Learning from all of this

[YVK]

We have three parallel threads running in the aftermath of a tragedy. I thought I'd start another one, trying to filter out emotional and other components and get to discuss what/how/why should we do if faced with a similar situation. Moderators: if you feel this can be merged with any of those threads above, feel free. What I write here is a synthesis of my own thoughts as well as what I've picked from reading your ideas.

#1. Mindset. I think DocGKR mentioned that when going to mass public events one has to expect bad things. I agree with this. I've carried to public events in very non-permissive environments for awhile. When not able to carry firearms, carry nonlethal - tacti-pens on airplanes etc. Realization you better off carrying something is as important as what you carry.

#2. Mindset. Multiple examples suggest that aggressive, decisive, unexpected actions win fights, at the minimum change course of events. One can make his/her own pre-planned decision on course of action - engage actively, engage opportunistically, flee, hide - depending on own preferences and values, but it seems that whatever you do, bold aggressive action pays off. Feel free to disagree.

#3. I did want to put situational awareness here, but I am not sure how to plug this in. Not sure how to be situation-aware in a dark movie theater watching a movie. If movie is any good, then you'll be staring on the screen. Perhaps training self to redirect attention from the screen and survey the venue at times? Discuss.

#4. Choice of location. Most of that has been discussed in other thread. Still, quite a few variables. Most would prefer best vantage points. Some want to be closer to exits. In venues seemingly isle seats are better than center for easier mobility, although they have own disadvantage. I prefer to sit near/over the exit ramp with idea that my family can jump there from above if they can't make it to the exit on foot.

#5. Communications. Some of it comes from John Farnam who teaches that families/partners should develop a set of defined commands. For example, children are to be taught that certain commands are to be followed with immediate response and zero arguments.

#6. Choice of equipment. I am asking myself: if my goal, and the source of concern and planning, is to spend 150 safe minutes inside a decidedly low-light environment, then why would I continue the routine AIWB thing for those 150 minutes and not click on the X300 and carry it strong-side? I am not even mentioning not carrying a handheld flashlight here, that to should be a given.

#7. I don't think we could come up with a specific type of action given variability of every possible scenario. One question I've had for myself even before this accident: if I see a heavily armed man in clothing that precludes from recognizing presence of absence of IBA, should CNS then become a target? I don't know if there is a lesson to be learned here, but if there is one, I'm sure that late Mr. Wilson would want us to learn it.

I am an amateur in this and I am not trying to play tacti-armchair commando. Simply an attempt to come out with something constructive.

[DocGKR]

The mind is the weapon, a firearm or any other implement is but a tool...

[Packy]

The mind is the weapon, a firearm or any other implement is but a tool...

wrong Place, wrong time but Right mindset.

[Zhurdan]

#3
The problem I see with most theater's is.... the closer you are to the exit, the closer you are to the entrance. If it's the only way out, it's the only way in. You either see the bad guy coming in immediately or you're the first to take rounds. There's really no "good seat" in a modern theater when it comes to defense.

[LOKNLOD]

#3
The problem I see with most theater's is.... the closer you are to the exit, the closer you are to the entrance. If it's the only way out, it's the only way in. You either see the bad guy coming in immediately or you're the first to take rounds. There's really no "good seat" in a modern theater when it comes to defense.

More theaters are starting to pop up with a separate balcony section, often where alcohol and food are served, and because of this access is a little more tightly controlled (IDing, and ushers, and the access points are not directly to outdoors). Of course the alcohol could complicate things according to carry laws in some states. In our local one, the seating is reserved and you pick specific seats rather than general seating. Choosing the right seats in that section could limit your exposure to being the immediate target upon a madman's attack. If some was down in front with a gun you'd be a long way off but you'd have concealment and an elevated firing position... The flip side of that is he may decide that's where he needs to be to get high ground too, so it might put you closer.

Beyond that, our more typical theaters, like the one at the mall...some of the stadiums widen out by a few seats about halfway up, to take up the space over the entrance tunnels. These make a little nook where one could take a degree of concealment (perhaps cover, I don't know if they are a concrete structure or not, perhaps it would provide some degree of protection). Either way it's a place to duck and take a supported shot and to corral the kids into a controlled space. If I sat on the left side of the stadium and shoved them into that spot I could be optimally set up for firing around the barrier with minimal exposure.

And our larger stadiums (the ones the big premiers are in) do have entrances at the top/back. They have a hallway up there that leads to emergency exists, an elevator, and stairs and have bathrooms and so people at the back can duck out with less disturbance.

[41magfan]

I think it’s worth reiterating that people become victims in most of these episodes of unprovoked violence because they did nothing intended as an intervention – not so much because they did the wrong thing.

If I were to walk into a room full of randomly dispersed people, a huge number of them are always going to be outside my field of vision and once I commit to engaging one person, it insures that I cannot engage a certain number of the others. If those that are not immediately being engaged have the presence of mind to act, they will obtain an obvious advantage that reaction cannot likely overcome.

Something to keep in mind as part of your mental preparation to developing a strategy in responding to circumstances like this; Regardless of which end of the stick your holding, remember that we are visual creatures and are naturally predisposed to respond to that stimulus.

If you were to experience visual and auditory stimulus at the same time from two directions, you are more likely to respond to movement first. It’s really a fundamental dynamic of the predator and prey relationship – movement draws attention, and in so many cases like this where everyone is a potential target, it draws gunfire. Along those same lines, people standing are almost always viewed as a greater threat than those that are seated.

[BaiHu]

A buddy of mine just sent me an email about 'people' like Holmes and I thought you'd all be interested to read this. I thought it was spot on.

"Our desire to socialize the outlier, the oddball, always drives us to find existing groups to put him in. The idea that someone could be outside of any kind of socialization - completely disinterested in the things that we draw comfort from - and that he could wander back into the group and cause such destruction, is perhaps the most troubling thing in the animal kingdom. If he is aligned with a pack, no matter who they are, he is somehow comprehensible, somehow easier to predict. But the randomness of the loner threatens to destabilize our own pack.

We can war with another group, but if those among us are not knowable we cannot sleep at night."

[digiadaamore]

Ive been thinking about something recently. there are many accounts of tag team active shooters, if this situation were to occur and YOU whoever you are , engage the shooter and eliminate him. he is no longer a threat, do you direct your family to run out the nearest exit? what are the chances there's another one batting cleanup? obviously if the shooter in the room is active HE'S the number one threat. but if you take him out are you better off waiting for LE to work their way in to you, clearing any external threat?

[ford.304]

If you were to experience visual and auditory stimulus at the same time from two directions, you are more likely to respond to movement first. It’s really a fundamental dynamic of the predator and prey relationship – movement draws attention, and in so many cases like this where everyone is a potential target, it draws gunfire. Along those same lines, people standing are almost always viewed as a greater threat than those that are seated.

I think that's a really useful point, and one of the few lessons from that stupid ABC special. If you walk into a room with a gun, and one person starts standing up and drawing, you're going to zero in on that guy immediately. Then it becomes a quick draw competition.

Whereas diving for cover like everyone else and *then* ambushing with the gun seems less likely to paint a bullseye on your chest.

[Jason F]

........If I were to walk into a room full of randomly dispersed people, a huge number of them are always going to be outside my field of vision and once I commit to engaging one person, it insures that I cannot engage a certain number of the others. If those that are not immediately being engaged have the presence of mind to act, they will obtain an obvious advantage that reaction cannot likely overcome.....

THIS is exactly what has left me the most unsettled about what transpired last week.

I applaud the actions of the young man who helped the woman & her children after they were abandoned by their male dna donor. I applaud the three men who died protecting their loved ones. They died with honor and should be remembered thusly.

But what I can't wrestle down is how in a theater that theoretically should have been full, seating what- 250? 300? people NOT ONE person chose to engage. As I described to a friend the other day, "So he has on body armor & a mask (if you can even discern that in the dark)- assuming you could recognize that, why not just tackle the SoB?" Take his guns out of the equation momentarily - creating time for more folks to flee - and also drawing his attention to you... WHILST you are either pummeling the ever-loving shit out of him with your fists, or you've gone to blade skills, or perhaps used his moments of "what just happened?" to draw your own weapon and begin to dismantle the predator.

And you know what, yes, because of your movement, he may spot you and chose to engage you. And you very likely may catch a few rounds. Being shot is not a death sentence. It doesn't help you stay healthy, but it is not the end. MINDSET wins in a situation like this. I would speculate that someone with the mindset to COUNTER-ATTACK would not be neccesarily stopped unless they were physically impared (ie, loss of mobility, CNS hit, etc).

My wife asked me on Sunday - "But he had body armor! And 4 guns! What could you have done with your pistol!?" I would theorize that what I could have done with my pistol is the wrong question. The question should be, what would you have done- period. DO SOMETHING.