Art Of Manliness: What to do in an active shooter situation

[Heckler303]

Not a bad article, well worth a read, no matter where you are, it can still happen, and you just might be involved with it.


http://www.artofmanliness.com/2015/11/3 ... situation/

[bear foot bowhunter]

2 minutes ! really doubt that the operator would have dispatched a squad car in that time .

[deye243]

there is only one thing to do

[on_one_wheel]

I didn't find anything new there, It just confirms that you need to keep your head together, stay one step ahead of the competition and always carry one of these

FB_IMG_1449492998379(1).jpg (165.09 KiB) Viewed 3621 times

[Heckler303]

I didn't find anything new there, It just confirms that you need to keep your head together, stay one step ahead of the competition and always carry one of these

FB_IMG_1449492998379(1).jpg

Bahahha

[Title_II]

Point of correction.

The cited an FBI release indicating mass shootings are on the rise in the US. Mass shootings are NOT on the rise in the US.

Congressional research has proven (and independent research has confirmed) there has been no trend in mass shootings in the past 20 years. Usually about 20 (or 25? I forget).

If you have been hearing the latest "355 mass shootings so far in the US this year!!!" bulls^&% the US media has been spouting the last week, those are not mass shootings. They include two New York City Cops shooting at a guy and hitting 9 bystanders (none killed). They include gang violence where nobody was killed. The number is about 20 or 25. Now, back to the FBI.

The FBI obviously was pressured to do something political with this report. They did two obvious things. First, they tweaked the US definition of "mass shooting" slightly. Second, they started graphing their trend in the year 2000, the year that the least mass shootings occurred in modern US history. The fix was obviously in. It's a shame, because FBI and DOJ data have been the most reliable crime data not in the US, but IN THE WORLD. Even if it was always misrepresented by the media. After all this time it finally got corrupted by politics, and I expect even the actual data will become more to "European" standards of accuracy moving forward.

[juststarting]

Let's just pause for a moment here, ignore the media, and go with the proposed numbers - 20 to 25. Holly s**t! Let's say these are the numebrs, that's two mass shootings a month give or take... Ignoring the obvoius deflection of arguing that 20 is better than 300, sure it is, but that's, again, two mass shootings a month. What is wrong with that culture and people there? And blaming terrorism? Bitch, please! That still leaves 19-24 mass shootings per year, which is still 2 per month roughly. That's disgusting and embarrassing, especially for a country that is not at war, at least on its own soil.

[juststarting]

P.s. this thread should be renamed to The Art of Madness

[Title_II]

Let's just pause for a moment here, ignore the media, and go with the proposed numbers - 20 to 25. Holly s**t! Let's say these are the numebrs, that's two mass shootings a month give or take... Ignoring the obvoius deflection of arguing that 20 is better than 300, sure it is, but that's, again, two mass shootings a month. What is wrong with that culture and people there? And blaming terrorism? Bitch, please! That still leaves 19-24 mass shootings per year, which is still 2 per month roughly. That's disgusting and embarrassing, especially for a country that is not at war, at least on its own soil.

It's 100 deaths per year in a country of 340 million people. You are about as likely to be killed by lightning. We have 4000 kids die in swimming pools each year. As I said in another thread, it's probably the least likely way to die in the US outside of mad cow disease. You probably have a higher percentage of people being eaten by sharks.

You have 24 million people. I know we are talking shootings, but if you have 2 public, non-gang mass killings per year (I think you do every year) then you have a higher rate than we do. I know that can be sliced and diced a number of different ways, with differing opinions, but you do have to admit it's not all that different from OZ.

[Baronvonrort]

Point of correction.

The cited an FBI release indicating mass shootings are on the rise in the US. Mass shootings are NOT on the rise in the US.

If you have been hearing the latest "355 mass shootings so far in the US this year!!!" bulls^&% the US media has been spouting the last week, those are not mass shootings. They include two New York City Cops shooting at a guy and hitting 9 bystanders (none killed). They include gang violence where nobody was killed. The number is about 20 or 25. Now, back to the FBI.
.

Mother Jones states there have been 73 mass shootings in the last 3 decades, the hoplophobes try to redefine mass shootings to boost their numbers along with the fear factor.

The pew survey had something like 56% of Americans are unaware firearm homicides have dropped over 49% since 1993, perhaps the media telling lies has something to do with that

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/ ... otings-map

[juststarting]

You have 24 million people. I know we are talking shootings, but if you have 2 public, non-gang mass killings per year (I think you do every year) then you have a higher rate than we do. I know that can be sliced and diced a number of different ways, with differing opinions, but you do have to admit it's not all that different from OZ.

I am not sure removing gang-related violence is the way to go, gangs, I am just guessing here, are typically not concerned about collateral and sharp shooting is not on the top of the day-to-day operational agenda. Also, what is classed as a gang? How do you distinguish between gang shooting and just your normal criminals shooting? What if a criminal who is doing the shooting is part of a gang but shooting in anger? Or shooting in anger at a gang? Removing an entire vertical just because it makes the numbers look better is probably not the way to go. That said, I am also under the impression that there are hotspots in US that skew the entire country. Anyway, I am inclined to say it is a lot different. Anyway, before I jump into that ribbit hole, I need to read a little more about it.

[Title_II]

You have 24 million people. I know we are talking shootings, but if you have 2 public, non-gang mass killings per year (I think you do every year) then you have a higher rate than we do. I know that can be sliced and diced a number of different ways, with differing opinions, but you do have to admit it's not all that different from OZ.

I am not sure removing gang-related violence is the way to go, gangs, I am just guessing here, are typically not concerned about collateral and sharp shooting is not on the top of the day-to-day operational agenda. Also, what is classed as a gang? How do you distinguish between gang shooting and just your normal criminals shooting? What if a criminal who is doing the shooting is part of a gang but shooting in anger? Or shooting in anger at a gang? Removing an entire vertical just because it makes the numbers look better is probably not the way to go. That said, I am also under the impression that there are hotspots in US that skew the entire country. Anyway, I am inclined to say it is a lot different. Anyway, before I jump into that ribbit hole, I need to read a little more about it.

It's not to "make the numbers look better." The FBI tracks public mass shootings because they consider them a special type of crime, which they are. Trust me, the FBI has no interest in making the numbers look better. Matter of fact, until this year, they have been very impartial for decades, and better than anything else in the world.

As for "excluding terrorism," I didn't say that. That is included in the FBI numbers in the US.

Speaking of which, France had more people killed in "mass shootings" this year than the US has had in years totaled together. And they are 1/5 the population of the US.

Remember, US ranks 5th for per capita risk of mass shootings compared to Europe, OZ, and Canada over the past 10 years. And the bunch of you take 3 out of the top 5, including the top 2.

Use the DOJ for research. You will find half of the murdered in the US are black, even though they are 12% of the population. You may not want to believe it, but you are safer visiting my town than Canada. Not because my town has some special low murder rate, simply because you are not black.

[Gwion]

There have been a total of about 45 'massacres' in Australia in ITS ENTIRE HISTORY!

Only around 21, or so, of those have been by civilians with firearms against other civilians.

No less than 12 of those 45 were massacres of Indigenous people by Authorised personnel (ie: police/troopers: last known 1928). This is, itself a disgusting statistic!

The rest were the result of arson with one incidence (recent) of knife attack against children and one incidence of what can only be described as a private battle/war.

These stats are not exact but a good indicator from a quick search on Google. No, i'm not going to get the exact figures from AIC and ABS because i've done it all before and you can supply the references if you find this info is wildly off target.

Put that against the US and it equals about 3 years of their stats, for rate of incidence.

OK, so the US currently has 11.66 (approx) X the population of Australia; even so, if we had the same violent culture as the US we would average 1.8 "massacres with firearms" a year and would have racked up the equivalent of our historical 'mass shooting' numbers in the last 12 years.

We have historically had A LOT of guns per CAPITA but very FEW SHOOTINGS. This indicates a significant cultural difference between Australia and the U.S.. Therefore, reading all this info about the U.S. is kind of irrelevant to Australia and Australians.

Oh yeah... and pointing out that we (Australia) have the "top two biggest" incidents is just loading an argument on meaningless information. What are you saying? Our nut jobs are better at planning and better shooters than your nut jobs???

The reality is that our number of incidents over recent years, and historically, is minuscule to that of the U.S.. This includes gang shootings, family violence, death by police and public rampage shootings; even when adjust for a per capita rate. There just is no comparison.

This is a cultural thing, not something to do with guns. We are not America.

[Herdsman]

I didn't find anything new there, It just confirms that you need to keep your head together, stay one step ahead of the competition and always carry one of these

Awesome sticker

[happyhunter]

.

[Baronvonrort]

We have historically had A LOT of guns per CAPITA but very FEW SHOOTINGS. This indicates a significant cultural difference between Australia and the U.S.. Therefore, reading all this info about the U.S. is kind of irrelevant to Australia and Australians.

I don't believe gun homicides were ever really a big problem here.
In 1993 our firearm homicide rate was 0.36 per 100,000, The USA had a firearm homicide rate of 7.0 per 100,000
In 2013 our firearm homicide rate was 0.18 per 100,000, the USA has its lowest ever firearm homicide rate of 3.6 per 100,000

Looking at FBI stats for 2014 just over 20 states had zero or one firearm homicide with rifle.

[Kipper]

All the longarm figures I've seen are always low.