HayesGreener
Ronin
Since retiring from law enforcement in 2011, my son and I have had a firearms training and private investigations business, including bodyguard services. One of the services we offer is training for prevention, mitigation, and response to active shooter situations. We have researched every mass shooting/murder that we could find data on for the past 100 years. Along the way we have picked up a few things that are relevant to the conversation. Here is a brief summary of presentations I have been making over the past 10 years. I have retired from the bodyguard and PI business and turned it over to my son, and now I do some consulting. But the information here is still relevant.
Mass killings in the U.S. is not a new phenomenon. The worst recorded mass killing of school children in the U.S. occurred in Bath, Michigan, in 1927. 37 elementary school children and 7 adults were killed by a school board member who dynamited the school. 38 people were killed by a dynamite bombing on Wall Street in 1920. The Khmer Rouge killed 2 million in Cambodia. And of course everyone knows of Timothy McVeigh's murder of 168 people in Oklahoma City. Go back as far as you want to count mass murders. Vlad the Impaler, AKA: Count Dracula, killed many thousands by impaling them on pikes. Hitler killed 6 million. Mao killed at least 50 million, many starved to death. Humans' ability to murder one another is limitless throughout history, but most of those events in history were local news. 24/7 cable news and social media shoves every event in our faces now so we are far more aware.
But back to active shooters. The Columbine High School killings, which is often pointed to as the genesis for school shootings in recent memory, was not supposed to be a shooting. It was planned as a bombing but fortunately the bomb did not detonate, otherwise there may have been several hundred casualties. Their plan was to set off the bomb in the cafeteria at lunch time and then shoot the survivors as they evacuated. Columbine changed law enforcement protocol for active shooter response. Prior to Columbine, law enforcement would work first to contain and negotiate with the shooter. Protocol now calls for officers to go directly in to the shooter and neutralize him. It is why you have seen the proliferation of rifles in patrol cars in the past 30 years.
A good guy with a gun present inside might change the course of events and stop a shooting spree. There are examples like Jack Wilson in Texas who killed a church shooter at the start of his rampage with one shot to the head, or Stephen Willeford in Sutherland Springs who wounded a mass killer and stopped his shooting rampage. But you must also realize that when police respond to an active shooter they are looking for a guy with a gun with directions to take him out. Holding a gun when the police arrive on an active shooter scene is unwise.
If we look at mass shootings since Columbine, as well as other non-school shootings, in almost every single instance the perpetrator studied previous mass killing incidents as part of their preparations. If he wanted his own Wiki page, he had to top a previous body count. There is no common profile, however, in almost every single incident there were clues known to others around them that were either ignored or not understood, which is why "see something say something" is so important. They were nearly all narcissistic, inadequate personalities and saw themselves as victims. Almost every killer had significant mental health issues and should never have been able to possess a firearm by anyone's measure. In some instances they even announced their intentions but there was no response. Past behavior can predict future behavior, and there are known crazies out there who should keep us awake at night. We MUST find a way of at least getting that information into the NICS so they cannot legally buy a gun.
Almost every one of them did not expect to survive the incident. They are not afraid of being killed; their greatest fear is of being interfered with before they finish what they came to do. In fact most expect to be killed by police or to commit suicide when the police arrive. Measures that buy time until the police response can make the killer dead before he gets to you. Mass killers want a soft target-it's why they choose wide open venues that are "gun free" zones, with large numbers of helpless victims, and the least likelihood of being interfered with. And they want their victims to remain in place while they slaughter them. Unprotected schools, college campuses, stores and malls, and large festivals or concert gatherings are perfect targets for them.
First and foremost is the physical security of the venue. Obviously grocery stores won't have the same security posture as a school, but there are things that can be cone. Security from attacks should be built into facilities design, and retrofitted in older buildings. Single points of entry that are monitored, ballistic barriers, metal detectors, biometric access, zoned access control, hardened classroom "safe rooms" and monitored security cameras should be standard in all public schools. Security barriers should be layered so there is no single point of failure. With modern construction materials that are available, facilities do not need to look like the inside of a bank vault. We do it in airports every day, so why not schools.
Security protocols must be carefully developed and trained, and enforced to ensure they are being followed. The best security system in the world is of no use if it is not administered properly and it should be tested periodically to ensure security protocols are being followed.
Even with a great physical security system in place, the greatest threat is from the insider who has free access to the inner ring of security. Again "see something, say something" comes into play. Procedures must be in place to immediately deal with individuals who are threatening, and at a minimum exclude them from the inner security circle. The people who know these killers know something is not right in almost every case. School administrators, mental health professionals, law enforcement, and families can find ways to work together to identify and counter threats. Once you put them under the microscope, the threat becomes apparent. Administrators and employers are almost afraid to exclude disruptive, threatening individuals from schools on legal grounds. That needs to stop. Don't tolerate them, and get them out. Juvenile criminal cases need to be treated like criminals; mentally ill cases need to be treated like they are mentally ill, not because of their status, but because of their behavior.
Armed personnel inside the venue are an essential "final layer" of security. The idea that an armed individual alone will secure the facility is naive. The grocery store shootings in Buffalo illustrates the point. He may or may not be in the right place at the right time to make a difference, or may become a casualty. The armed individual should be seen as the last line of defense when all the other layers of security have failed.
We are often asked whether teachers/employees should be allowed to go armed on campuses. That is a local decision, however if you choose that option the people who are armed in the facility with responsibility for protecting others must have adequate training and expertise in firearms. Having a concealed firearms license may be a feel good measure and may be better than a sharp stick, but does not ensure competence with a firearm. Those who carry in school should have a special duty to be expert with their firearm and have a rigorous training regimen, and must be sure of their abilities. I am talking about the level of skill it takes to make a head shot consistently at 10 yards and 100% hits center mass at 25 yards.
If you look at attempted assassinations in the U.S. since the 1960's, there is rarely an opportunity or time for the security detail to use their firearms, but firearms must always be an option.
If the worst happens and all the other security measures to prevent an attack have failed, the critical incident response must be effective. As someone once said, you may not be able to control whether the storm happened, but you can control your own response to it. The first and most crucial step in critical incident response is to understand and correctly articulate the threat. An accurate description of the incident determines the speed and quality of the response. Exercising response plans and good instant communications are crucial to a good outcome. It is essential that exercises be conducted in coordination with local law enforcement and EMS first responders.
We cannot protect against every eventuality, there are too many variables. But we can control the controllables, through awareness, and physical and training measures, to improve our chances of a good outcome.
Mass killings in the U.S. is not a new phenomenon. The worst recorded mass killing of school children in the U.S. occurred in Bath, Michigan, in 1927. 37 elementary school children and 7 adults were killed by a school board member who dynamited the school. 38 people were killed by a dynamite bombing on Wall Street in 1920. The Khmer Rouge killed 2 million in Cambodia. And of course everyone knows of Timothy McVeigh's murder of 168 people in Oklahoma City. Go back as far as you want to count mass murders. Vlad the Impaler, AKA: Count Dracula, killed many thousands by impaling them on pikes. Hitler killed 6 million. Mao killed at least 50 million, many starved to death. Humans' ability to murder one another is limitless throughout history, but most of those events in history were local news. 24/7 cable news and social media shoves every event in our faces now so we are far more aware.
But back to active shooters. The Columbine High School killings, which is often pointed to as the genesis for school shootings in recent memory, was not supposed to be a shooting. It was planned as a bombing but fortunately the bomb did not detonate, otherwise there may have been several hundred casualties. Their plan was to set off the bomb in the cafeteria at lunch time and then shoot the survivors as they evacuated. Columbine changed law enforcement protocol for active shooter response. Prior to Columbine, law enforcement would work first to contain and negotiate with the shooter. Protocol now calls for officers to go directly in to the shooter and neutralize him. It is why you have seen the proliferation of rifles in patrol cars in the past 30 years.
A good guy with a gun present inside might change the course of events and stop a shooting spree. There are examples like Jack Wilson in Texas who killed a church shooter at the start of his rampage with one shot to the head, or Stephen Willeford in Sutherland Springs who wounded a mass killer and stopped his shooting rampage. But you must also realize that when police respond to an active shooter they are looking for a guy with a gun with directions to take him out. Holding a gun when the police arrive on an active shooter scene is unwise.
If we look at mass shootings since Columbine, as well as other non-school shootings, in almost every single instance the perpetrator studied previous mass killing incidents as part of their preparations. If he wanted his own Wiki page, he had to top a previous body count. There is no common profile, however, in almost every single incident there were clues known to others around them that were either ignored or not understood, which is why "see something say something" is so important. They were nearly all narcissistic, inadequate personalities and saw themselves as victims. Almost every killer had significant mental health issues and should never have been able to possess a firearm by anyone's measure. In some instances they even announced their intentions but there was no response. Past behavior can predict future behavior, and there are known crazies out there who should keep us awake at night. We MUST find a way of at least getting that information into the NICS so they cannot legally buy a gun.
Almost every one of them did not expect to survive the incident. They are not afraid of being killed; their greatest fear is of being interfered with before they finish what they came to do. In fact most expect to be killed by police or to commit suicide when the police arrive. Measures that buy time until the police response can make the killer dead before he gets to you. Mass killers want a soft target-it's why they choose wide open venues that are "gun free" zones, with large numbers of helpless victims, and the least likelihood of being interfered with. And they want their victims to remain in place while they slaughter them. Unprotected schools, college campuses, stores and malls, and large festivals or concert gatherings are perfect targets for them.
First and foremost is the physical security of the venue. Obviously grocery stores won't have the same security posture as a school, but there are things that can be cone. Security from attacks should be built into facilities design, and retrofitted in older buildings. Single points of entry that are monitored, ballistic barriers, metal detectors, biometric access, zoned access control, hardened classroom "safe rooms" and monitored security cameras should be standard in all public schools. Security barriers should be layered so there is no single point of failure. With modern construction materials that are available, facilities do not need to look like the inside of a bank vault. We do it in airports every day, so why not schools.
Security protocols must be carefully developed and trained, and enforced to ensure they are being followed. The best security system in the world is of no use if it is not administered properly and it should be tested periodically to ensure security protocols are being followed.
Even with a great physical security system in place, the greatest threat is from the insider who has free access to the inner ring of security. Again "see something, say something" comes into play. Procedures must be in place to immediately deal with individuals who are threatening, and at a minimum exclude them from the inner security circle. The people who know these killers know something is not right in almost every case. School administrators, mental health professionals, law enforcement, and families can find ways to work together to identify and counter threats. Once you put them under the microscope, the threat becomes apparent. Administrators and employers are almost afraid to exclude disruptive, threatening individuals from schools on legal grounds. That needs to stop. Don't tolerate them, and get them out. Juvenile criminal cases need to be treated like criminals; mentally ill cases need to be treated like they are mentally ill, not because of their status, but because of their behavior.
Armed personnel inside the venue are an essential "final layer" of security. The idea that an armed individual alone will secure the facility is naive. The grocery store shootings in Buffalo illustrates the point. He may or may not be in the right place at the right time to make a difference, or may become a casualty. The armed individual should be seen as the last line of defense when all the other layers of security have failed.
We are often asked whether teachers/employees should be allowed to go armed on campuses. That is a local decision, however if you choose that option the people who are armed in the facility with responsibility for protecting others must have adequate training and expertise in firearms. Having a concealed firearms license may be a feel good measure and may be better than a sharp stick, but does not ensure competence with a firearm. Those who carry in school should have a special duty to be expert with their firearm and have a rigorous training regimen, and must be sure of their abilities. I am talking about the level of skill it takes to make a head shot consistently at 10 yards and 100% hits center mass at 25 yards.
If you look at attempted assassinations in the U.S. since the 1960's, there is rarely an opportunity or time for the security detail to use their firearms, but firearms must always be an option.
If the worst happens and all the other security measures to prevent an attack have failed, the critical incident response must be effective. As someone once said, you may not be able to control whether the storm happened, but you can control your own response to it. The first and most crucial step in critical incident response is to understand and correctly articulate the threat. An accurate description of the incident determines the speed and quality of the response. Exercising response plans and good instant communications are crucial to a good outcome. It is essential that exercises be conducted in coordination with local law enforcement and EMS first responders.
We cannot protect against every eventuality, there are too many variables. But we can control the controllables, through awareness, and physical and training measures, to improve our chances of a good outcome.
