Anti-Terrorism briefs...

[LRS_Ranger]

Currently doing my mandatory online training.. Active shooter section. All about how to crouch and cower in fear on the ground if someone comes to shoot us. What. The. Fuck?!?

Has it always been like this? As an army, we are instructed to run away or cower under a desk in a Ft Hood type incident. Defending ourselves or others is supposed to be a last resort! I just can't see the generation of men that fought WW2 running and hiding instead of defending themselves and their buddies.

For those of you that were in the Armed Forces in the past, was this the mentality? Were you allowed or encouraged to defend yourselves? When did the regulation change so we weren't allowed to carry a personal weapon on base?

Anybody else have to do this shit?

 

[crumpmd]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

I got out a long time ago and when I was in we never once discussed that kind of stuff. Now as a practicing surgeon in a rural hospital we have discussed emergencies based on a shooter in the hospital. The standard line is just as you have said, find cover, dial 911 ect.... We all laughed at that. Any self respecting man will exercise some manly firmness and do what they can to neutralize the threat with whatever is at hand. I have even heard some people do carry concealed on post even though it is forbidden and I applaud their initiative( although they like as not will be in cuffs after they neutralize the threat).

 

[Chilo]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

Training instills a reaction. Be careful how you train. If you don't agree but must complete faulty training, you can re-train yourself to do the right thing. You won't however, do the right thing automatically without training yourself properly. Your brain won't go automatically in an emergency where you haven't deliberately taken it before.

Stay Alert

 

[shark0311]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LRS_Ranger</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Currently doing my mandatory online training.. Active shooter section. All about how to crouch and cower in fear on the ground if someone comes to shoot us. What. The. Fuck?!?

Has it always been like this? As an army, we are instructed to run away or cower under a desk in a Ft Hood type incident. Defending ourselves or others is supposed to be a last resort! I just can't see the generation of men that fought WW2 running and hiding instead of defending themselves and their buddies.

For those of you that were in the Armed Forces in the past, was this the mentality? Were you allowed or encouraged to defend yourselves? When did the regulation change so we weren't allowed to carry a personal weapon on base?

Anybody else have to do this shit?</div></div>

DHS has a great active shooter training program that is free. Contact your local office to arrange for the training.

 

[LRS_Ranger]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shark0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

DHS has a great active shooter training program that is free. Contact your local office to arrange for the training. </div></div>

I am sure that they do... However, the jackals up at the pentegon (who have security details) have decided that this is the way it is. It's completely bullshit training, just like pretty much any other online crap they make us do, so I'm not concerned about learning the wrong thing. It's just infuriating to me that as an infantry soldier, they tell me I'm supposed to run out the back door or hide under my desk. Fuck carrying a weapon, they don't even want me to throw a punch! It used to be that our military valued tough, headstrong, and tenacious men that would take the fight to the enemy. Now they want us to be a bunch of spineless, Equal Oportunity spouting pussies.

 

[Graham]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LRS_Ranger</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's just infuriating to me that as an infantry soldier, they tell me I'm supposed to run out the back door or hide under my desk. Fuck carrying a weapon...</div></div>If you don't have a weapon handy you can't use one. Hiding is a last resort, but sometimes it's not cowardice: it's simply the only rational option if you want to live.

 

[Crewdog135]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

LRS,
Same BS here in the AF. Part of our annual computer-based training hell. I particularly like the anti-terror modual on being kidnapped--if faced with deadly force, do not resist! YGBSM! Not being all John Wayne here, but when an opening presents itself, no way I'm letting it pass. If I die, its going to be trying, not on my knees getting my head removed from the rest of me!

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

Imagine a response team searching for an active shooter when hundreds of people are milling about with their no longer concealed pistols out for blood.

Sounds like a nightmare.

 

[LRS_Ranger]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Imagine a response team searching for an active shooter when hundreds of people are milling about with their no longer concealed pistols out for blood.

Sounds like a nightmare.

</div></div>
By that logic we shouldn't have any CC permits either. Wouldn't want anyone other than the cops to have guns, us civilians might start shooting everyone. The whole point of having CC'ers is to have the active shooter situation fixed before the cops get there...

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LRS_Ranger</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Imagine a response team searching for an active shooter when hundreds of people are milling about with their no longer concealed pistols out for blood.

Sounds like a nightmare.

</div></div>
By that logic we shouldn't have any CC permits either. Wouldn't want anyone other than the cops to have guns, us civilians might start shooting everyone. The whole point of having CC'ers is to have the active shooter situation fixed before the cops get there... </div></div>

I'm not arguing against CCW, or saying I wouldn't try to do something myself in such a situation.

I'm just saying that responsible organizations will always have to have a plan, and from their perspective the plan they're asking you to participate in probably makes the most sense for them.

Real life never works out like internet classrooms

 

[shark0311]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

"As a last resort, attempt to take the active shooter down. When the shooter is at close range and you cannot flee, your chance of survival is much greater if you try to incapacitate him/her."

Active Shooter DHS

 

[LRS_Ranger]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LRS_Ranger</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Imagine a response team searching for an active shooter when hundreds of people are milling about with their no longer concealed pistols out for blood.

Sounds like a nightmare.

</div></div>
By that logic we shouldn't have any CC permits either. Wouldn't want anyone other than the cops to have guns, us civilians might start shooting everyone. The whole point of having CC'ers is to have the active shooter situation fixed before the cops get there... </div></div>

I'm not arguing against CCW, or saying I wouldn't try to do something myself in such a situation.

I'm just saying that responsible organizations will always have to have a plan, and from their perspective the plan they're asking you to participate in probably makes the most sense for them.

Real life never works out like internet classrooms

</div></div>
I agree with you.. and as a side note, the reason their plan works for them is that there is no real liability (allowing soldiers to carry a weapon), thus less likelihood that something bad could happen which might hurt their career progression. I sure wouldn't want to stand in the way of some old dude turning that little eagle into a star or two.. yea I'm bitter..

 

[tullius]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Imagine a response team searching for an active shooter when hundreds of people are milling about with their no longer concealed pistols out for blood.

Sounds like a nightmare.

</div></div>

Hippie, you've been listening too much to John Lennon.

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tullius</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Imagine a response team searching for an active shooter when hundreds of people are milling about with their no longer concealed pistols out for blood.

Sounds like a nightmare.

</div></div>

Hippie, you've been listening too much to John Lennon. </div></div>

I guess we could all just stand around flapping our jaws about all the awesome things we might do in rhetorical situations instead of considering the obvious possible downfalls of our actions.

Everyone can have it their way.

As far as the John Lennon's concerned you obviously don't know me very well. I much prefer:

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NrmcaiZM_vU&feature=related"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NrmcaiZM_vU&feature=related" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QEpFLwlcsU4"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QEpFLwlcsU4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/r4DOT_h7O-o&feature=related"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/r4DOT_h7O-o&feature=related" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A4MK9bJdclc"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A4MK9bJdclc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qGjCnnY4XDs&feature=related"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qGjCnnY4XDs&feature=related" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nE1nCgRBYbs&feature=related"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nE1nCgRBYbs&feature=related" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

 

[tullius]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

Ok, so: music genres aside, you're philosophically there.

Given the vast majority of states that widely permit CC, care to cite a real-world example of LE responding to a situation comprised of hundreds of bloodthirsty CCW permit holders waving their sidearms about? Does one exist?

Also, the Cro-Mags were associated with the Hare Krishna movement (notably, for a hardcore punk/thrash band). So was Lennon, of course.

 

[crumpmd]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Imagine a response team searching for an active shooter when hundreds of people are milling about with their no longer concealed pistols out for blood.

Sounds like a nightmare.

</div></div>

Sounds like a positive situation to me. Likely the ones out for blood will have spilled it by the time a response team arrives and the active shooter is active no more.

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tullius</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, so: music genres aside, you're philosophically there.

Given the vast majority of states that widely permit CC, care to cite a real-world example of LE responding to a situation comprised of hundreds of bloodthirsty CCW permit holders waving their sidearms about? Does one exist?

Also, the Cro-Mags were associated with the Hare Krishna movement (notably, for a hardcore punk/thrash band). So was Lennon, of course. </div></div>

We're talking specifically about military installations most with response teams that are supposed to be prepared to deal with these situations, and I'll take this quote from an article on the Ft Hood shooting; "Officials have not ruled out the possibility that some casualties may have been victims of "friendly fire," shot by authorities amid the mayhem and confusion at the scene, said a senior U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss matters that were under investigation."

If you show up to a building and everyone is dressed the same and you come around a corner and see an armed individual shooting down a hallway where you are completely uncertain who they're engaging that person is going to most likely get zapped.

As a CCW responder how do you tell the difference between the active shooter and the other first responder CCW's?

The DHS guidelines someone posted above seem pretty reasonable in that sense. If you have someone in plain sight mowing people down and you have a pistol you'd be a piece of shit if you didn't put them in the dirt. However if you just hear gunshots and you're in a crowded building and you start wandering around looking for the shooter with your pistol at the ready you're running the risk of making a bad decision for more people than just yourself. I'm not certain the results of their investigations, but you have to see how this could be a major concern for responders.


People that expect to be in this type of situation, and respond in anyway should have asked themselves all these questions, and considered all these possibilities long before they end up in such a situation. While 1 in every 500 members here might be an actual real life Jason Bourne the other 499 are just random joe blows with a hardon for slinging lead and could easily end up just turning a shit storm into a worse situation. Most of those people probably aren't going to contribute to this discussion.

Interesting fact about the Cro-mags had no idea. I don't really vet my bands for their religions though I listen for the music. John Lennon's music just sucks.

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: crumpmd</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Imagine a response team searching for an active shooter when hundreds of people are milling about with their no longer concealed pistols out for blood.

Sounds like a nightmare.

</div></div>

Sounds like a positive situation to me. Likely the ones out for blood will have spilled it by the time a response team arrives and the active shooter is active no more. </div></div>

Sounds like a great way to evade capture if you manage to kill all the witnesses of your identity to me.

While that would be a great outcome to any active shooter would it really happen like that? Has it before where more than one person stepped up? Seems like things could get awfully confusing really quickly.

 

[bikemancs]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

I'm with ya OP. I hate the fact that the military has spent good money training us, and then doesn't enable us to fulfill part of our oath, you know, the one about protecting "against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

I've never seen an MP rapidly respond to any scene, hell, took an MP over 2 hours to find a car accident because they had "outdated maps" even though I called into dispatch twice to assist them in locating the accident. and I sure as heck don't trust Wackenhut to do anything.

 

[BOLTRIPPER]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shark0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"As a last resort, attempt to take the active shooter down. When the shooter is at close range and you cannot flee, your chance of survival is much greater if you try to incapacitate him/her."

Active Shooter DHS </div></div>






...i believe everthing the government tells me.....

 

[crumpmd]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: crumpmd</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Imagine a response team searching for an active shooter when hundreds of people are milling about with their no longer concealed pistols out for blood.

Sounds like a nightmare.

</div></div>

Sounds like a positive situation to me. Likely the ones out for blood will have spilled it by the time a response team arrives and the active shooter is active no more. </div></div>

Sounds like a great way to evade capture if you manage to kill all the witnesses of your identity to me.

While that would be a great outcome to any active shooter would it really happen like that? Has it before where more than one person stepped up? Seems like things could get awfully confusing really quickly. </div></div>

If we are talking about a military installation, if every swinging dick had a sidearm or a long gun the 'active shooter' would not get very many shots off before the guy next to him realizes what is up and shuts him down. The probability of a subsequent person starting the shooting all over again is nil because of fire discipline instilled in the soldiers.
If talking about the general public then there is that possibility someone runs up just as a citizen is putting down the 'active shooter' and tags him. But it is remote. There just are not that many CCW out there and so many places are restricted. The ideal situation is unlimited CCW and some nutjob takes out a glock with a 30 round mag hanging a foot out the bottom and starts shooting the guy behind him puts one in the cerebellum. All the shooting stops and nobody else is going to randomly open fire even if they have their weapon out because the shooting stopped and it is quiet. I'd rather have that situation than an unarmed populace at the mercy of a psycho.

 

[SgtKope]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

I believe there are more people that are allowed to CCW on base than you think...

 

[marduk185]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

well when i was a young corpsman we werent allowed personal weapons in the barracks...they had to be checked to the armory(91-95.) however, when we went to the range gunny always made certain that he himself and the rest of us "cadre" carried at least twice as many mags for our sidearms as the students we were running thru. im not sure but i dont think he meant us to cower if someone had gone nutty.

 

[DODGE268]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

While I agree with military personell being armed on base, in reality they are not. Stupid rule but not one you can change. Try to see the up side of what they are instructing you to do. Instead of hiding, you could think of it as lying in wait. I think you could conceal yourself in such a manner that you could close the distance on the shooter to negate the advantage that he has with a firearm. Our active shooter response is to have the first four officers move directly to the shooting. We however are armed. I can't really see myself running to the sound of gunfire with out a way to shoot back. It would just be creating a more target rich environment for the shooter.
Just my .02
Patrick

 

[mgd45]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shark0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"As a last resort, attempt to take the active shooter down. When the shooter is at close range and you cannot flee, your chance of survival is much greater if you try to incapacitate him/her."

Active Shooter DHS </div></div>

To be fair......in the exact same DHS Active Shooter program that you quoted, it says this....

<span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">2.Hide out</span>

If evacuation is not possible, find a place to hide where the active shooter is less likely to find you.

Your hiding place should:

-Be out of the active shooter’s view

-Provide protection if shots are fired in your direction (i.e., an office with a closed and locked door)

- Not trap you or restrict your options for movement.</span>

Sometimes, it's better to hide & fight another day or time when you have the advantage or upper hand.....like when you hear the shooter trying to reload....

I'm just saying....

 

[notquiteright]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

I do believe alot of officers and not just a few senior NCOs would be very unhappy at the thought of the lower enlisted carrying loaded weapons while in garrison. Heck, issuing bayonets caused a bit of concern!

40 years ago weapons were stored in the arms room. Thinking back on some of the card games and barracks fights that were rather routine I can only imagine what would the the body count if all involved had automatic weapons!

While every man who joins up is called a soldier and most see themselves as rugged warriors the fact is most can barely tell pointy end from blunt. Takes more than waving a 9mm around to be effective in a high stress enviroment where a stray shot can easily hit a fellow soldier. Imagine 30 in the rear with the gear types blazing away.

I'll allow everyone here is of sterner stuff and can put one in the brain bucket at 50 yards, You'll have to allow most you serve/served with couldnt.

As horrific as a gunman blazing away at unarmed soldiers is, I'd imagine the body count from the 'solution' would make that number seem small.

 

[sandwarrior]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Imagine a response team searching for an active shooter when hundreds of people are milling about with their no longer concealed pistols out for blood.

Sounds like a nightmare.

</div></div>

You've given a viable scenario there. However, I think that rather than hundreds of people with their pistols out firing randomly I would suggest designated "carriers" in each section and office or area.

Someday the military has got to consider they, as well as we the people, to a certain extent, have been infiltrated. Dealing with a threat such as what happened at Ft. Hood is going to be a reality again.

But, who better to deal with it than the military. All the thought lines have already been laid out for what happens in case of compromise. The people in each section, office or 'area' are already tasked with defending and supporting one another. I think it then becomes a plan as to who carries and where they are positioned so as not be the first target struck, and there would be redundant shooters. That plan can and should work.

I agree with LRS Ranger that this "Online training" is simply a knee jerk liability thing. Of which there should be none. If you can't ask the military to defend themselves I certainly don't think you should be asking them to defend our country....

 

[socalsheepdog]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tullius</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #FF0000">Imagine</span></span> a response team searching for an active shooter when hundreds of people are milling about with their no longer concealed pistols out for blood.

Sounds like a nightmare.

</div></div>

Hippie, you've been listening too much to John Lennon. </div></div>

HAHA, I got it.

 

[shark0311]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mgd45</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shark0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"As a last resort, attempt to take the active shooter down. When the shooter is at close range and you cannot flee, your chance of survival is much greater if you try to incapacitate him/her."

Active Shooter DHS </div></div>

To be fair......in the exact same DHS Active Shooter program that you quoted, it says this....

<span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">2.Hide out</span>

If evacuation is not possible, find a place to hide where the active shooter is less likely to find you.

Your hiding place should:

-Be out of the active shooter’s view

-Provide protection if shots are fired in your direction (i.e., an office with a closed and locked door)

- Not trap you or restrict your options for movement.</span>

Sometimes, it's better to hide & fight another day or time when you have the advantage or upper hand.....like when you hear the shooter trying to reload....

I'm just saying....

</div></div>

You are spot on. That is why I recommend the program. Every scenario is different,assessing the situation is critical to acting in an effective manner. The first priority is to extract your self to a safe area if time permits. If not take action and remain committed to your action.

In many ways it isn't much different from the immediate actions taken in a near/far ambush. Near ambush: assault through, far ambush: break contact.

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Imagine a response team searching for an active shooter when hundreds of people are milling about with their no longer concealed pistols out for blood.

Sounds like a nightmare.

</div></div>


But, who better to deal with it than the military. All the thought lines have already been laid out for what happens in case of compromise. The people in each section, office or 'area' are already tasked with defending and supporting one another. I think it then becomes a plan as to who carries and where they are positioned so as not be the first target struck, and there would be redundant shooters. That plan can and should work.
</div></div>

I wouldn't disagree. In fact this is what I would expect.

 

[marduk185]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

and i thought this would be a bunch of underwear...

 

[decider]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

roger that... michael jordan is not selling hanes briefs to our soldiers, but the politicians are filling their briefs with plenty of (the brown stinky stuff)....

fort hood, virginia tech, tucson, the one similarity, the soldiers were not armed and did not and could not defend themselves with lethal means, which would have saved many lives....

 

[wingnut13]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

I've got that CBT sittin' in my inbox. I'm not looking forward to doin' it.... Hide behind the hollow core doors and pray? It doesn't sound like a good plan to me. ~Wingnut13

 

[VJJPunisher]

Re: Anti-Terrorism briefs...

I would at least frontal assault while flinging my own excrement at the perp, monkey style, at least go out like a wierdo instead of cowering unarmed in my own sharted pants