At least some police departments are, finally, teaching the victim pool in our nation’s “gun free zones” that sitting quietly and waiting to be butchered doesn’t actually prevent any deaths.
Law enforcement agencies have begun adopting a new policy on so-called “active shooters,” encouraging civilians to take safety into their own hands and take down gunmen who threaten them at work or school.
This approach is gaining momentum in the wake of tragic incidents in Newtown, Connecticut and the Oikos University shooting in Oakland.
At San Jose Evergreen Community College, police have trained teachers, staff and students to follow specific guidelines during this kind of emergency.
The campus police chief credits this training for their coordinated response last December when a gunman was thought to have entered one of their buildings. “Some folks even said I know now whether it is time to hide or the right time to fight back,” said Chief Raymund Aguirre.
Fighting back works.
As we saw in the Clackamas Mall shooting, three days before the Sandy Hook shooting last winter, fighting back with a gun works even better.
Eventually someone will put two and two together; if resisting murderers is good, resisting them with lethal force is better.
We’ll have a related story – and one that ties in with my “Urban Renewal” piece the other day – coming up at noon.
yes…it’s all about reducing the likelyhood of an unpleasant event. My resistance to being a victim doesn’t guarantee against me becoming a victim any more than smoke detectors and fire extinguishers “guarantee” against a fire…any more that a lock on my front door “guarantees” against a break-in…than locking my car and taking the keys “guarantees” against it’s theft.
Even those most fearful of all things firearm related would have to realize that it would be foolish of me to forgo any of those mentioned above simply because we have police and fire departments. So why, pray tell, would being able to defend ones self, family or even others be any different?
After Red Lake I told my kids if they were in a similar situation and thier mom or dad wasn’t around, they had my express permission – and instructions – to ignore any authority that said “stay put”. They were to get out in the most expeditious way – even out a window if necessary – and to keep moving.
Last year in our office I was meeting with our Emergency Response leaders after one of the periodic walk-through simulations we do for various scenarios. We had never done an active-shooter simulation, so I asked them what the strategy would be. “I guess lock-down,” was the response. I said, “You might want to rethink that, Chief. Our office is nothing but glass-walled offices and foam and fabric cubicles. There’s no place to “lock-down” if someone is already on the floor. Since our building bans guns on these premises, if I hear shooting I am not waiting for my floor warden to tell me to get under my desk – I’m out of here.”
So far the only response has been, “Hmmm.”
It would be nice if this was a positive, proactive response by the “authorities”; as part of an evolving safety response plan.
However, I can’t help but get the feeling that this is an acknowledgement that they really can’t do what they think they should so it’s more of a surrender. “Every woman/man/child for themselves.”
Part 2: By the way Gun-Free Zones still stand. Please carry some form of valid ID (on your body) at all times when on school property.
Night,
Me too.