We are constantly inundated with fear-mongering about mass shootings. Fortunately, there are strategies which can work – they just aren’t “politically correct.”
I’ve taken training from Ed Monk, who in my opinion is today’s leading authority on how to respond to such atrocities. Here’s a 52-minute explanation of the issues and the reality from Ed, courtesy of our friends and colleagues at the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network (www.armedcitizensnetwork.org).
Pass the word and the link please.
Again : wated on manof uscas its NOT captioned!
I’m in the same boat – I need captions. And this video has them, if you click the CC box down on the bottom of the video.
You can also see a transcript. Click the “Watch on YouTube” box in the bottom right, then in the description box under the video on YouTube, find where it says “more” and click that to expand the description box. There will be a button on the left side that says “Transcript.” Click that. It’ll open a time-stamped transcript box in the upper right part of the screen. Each section will be highlighted at the appropriate time.
Not sure how to comment. Good info, maybe too much of it for most new people to understand? I’m wondering what/who his usual audience consists of. This is way too much for a newbie to digest at all. Again, maybe I took this out of context. I wonder if the narrator even understood most of this.
In my dreams, it is possible to turn mass shootings into a good thing. If a mass shooter stormed into a prison, then shot all the mutants on Death Row, that would be a positive mass shooting. But, that never happens. Mass shooters always slay the innocent. Dre—a—m. Dream, dream, dream.
What a fantastic video Gila Hayes and Ed Monk produced! It is really ideal! One of many takeaways I have is that, once again, Democrats are standing in the way of progress.
Ed also reminded me of one of Louis Awerbuck’s sayings, “Only hits count.”
I wish that people would stop using the derogatory term “active shooter”. Spree killer or mass killer could work.
Anyone that has been to a match will be asked “shooter ready?”.
“Shooter” should be a positive term.
I agree, Rick, and so do most cops and experts I know. Unfortunately, some of the grant funding available for training and equipment speaks expressly to “active shooter response” and that may be why so many are still stuck on that unfortunate term.
Didn’t the term originate as an antidote to the barricaded suspect mindset that distorted the Columbine response. Normally, a barricaded suspect is not currently active in killing people while an active shooter still is killing people. One could argue that after all these years, it is time for a change. But Uvalde.
“Normally, a barricaded suspect is not currently active in killing people while an active shooter still is killing people.”
Except that, as in Uvalde, if people previously shot are bleeding out, the “barricaded suspect” is still “currently active in killing people,” and will continue to be so until the threat is eliminated, and medics can get to the wounded.
I prefer the term “active killer” that some has started using. It won’t change the media.
But I was at a “mass shooting” last Saturday shooting the monthly IDPA match. 65 shooters each shooting between 65 and 90 rounds.
Rick,
For decades now, the Left calls the tune, and we dance to it. They dominate the national conversation about everything. They change the language, and we feel like we have to go along with it. More and more, I find myself wanting to rebel against their politically correct language restraints. For instance, I don’t own any “assault rifles.” All my rifles were built for defense, so I have “defense” rifles.
Some of their terms I will use in certain situations. But I think it is time to revolt against the language Nazis.
Great point, Rick. That term has pretty much become part of the cultural lexicon now, for better or for worse. Also good point from Mas too in his reply. Both of your comments made me reframe my thinking a tad. I think the only way to advance that ball down the field would be coming up with a substitute term for 911 dispatch, when “active shooter” comes over the radio it really makes the point. “Active” or “in progress” is a given, but i do think that trying to find another term for the “shooter” part would be tricky, it definitely does describes what the problem is. On the other hand one of the first things i do with my students is break down the terminology and definitions, and i emphasize that responding officers, guardians, and (especially) general public INCLUDING plain clothes and off duty officers will look like a “shooter” themselves when they respond. The other edge of that sword would be that there is no other option than for you to be a “shooter” yourself to go stop this problem. So your point about terms and meanings is definitely vital.
Louie T,
I can only come up with a few synonyms for “active shooter.” Killer, murderer, homicide in progress.
I doubt the Left will adopt a different term. Look at how powerful they are. They have us calling anti-communist states “red,” and pro-communist states “blue.” Even though I loved Rush Limbaugh, I fault him for not rebelling against those red and blue terms. After all, he had the golden EIB microphone.
My reaction upon watching the video is that Ed is spot-on with his observations and recommendations. It would be interesting to show this to a cross-section of public school teachers and administrators & record their reactions. I would guess that a large percentage would be horrified/triggered/traumatized by the thought of using lethal force to protect their students.
Yes,mexcellet take. I’d love to have four cameras (from cover, of course) recording what that crowd of oh so WISE school admin/teachers would be doing reacting to this guy.
His exreme sarcasm and bluntness when identifying the problem and solution is great. “you have two options: you go in their and shoot him dead, or let him continue shooting everyone else dead. Talk about black and white…..
I also loved his reallife “results reports” of the silly ineffective “solutions”based upon the Whiz dumb of the official people tasked with coming up with a viable solution to these situations.
Some for sure but there are plenty of examples of heroic behavior by teachers and staff. Custodians at Columbine, an Assistant Principal in Florida, a teacher in Arkansas and another one in Florida are some. The last two died in their attempts to protect students. They just didn’t have the right tools. Mindset adjustment is definitely needed too.
Mark,
You are SO right.
Mas,
That was an excellent 52 minutes of thought provoking situations. I bet the far Left really hates this man. I thoroughly enjoyed his response to her questions and I am glad that I still carry my Glock 40 for everyday carry. I live in northern New Mexico but if given the chance I would certainly attend one of his classes. Again thank you for providing this link.
Awesome video. I’ll be sending this to a number of family and friends, including my schoolteacher niece.
I have heard and read lots of information and details about many of these mass shootings. But this is the FIRST TIME I have ever heard anyone talk about the utter uselessness of WALLS and DOORS. His telling of a number of major incidents where the killers blindly fired through walls and doors and windows with deadly effect is a new thing to my ears. Never mentioned that I’ve seen. He certainly gave the lie to the idea that “if I can’t see him he can’t get me”
The old “The Box O’ Truth” site used to talk about — and demonstrate! — how ineffective walls are at stopping projectiles of various calibers/gauges. (The “box” was a frame holding 12 layers of 5/8″ sheetrock/wallboard or plywood to simulate 6 interior walls.) The site is now more of a discussion forum, but you can still search and find their original penetration tests.
A .22 penetrated six layers — three walls — and any “serious” caliber went through all 12 without stopping. 5.56/.223 was tumbling for the last few layers but still penetrated all of them. Buckshot did “better” but still went through eight layers — four walls. (They didn’t test doors AFAIK, but a hollow interior door is two VERY thin sheets of plywood; if 12 5/8″ boards won’t stop it, 2 1/8″ sheets don’t have a chance.)
TL;DR: “If he can’t see me, he can’t shoot me” is a myth, and it is refreshing to see someone address the fact that doors and walls DON’T reliably stop bullets and how to factor that into responding to spree killings, all in the same context.
I couldn’t watch at first because the link was broken, so I looked up Ed Monk and watched other videos of him. Well worth the time! I appreciated this video in particular as a board member and former teacher in a private school. It really helps our board plan security if we know who the likely threats are and where attacks are likely to start.
Bullies and cowards are all the same. The only response they understand is their victim violently and viciously fighting back. When terrorists with machine guns and hand grenades attacked his church in the 70s, Charl van Wyk fired two .38 special rounds at them. They broke off and ran only 7 seconds after they began. Terrorists don’t mind your pain and blood all over, but becoming bullet sponges themselves is never their plan.
I corrected myself. I should know better as an academic to verify before posting. The event I mentioned of Charl van Wyk occurred in 1993, not in the 70s as I stated. The details can be found in van Wyk’s book, “Shooting Back, the Right and Duty of Self Defense” available from https://intouchmission.org.
I am not connected to In Touch Mission in any way.
Doors rarely provide significant ballistic protection. But if the interior walls, like in my old Florida grade school, Jr. high and high school, are cinder block, then they do provide excellent ballistic defense against most firearms, including .223/5.56 rifles (barring multiple rounds delivered to the same spot). Just something of which to be aware.
There are a lot of Kings and Queens of Denial. Unfortunately, thinking good thoughts doesn’t seem to deter those willing to commit violence.
The last 5-6 minutes of the video on Rule 4 should be mandatory for any defensive firearms class. Be a good thing to introduce background innocents in matches so the competitor has to move to safely engage them. I’ll have to remember that thought.
While he was concentrating on mass killing incidents, there’s some overflow to other incidents. The armed citizen should be aware that the aggressor may not be alone. There have been several cases where an armed citizen that tried to intervene in an incident (may have been robberies?) go shot by a blended in accomplice who’s duty was to take out any resistance.
Secondly, the LLEA response is going to be to an armed individual. The armed citizen doesn’t have a visible halo IDing them as good people. A rightfully cautious armed responder isn’t gonna trust them even if they’ve got one of those “good guy” bibs on. You don’t want to get shot by mistake.
Finally found time to watch through this. One thing immediately stood out: I don’t know why Uvalde did it, and Parkland or Sandy Hook or Columbine didn’t.
Just going to suppose for a second, in chronological order:
– Columbine: The concept of “active shooter” response was in its infancy, and the post-incident reaction was to switch from “wait for back-up” to “go in immediately” — society recognized a teachable moment and the overall belief that the police will respond as quickly as possible was maintained.
– Sandy Hook: The police responded relatively quickly and challenged the killer, who ended his spree by ending his life.
– Parkland: This one puzzles me because the Broward County deputies waited outside instead of immediately entering, going against every lesson learned since Columbine. The killer stopped when he felt like it and walked out with the students.
– Uvalde: The police waited outside for 70-some minutes, allowed the killer to keep shooting, and actively prevented other officers and parents from doing anything themselves.
That latter bit was unique to Uvalde, and I believe it’s the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. The reality that police might not be able to respond quickly has been known for a long time, but the possibility that the police might actively prevent a response was heretofore unthinkable! (Truly, if the Uvalde police were on the side of the killer and wanted to maximize casualties — for political gain or whatever — I can’t think of anything they’d do different other than start shooting kids themselves.)
Plus, they face few, if any, repercussions. The city councils and unions will protect and shield them from investigations and consequences, even to the point of arresting grieving parents when they speak out in council meetings.
Taken all together, after Uvalde, the belief that the police will respond quickly has been shattered. People now realize that they are on their own — for at least the critical first few minutes and possibly longer — and want to be prepared to protect themselves.
(Note: None of the above criticism is intended to apply to ALL police. The Nashville officers who responded to the Covenant School shooting did an EXEMPLARY job — that incident should become a textbook case study in what to do. Even so, officers and departments are a mixed bag, and counting on a Nashville-style response to every incident is unrealistic. Ergo, the importance of preparing oneself to be one’s own first responder.)
I used to enjoy reading your articles on Backwoods Home but lately it is mostly a short paragraph intro to a video. I would much rather read an article than try to follow someone talking non stop on a video.
It seems to be more and more the norm these days. Many of the news articles I click on, even on newpapers sites, link to videos.I’m sad to see it. I guess I either need to accept and move into the future or fade away.
See ya
Comments are closed.