Active shooter training

[Johnny C]

Just got through active shooter training today at work and I was wondering.

Who else has sat through this type of training? and were you told "The police cant get there in time to save you"

Of course most folks on INGO know that is true without training, but it got me thinking.

Would that statement from the police get an anti or non gun person thinking about self defence or is their mental state such that that thought would never enter their mind because of fear?

If "The police cant get there in time to save you" at work, then they cant get there to save you at the mall, the theater, Wall mart, the ballgame, strolling down the street, etc.

I already think that way and don't understand the sheeple mindset that can ignore this basic fact of life....Ultimately, you are responsible for your own safety.

 

[dprimm]

Wish my place of work would actually do one of these. Or at least have an open honest discussion about it.

Ps 'active shooter' is really a bad phrase. Not aiming at you; many use it. Ummm, terrorist perhaps? Murderer?

 

[CitiusFortius]

I don't honestly think it changes anything. Either way, if you see a dude with a gun you're gonna run and look for cover. As I have not been through training like the OP mentioned, assuming I'm unarmed and don't have a clear way to exit the building, what am I supposed to do? I would assume hide, and I think that's what most people do.

Better training IMO is letting people hear real gunshots (not the mini explosions they hear in the movies) How many times do you hear people say "I heard some bangs, and thought it was construction, until I saw...."

If people knew what gun shots sounded like, they'd spring to action as soon as they hear it. I dunno, just my ramblings...

 

[IamLegend]

My work does not allow me to carry so I have zero interest in sitting through their class telling me what to do during an active shooter situation. With the exception being to tell them what I think of their policies.

 

[IndyGunSafety]

We teach the ALICE program, which was designed for schools but is easily adapted to any business or place of worship. ALERT LOCKDOWN INFORM COUNTER ESCAPE. One has to take responsibility for their own safety or really suffer the consequences of somebody else's decision making. I really glad to see more workplaces implementing such programs. Glad you got the training. Who was the instructor? What organization were they from?

Ps 'active shooter' is really a bad phrase. Not aiming at you; many use it. Ummm, terrorist perhaps? Murderer?

Good point. Violent Intruder or Violent Killer. It goes way beyond "shooter".

 

[Johnny C]

Security here at work gave the training.
We cant be armed, since its a govt. workplace, so hiding or improvised weapons are our 2 choices.

 

[AndersonIN]

Hey if this happens at my work there are going to be at least TWO "active shooters"!!!

 

[SMiller]

Wife worked for IU and they had someone put one on, pure sheep talk, lay down/hide and take it, screw that!

 

[Trigger Time]

If the sheeple had more real life facts thrown in their face and realized the world isn't made of snortible pixy sticks and unicorn fart-sicles maybe more people would own guns and stop these incidents from happening or at least end it before more people get killed because of gun free zones.
I hope the training your coworkers and yourself took was better than some I've seen.

 

[Indiana Camper]

I think the term active shooter fits perfect. There are either shots happening in which case the first few police on scene will go in and go straight to the shots or there are not shots being fired in which case it will be treated like a hostage situation with swat etc etc.

 

[atvdave]

We had our Active shooter training last year, I thought it was good.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/tactics-training/290850-active-shooter-training.html

 

[BiscuitNaBasket]

I already think that way and don't understand the sheeple mindset that can ignore this basic fact of life....Ultimately, you are responsible for your own safety.

I think the same when it comes to my safety and the safety of the ones I love. I am ultimately responsible for my defense. If I rely on a phone, a few numbers, and someone 5+ minutes from me to protect me and my family I am setting myself up for failure. This is my life and I will be responsible for the preservation of it.

How someone can not understand that could be because of a few different things, but what I ultimately believe clouds their thought process is their desire to believe that they are safe and that they live in a world where others get paid to be responsible for their safety so that they don't have to worry about it.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

The only thing that I have available at work is an online presentation from the IN DHS.

I thought that for what it is - it was pretty good. It did actually talk about fighting back if you couldn't evade. That really surprised me considering the source.

No mention of countering with a firearm though. (For all but a few, carrying of "weapons" is forbidden).

And - in all honesty - countering with a firearm (or any other tool) to save yourself probably is the best way to go about it.

We can all be keyboard commandos and say what we'd do in any given situation - but, for the most part, not even trained LEO can definitively say what they'll do should they find themselves responding.

"The best battle plans go immediately to hell as soon as the first shots are fired" comes to mind.

Should a co-worker of mine decide to go on a rampage here, I'm going to do my best to get myself out ASAP.

 

[Taylorz71]

Its great that you had that kind of training. I have told people that the police can't get here quick enough to save you, and I am a police officer. They still look at me with deer in the headlights face. It's like they are thinking we have been told that the government will protect us for years- why would you say that???

I recently attended a seminar by Lt. Col Grossman- I wish everyone would listen to what he as to say on this topic, especially our school officials. I am of the opinion that everyone should be armed, but sheep and evil predators don't like that.

 

[87iroc]

I think many workplaces don't; give the training because they don't want to bring up or stir the pot with 'why won't you let us be protect ourselves' questions. I would assume thats why my workplace doesn't give the training. People have the 'it can't hapen here' mentality and they want them to stay thinking that.


I have wondered. If someone is killed or injured in a 'GFZ'...could you or your surviving relatives sue because they wouldn't let you be armed and protect yourself? This is of course assuming its a workplace and not a school...but I don't think it should matter. Lawsuit would be bigger go against the state...but maybe not. Anyway...something I've been noodling for a while.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

I have wondered. If someone is killed or injured in a 'GFZ'...could you or your surviving relatives sue because they wouldn't let you be armed and protect yourself? This is of course assuming its a workplace and not a school...but I don't think it should matter. Lawsuit would be bigger go against the state...but maybe not. Anyway...something I've been noodling for a while.

I, too, have often wondered that.

I think I've told my wife that if something like that ever happens to ME - to be prepared to try and sue my employer for all she can get - because they didn't even afford me the opportunity to protect myself.

Doubtful it'd go anywhere, though...

 

[Cemetery-man]

Would that statement from the police get an anti or non gun person thinking about self defence or is their mental state such that that thought would never enter their mind because of fear?

They've been hearing those very words for years and it hasn't soaked in yet so I have to say no. Of course they've also been hearing from the media, politicians, president, etc. that if legal gun owners simply give up their guns or submit to more strict control, these types of violence will magically cease.