posts