Active Shooter: To Engage or Not to Engage?

I’ve spent some time this month looking at the attributes of a rifleman, their prevalence (or lack thereof), and their role in modern society.  Now I’d like to take a more specific look at how some of these aspects might play out. 

The question at hand is this: “A person is armed with a firearm and appears to be indiscriminately shooting innocent people.  You are armed, and in a position to engage the shooter.  Do you?” 

I want to make perfectly clear that I'm not talking about interfering with property crimes by introducing deadly force.  I'm not talking about engaging anyone who is not an obvious threat.  I'm talking about an active shooter situation in which someone is engaged in pulling the trigger on innocents in the present (not a minute ago). 

I hear and read a lot of people espouse the opinion that carrying a gun is only for self-defense and that it’s a mistake to interfere in the business of others, even if that business is being an innocent person getting shot by a psychopath.  After the somewhat recent killing at IHOP on 9/6/11 in Carson City, Nevada in which a bystander was armed and decided not to engage with his handgun, there was a lot of debate.  This got me thinking about my own views.  None of the following is meant to second guess what any particular person did.  

I read a few differing opinions on this subject.  The most compelling I read in favor of engaging were by Gabe Suarez.  I generally agree with what he has said on the subject.  I have had trouble understanding the opposing opinions.  I was actually quite angry to hear Tom Gresham say on Gun Talk Radio that other people’s welfare is really none of your business when your carrying, just take care of yourself. 

The first thing that comes to mind is that it seems to me an incredibly selfish thing to not even consider engaging.  What I hear over and over, basically being “mind your own business and look out for yourself” seems to encapsulate a lot of what is wrong with our society at this point in time.  If you look at some of the other things I’ve written this month, it’s obvious that my conception of a “rifleman”, which again is a term I use to mean in a very general sense of a protector, is someone who fulfills the duty of what any able bodied male was expected to do when this country was founded.  In our nation’s early days there was no police to call or any kind of government expert to take over the scene.  Apathy, and the failure to take responsibility for what goes on in our communities, is allowing those who would take away our rights and traditions the opportunity to do just that.  

The second thing that comes to mind is that saying “only the police have the responsibility to neutralize an active shooter” and standing up for 2^nd Amendment rights are incompatible with each other.  Rights come with responsibilities, in some cases rights exist because of responsibilities.  In the case of the 2^nd Amendment, the responsibility is explicitly mentioned, before the right is enumerated.  I’ve touched on that more here.  

In coming up with an article, I actually had to do some thinking and consideration, which has moderated my stance on the subject of engaging an active shooter a bit.  I think that there are certain questions that need to be considered beforehand, before you even consider becoming part of a hellish event like an active shooter situation.  There are certainly valid reasons not to engage.  I don’t think that “it was not my fight” is one of them. 

Consider why you carry a gun in the first place, and whether or not you can actually use it.  Is a gun a magic talisman to ward off evil?  No.  You better know within yourself what your capabilities are, both in terms of skill and your emotional capacity to use it.   

You should consider often different scenarios you may find yourself in and consider how you might address them.  You should also consider whether you are equipped to address them.  These are easy situations to figure out after the fact, but hard to figure out when your heart rate is at 180 bpm, people are screaming and running, and you might die.  The sight of your gun will probably freak people out, causing the people running away from the gunshots to panic.  If you carry a gun you should be thinking of things like this ahead of time, so when you are actually faced with them you can act instantly.  If you're training does not enable you to engage in the scenarios you can imagine, consider whether you need to get that training ASAP. 

Consider how you will cope with killing a human being.  I understand, you shoot to stop, but understand that there is a possibility, if not a probability of death.  If you aren’t up to meeting the challenges, consider not carrying.  So the first question you need to ask yourself is, “Am I up to the task?”  Hopefully you thought about this before you decided to carry. 

A crucial question to ask when making a decision whether or not to engage is where you are in relation to the threat.  It would seem that the closer you are, the stronger the case to engage.  If you are directly threatened, we don’t need to ask the question.  If someone is directly threatened within your sight, I hope you don’t need to ask the question.  If it’s in another room, be careful.  Make a decision, use your senses and common sense, and act prudently one way or the other. 

Do you have your own family to protect?  This is a situation in which it would be understandable that you take whatever measure necessary to ensure their safety before considering engaging.  Solve problem #1 before considering problem #2. 

Something else to consider is whether the situation outweighs your ability to address it.  Can you accomplish this without help?  If not, is help available?  The police will probably not want your help if they don’t know you.  Getting to know them beforehand via ride-alongs or citizen academy programs my help you in this regard, or they may not.   

If the police don’t know you, and you have a gun visible, you stand a good chance of being shot.  That’s definitely something to think about.  If the police are arriving, the situation has likely been going on for a few minutes.  If that’s the case, your window of opportunity for engaging may have closed.  You’ll have to make an assessment of whether that’s the case at the time.  If you are ordered by the police to drop your gun, you better listen and comply quickly.  Don’t delay your compliance to offer  an explanation.  That’s for after. 

Speaking of windows of opportunity, once the shots stop, it is no longer an “active” shooter situation.  The shooter may still be alive, and may still constitute a threat, but the dynamic has shifted.  It may now be a hostage or barricaded gunman situation, which unless you are right there and know exactly what’s going on, probably is outside of the realm of what an armed citizen acting alone could hope to solve. 

Consider whether your participation in the event will make it more dangerous.  If you have to run against a stampede of people running away from the gunfire, will the sight of your gun cause a traffic jam of people?  Is the shooter within a crowd?  Are there over-penetration issues? 

These are all things to consider.  There may be more.  You need to think about them ahead of time.  Make sure that if you carry a gun, that you and your equipment are in a state of readiness and good repair. 

I'm not trying to give you an answer as to what you should do.  I just hope you make a good decision when the time comes.  The question you’ll have to answer at the time is “Are people being killed right now?  Is there something I can, and should, do about it?”