If you were a school police officer, would you confront an active shooter with a AR-15?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

If you were a school police officer, would you confront an active shooter with a AR-15?

  • I would try to take down the active shooter by myself

  • I would take cover and wait for backup

  • I would confront the active shooter if I had a AR-15 too


Results are only viewable after voting.

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
I believe that the vast majority of gun owners who say they would run in and save the day are just clueless. It's one thing to be good at shooting a gun in a controlled environment and being trained enough to handle a live shooter situation in a chaotic insane environment. This isn't the movies folks. Just like Trump saying he would have run in there, yes Mr. Cadet Bone Spurs, and done something, armed or not. It's all just a video game to you people.

It's not about saving the day or what stupid Trump said. Nobody sane every said "wait here, I'll go save the day" and ran in with their cape flapping in the wind during a school shooting. It's about believing that you have to at least try because you couldn't live with yourself if others died when you might have been able to stop it.

It's the same reason we send rescuers into the mountains when a hiker is lost, risking further injuries or loss of life, because of the human spirit to protect the innocent.

Wouldn't you try to do at least something if you got caught in that ugly situation? If you were armed and the only one there during an active school shooting, you really would run away because "this ain't no video game"?
 

Alpha One Seven

Golden Member
Sep 11, 2017
1,098
124
66
It's not about saving the day or what stupid Trump said. Nobody sane every said "wait here, I'll go save the day" and ran in with their cape flapping in the wind during a school shooting. It's about believing that you have to at least try because you couldn't live with yourself if others died when you might have been able to stop it.

It's the same reason we send rescuers into the mountains when a hiker is lost, risking further injuries or loss of life, because of the human spirit to protect the innocent.

Wouldn't you try to do at least something if you got caught in that ugly situation? If you were armed and the only one there during an active school shooting, you really would run away because "this ain't no video game"?
Remember the airline that was hijacked at razor knife threat and the passengers that used a serving cart to stop the assailants? It's like that, you use anything you can because if you don't there is a good chance others or you will die.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paladin3

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
Obviously I wouldn't know until actually faced with it, but if I were a trained officer fully expected to act, the 2nd thing on my mind (after "holy shit I'm going to do this?!") would be to use the element of surprise - and hopefully there's just 1 of him and he's pre-occupied. That does not involve bum-rushing the guy. Locate the source of the gunfire and sneak up behind hoping for a clear shot while maintaining an escape route. Is this not obvious?
No, that's not obvious. Maybe if he's not actively killing students you could take your time, but the goal is to turn off the shooter as soon as possible to save as many lives as possible. And no, that doesn't mean your only other option is thoughtlessly "bum-rushing the guy."

Maybe we should leave tactics to the professionals.
 

rh71

No Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
52,816
1,013
126
No, that's not obvious. Maybe if he's not actively killing students you could take your time, but the goal is to turn off the shooter as soon as possible to save as many lives as possible. And no, that doesn't mean your only other option is thoughtlessly "bum-rushing the guy."

Maybe we should leave tactics to the professionals.

These 4 hiding weren't professionals? That was hardly a credible statement.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
These 4 hiding weren't professionals? That was hardly a credible statement.
I never made any reference to or voiced any support for the four sheriff's deputies who hid. I only called you on your uninformed comments about what should have been done. Was this not obvious?

Just because those four cowards hid doesn't mean I have to agree with what you think they should have done.
 
Last edited:

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
Comparing the internet to guns is really stupid. The internet provides a fundamental service to society whose primary purpose has zero to do with causing death. I could gouge your eyes out with a spoon but a spoon and a gun are far different items. Compare a gun to a car as well, stupid. All these items have primary and/or secondary purposes that are fundamentally different from killing. A gun's primary purpose is to deal death as efficiently as possible. If you can't grasp this really important, and very basic, fundamental concept then I don't know how to help you out.
Then why is it that 99.99%+ of the guns in US civilian hands have never been used to hurt anyone criminally or otherwise? Seems the primary purpose of a gun isn't to deal death as efficiently as possible, but you keep claiming it is anyway. If you can't grasp this really important, and very basic, fundamental concept then I don't know how to help you out.

Edit: You do still have the links that back up my numbers, right? I've given them at least three times now to refute continued claims that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill. At least it's not what they are overwhelmingly used for.
 
Last edited:

Humpy

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2011
4,463
596
126
The closest real life experience I've had with the question was coming home to find a dead body in my house.

My reaction was to pace in circles while thinking how I had to call someone. I called my girlfriend. She was like why are you calling me dummy, call 911. Oh, right, good idea.

Sitting on the front porch 30 minutes later after the adrenaline had faded I was already questioning why it was so difficult to think straight during such an obvious situation. Comparing it to sports I play where I can be exhausted and still make correct split second decisions the answer is easy.

I don't really believe anyone's answer to the OP (Trump LOL) unless they consistently practice active shooter response.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv

NetWareHead

THAT guy
Aug 10, 2002
5,854
154
106
Then why is it that 99.99%+ of the guns in US civilian hands have never been used to hurt anyone criminally or otherwise? Seems the primary purpose of a gun isn't to deal death as efficiently as possible, but you keep claiming it is anyway. If you can't grasp this really important, and very basic, fundamental concept then I don't know how to help you out.

Edit: You do still have the links that back up my numbers, right? I've given them at least three times now to refute continued claims that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill. At least it's not what they are overwhelmingly used for.

I agree with this. At least it forms the premise of my reason for obtaining a conceal carry permit. I dont have the license because it is my hope to kill somebody one day. I dont have bloodlust-like hopes that I can one day defend my family in a home invasion or carjacking. Hell, if I never have to use it, IMO that is the best outcome. Being armed is like having an insurance policy. I dont wake up one morning and decide I cant wait to file an insurance claim. Being armed gives me the peace of mind that I am doing everything I can do to protect us and lets me be always prepared.

My wife also has her concealed carry permit. She was frosty about the idea at first but eventually came around to it and even ended up taking pistol defense classes for women. She is a realtor and when I thought about the scenarios she places herself in on a daily basis, I was concerned. She enters empty houses with people she barely knows. One time she met a potential client who wanted to buy a 60 acre plot of forested land and together they hiked the property before the purchase. Its a risky business for women especially. The gun as a stationary weapon in reserve accomplishes so many things
 

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
8,217
7,082
136
Nope best to get rid of the weapons that are designed to kill humans.
Then tell me how you are going to cut your steak?

You do know that there is a push to outlaw large kitchen knives in England don't you?
 

HotJob

Member
Apr 27, 2017
36
11
81
Everywhere I go, I plan for someone to start shooting. My usual plan is to throw a piece of furniture at the shooter, then rush toward them with another piece of furniture. After the initial collision I aim to take control of the weapon and smash the shooter's skull against something hard, like the floor or my knee. I don't have a concealed carry license because I am not allowed to be armed at work, and that is almost all I do in public, along with it letting the police know one owns firearms. Being an Iraq War vet may have an influence on my attitude...
 

ibex333

Diamond Member
Mar 26, 2005
4,050
92
91
If you were a school police officer, would you confront an active shooter with an AR-15?

No offense but it's a pretty stupid question. Why? Because none of us can know how we would act when it would actually happen. Anyone can act all brave on the internet forums, and say we would act, and stop the bastard, but in an actual situation bitch out like a pussy that you are.

I'll be the only honest one, and admit that there's a good chance I'd be scared and run away. I really hope I'll do the opposite, and cover someone else with my body and take a bullet, but my self-preservation instinct may be too strong.
 

eng2d2

Golden Member
Nov 7, 2013
1,007
38
91
The guy should have not been fired or ask to resign. That day maybe he was not feeling like a hero. Law enforcement have briefings which emphasize in coming home alive. Maybe that stuck to his head. Not everyone is Clint Eastwood
 
  • Like
Reactions: ibex333

rh71

No Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
52,816
1,013
126
I never made any reference to or voiced any support for the four sheriff's deputies who hid. I only called you on your uninformed comments about what should have been done. Was this not obvious?

Just because those four cowards hid doesn't mean I have to agree with what you think they should have done.

You don't have to support them, or even agree with me, but you said to leave tactics to the professionals, which they supposedly were. So it's obvious you can't just leave it to the professionals.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
18,303
16,714
136
Then why is it that 99.99%+ of the guns in US civilian hands have never been used to hurt anyone criminally or otherwise? Seems the primary purpose of a gun isn't to deal death as efficiently as possible, but you keep claiming it is anyway. If you can't grasp this really important, and very basic, fundamental concept then I don't know how to help you out.

Edit: You do still have the links that back up my numbers, right? I've given them at least three times now to refute continued claims that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill. At least it's not what they are overwhelmingly used for.

It's impossible to have a discussion about guns if you can't admit what they are best at doing. And that is destroying life in a highly compact and efficient package. Just because many are not used for that does not mean that is not their primary purpose and best attribute. Utilizign that primary purpose and efficiency creates a threat, and the threat of what they can do acts as a deterrent sure, but it doesn't change what it's primary purpose is. It wouldn't be much of a deterrent if it's primary purpose was to pot flowers now would it.

If you want to compare guns to unrelatable inanimate objects go for it, just know you are
Then why is it that 99.99%+ of the guns in US civilian hands have never been used to hurt anyone criminally or otherwise? Seems the primary purpose of a gun isn't to deal death as efficiently as possible, but you keep claiming it is anyway. If you can't grasp this really important, and very basic, fundamental concept then I don't know how to help you out.

Edit: You do still have the links that back up my numbers, right? I've given them at least three times now to refute continued claims that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill. At least it's not what they are overwhelmingly used for.

That does not change what a gun's primary skill set is in doing, which is killing, maiming or incapacitating life. Let's start from scratch, what do YOU think the primary purpose of a gun is. What is it's skill set as an object?

I'm not even arguing to just ban all guns, but how can one have a conversation about guns at all when you can't even figure out what they do well in the first place lol
 
Last edited:

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
You don't have to support them, or even agree with me, but you said to leave tactics to the professionals, which they supposedly were. So it's obvious you can't just leave it to the professionals.
Again, four cops hid so now we can't trust any of the tens of thousands of trained police officers to know better tactics than you do.

Can I start judging all women or blacks by the bad actions of a tiny few now too?

Not to mention you've got me debating a tiny tangent of what I said trying to find a technicality that invalidates my much larger point of: You don't know shit about the best tactics for handling an active shooter scenario. And quit saying obviously!!
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
65,202
10,995
126
Wait there was FOUR cops? Yeah I'm sorry, but they are pussies. One, I could sort of understand, but 4? They signed up for it, they should be ready to face a situation when it happens. Perhaps part of the issue may be lack of continuous training as well. Not only physical training like working out and practicing at the range but mental training, to keep their mind ready for situations. I can see school cops kind of become complacent that incidents are typically non violent and non eventful so when a real incident happens they may not be mentally prepared for it.

Don't get me wrong I think the work cops have to do and the shit they see and deal with is not easy, but it's part of what they signed up for and they should be ready for it.

I can definitely see a school shooting situation as being hard to deal with though. Even if you get the adrenaline to be able to go up to the shooter, you also need to worry about where your bullets may end up if you miss. But this is where training comes in, I imagine they would show tactics to reduce odds of stray bullets causing collateral damage.

I still think it's crazy that violence in America is so bad that schools need dedicated cops though.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
It's impossible to have a discussion about guns if you can't admit what they are best at doing. And that is destroying life in a highly compact and efficient package. Just because many are not used for that does not mean that is not their primary purpose and best attribute. Utilizign that primary purpose and efficiency creates a threat, and the threat of what they can do acts as a deterrent sure, but it doesn't change what it's primary purpose is. It wouldn't be much of a deterrent if it's primary purpose was to pot flowers now would it.

If you want to compare guns to unrelatable inanimate objects go for it, just know you are


That does not change what a gun's primary skill set is in doing, which is killing, maiming or incapacitating life. Let's start from scratch, what do YOU think the primary purpose of a gun is. What is it's skill set as an object?

I'm not even arguing to just ban all guns, but how can one have a conversation about guns at all when you can't even figure out what they do well in the first place lol
Things I accept as facts:
  • Guns are great tools for killing, but are almost never used to do so when compared to their more common uses.
  • Guns are great tools for recreation, self-defense, hunting, shooting sports and so much more, which is what 99.99%+ of them are used for.
  • Civilian gun ownership is guaranteed by our 2A provided you have not been adjudicated mentally deficient or have had your 2A rights revoked due to criminal behavior or drug use.
  • Some small percentage of guns are misused by evil/sick individuals to hurt others. The only effective answer to this problem is either magically make all guns disappear, or have a contingency of armed individuals ready to fight back when it happens on a case by case basis. Pacifism is never the answer unless your enemies are pacifists as well.
  • The rule in a free society is that citizens cannot be stripped of their Constitutional rights without due process. Similarly, time delays, excessive fees and taxes cannot be used to limit the exercising of a Constitutional right, just like you can't have a poll tax or even require a voter bare the financial burden of owning a state issued ID.
  • Prohibition of ANYTHING won't work if that item is already in abundant supply, easy to make, easy to import and in demand. Please see Prohibition and the War on Drugs.
  • A greater sense of personal responsibility is needed across the board. Blaming tools for the bad actions of the folks who wield them is fundamentally flawed logic.
  • Education will eventually be our best hope to combat violent crime. We need to teach our children that violence is almost never the appropriate solution, but be ready if you are forced to respond to a violent threat.
Now, what realistic conversation about guns do you want to have that isn't more emotional drivel?
 
Last edited:

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
Wait there was FOUR cops? Yeah I'm sorry, but they are pussies. One, I could sort of understand, but 4? They signed up for it, they should be ready to face a situation when it happens. Perhaps part of the issue may be lack of continuous training as well. Not only physical training like working out and practicing at the range but mental training, to keep their mind ready for situations. I can see school cops kind of become complacent that incidents are typically non violent and non eventful so when a real incident happens they may not be mentally prepared for it.

Don't get me wrong I think the work cops have to do and the shit they see and deal with is not easy, but it's part of what they signed up for and they should be ready for it.

I can definitely see a school shooting situation as being hard to deal with though. Even if you get the adrenaline to be able to go up to the shooter, you also need to worry about where your bullets may end up if you miss. But this is where training comes in, I imagine they would show tactics to reduce odds of stray bullets causing collateral damage.

I still think it's crazy that violence in America is so bad that schools need dedicated cops though.
I've only read two stories, but it seems the armed deputy who was the school resource officer took up a position outside behind a car and stayed there. Two or three other LE arrived on scene and joined him there. Eventually more cops showed up and, according to some reports, were amazed those cops hadn't gone in already.

My understanding is that in an active shooter situation the appropriate response for LE is to locate and engage the shooter as soon as possible to save as many lives as possible.
 

EXCellR8

Diamond Member
Sep 1, 2010
3,938
801
136
Sure would, isn't that my job after all? If you're a trained LEO there's no reason to waste a second of time trying to coordinate backup. My response would be exactly the same if the shooter had a flamethrower or grenade launcher, doesn't matter. Of course it's easy for anyone to say from the outside looking in (i.e. the internet) but think of how terrified those kids were...
 

Rifter

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,522
751
126
Things I accept as facts:
  • Guns are great tools for killing, but are almost never used to do so when compared to their more common uses.
  • Guns are great tools for recreation, self-defense, hunting, shooting sports and so much more, which is what 99.99%+ of them are used for.
  • Civilian gun ownership is guaranteed by our 2A provided you have not been adjudicated mentally deficient or have had your 2A rights revoked due to criminal behavior or drug use.
  • Some small percentage of guns are misused by evil/sick individuals to hurt others. The only effective answer to this problem is either magically make all guns disappear, or have a contingency of armed individuals ready to fight back when it happens on a case by case basis. Pacifism is never the answer unless your enemies are pacifists as well.
  • The rule in a free society is that citizens cannot be stripped of their Constitutional rights without due process. Similarly, time delays, excessive fees and taxes cannot be used to limit the exercising of a Constitutional right, just like you can't have a poll tax or even require a voter bare the financial burden of owning a state issued ID.
  • Prohibition of ANYTHING won't work if that item is already in abundant supply, easy to make, easy to import and in demand. Please see Prohibition and the War on Drugs.
  • A greater sense of personal responsibility is needed across the board. Blaming tools for the bad actions of the folks who wield them is fundamentally flawed logic.
  • Education will eventually be our best hope to combat violent crime. We need to teach our children that violence is almost never the appropriate solution, but be ready if you are forced to respond to a violent threat.
Now, what realistic conversation about guns do you want to have that isn't more emotional drivel?

Pretty much nailed it.

The funniest part to me(im not american) is that the people that want guns banned are really anarchists and wanting to bring more violence to your country than the school shooters are. There is already so many guns in the US that if they did decide to ban guns and repeal the 2nd amendment im 100% convinced this would cause a civil war for you guys, and while that may be funny to me and others looking in living through a civil war in your own country would be no laughing matter.

I just dont understand how there are any Americans left who have not realized its way to late to ban guns, and these people seem like they would prefer a civil war to having gun ownership in your country..
 
Last edited:

kt

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2000
5,943
1,221
136
I can't say for certain that I would run in and confront the shooter but I certainly would not be sitting there doing nothing while students & teachers are getting mowed down.
 

rh71

No Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
52,816
1,013
126
Again, four cops hid so now we can't trust any of the tens of thousands of trained police officers to know better tactics than you do.

Can I start judging all women or blacks by the bad actions of a tiny few now too?

Not to mention you've got me debating a tiny tangent of what I said trying to find a technicality that invalidates my much larger point of: You don't know shit about the best tactics for handling an active shooter scenario. And quit saying obviously!!

The question in the OP is what would I do and what I stated is likely what most people here would do (which is why I stated it should be obvious) if they had to go in, right or wrong. OBVIOUSLY I'm not a professional so I am only going by personal instinct. What is this, a LE forum??? :D

It's still ironic that the biggest hinge, and the reason for the thread, are the 4 professionals and you used that line of trusting their kind to put me down. Yeah, smooth. Give me a break. Need I remind you that you're only on Anandtech Off-topic? :D
 
Last edited:

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
18,303
16,714
136
Things I accept as facts:
  • Guns are great tools for killing, but are almost never used to do so when compared to their more common uses.
  • Guns are great tools for recreation, self-defense, hunting, shooting sports and so much more, which is what 99.99%+ of them are used for.
  • Civilian gun ownership is guaranteed by our 2A provided you have not been adjudicated mentally deficient or have had your 2A rights revoked due to criminal behavior or drug use.
  • Some small percentage of guns are misused by evil/sick individuals to hurt others. The only effective answer to this problem is either magically make all guns disappear, or have a contingency of armed individuals ready to fight back when it happens on a case by case basis. Pacifism is never the answer unless your enemies are pacifists as well.
  • The rule in a free society is that citizens cannot be stripped of their Constitutional rights without due process. Similarly, time delays, excessive fees and taxes cannot be used to limit the exercising of a Constitutional right, just like you can't have a poll tax or even require a voter bare the financial burden of owning a state issued ID.
  • Prohibition of ANYTHING won't work if that item is already in abundant supply, easy to make, easy to import and in demand. Please see Prohibition and the War on Drugs.
  • A greater sense of personal responsibility is needed across the board. Blaming tools for the bad actions of the folks who wield them is fundamentally flawed logic.
  • Education will eventually be our best hope to combat violent crime. We need to teach our children that violence is almost never the appropriate solution, but be ready if you are forced to respond to a violent threat.
Now, what realistic conversation about guns do you want to have that isn't more emotional drivel?


Appreciate the response but before we get into the constitution and personal responsibility arguments which are lengthy themselves, what is a gun? It's a device that fires a projectile from a tube that can be relatively compact. It was designed to do so in order to cause death or severe harm to basically living creatures, whether human or four-legged. Would you agree to that?

As far as your primary uses of it -

It works well as a self-defense item but ONLY because it has those intrinsic characteristics which everyone is aware of, that it will cause said death or severe harm to a living being.

It's used for hunting because, yes, like I said, it's intrinsic value is in that it kills living things.

On the recreation note, I mean it's great that you can use it for recreation and shooting sports, to have fun shooting tin cans or paper targets at a range, but I could also have a shit ton of fun firing off rocket launchers and artillery too, do you think those should be legal and easy to acquire too?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS