Active Shooter Awareness Training at work.

[OldShooter]

Evolution has not equipped humans to be able to evaluate probabilities. Dramatic and recent events dominate our thinking far out of proportion to their actual significance.

The risk of getting killed or seriously injured driving to and from work is far, far higher than getting involved in an active shooter situation.

 

[Car-Guy]

The risk of getting killed or seriously injured driving to and from work is far, far higher than getting involved in an active shooter situation.

Just a quick search so I could be wrong, but recent stats indicate there are more gun related deaths in the US than auto fatalities per year... Of course that is different than "active shooter deaths", I guess. (definitions again) I'm not sure if they have stats for actual active shooter deaths. It's probably tabulated somewhere.


EDIT: This link breaks it down a bit better. Interesting to me to see how few "events" actually make it to news headlines on the major networks.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

 

[erkevin]

I am a retired public school teacher/principal from the 80s- 2010s. Columbine, Paducah, Jonesboro, Sandy Hook; too many to name. Lock down/active shooter drills on a monthly basis. Protocols for playground, cafeteria, classroom, etc. With each shooting, came a different tactic by the perpetrator(s). Therefore, the school had to adapt to try to keep the kids safe in any situation (impossible, unfortunately). As a principal, the phone ringing off of the hook with frightened parents demanding to know how we were going to protect their children. Emotionally brutal stuff.

 

[OldShooter]

... Of course that is different than "active shooter deaths", I guess. ...]

Yes.

 

[OldShooter]

I am a retired public school teacher/principal from the 80s- 2010s. Columbine, Paducah, Jonesboro, Sandy Hook; too many to name. Lock down/active shooter drills on a monthly basis. Protocols for playground, cafeteria, classroom, etc. With each shooting, came a different tactic by the perpetrator(s). Therefore, the school had to adapt to try to keep the kids safe in any situation (impossible, unfortunately). As a principal, the phone ringing off of the hook with frightened parents demanding to know how we were going to protect their children. Emotionally brutal stuff.

I can easily see why that would be the case. It stems from the same human shortcoming -- not being able to evaluate probabilities very well. Really no surprise; if we see signs if a sabertooth tiger we are not going to evaluate the probability that it is a false alarm. That is not a survival skill. Ancient probability experts were probably all eaten before they could contribute significantly to the gene pool.

 

[Gumby]

I have always wondered why the adjective "active" is necessary at all. A shooter is someone who is shooting, and therefore is active.

 

[ls99]

^^^ Making it sound more scary.

 

[Gumby]

The news is particularly bad about this. "The active shooter is now dead, after having engaged in a gunfight with police". Well then he's dead and, hence, inactive. It's a minor nit, but I spent a long time learning English and it annoys me to see my beloved language abused.

 

[Ronstar]

A friend and I have had a lot of discussions on problems recently. Not specifically active shootings, but mostly business problems. He and his managers, when presented with a problem, questioned "What is different now compared to before the problem?" We talked about situations where recent new unprecedented actions are mostly responsible for current problems.

I think this mindset can be applied to the active shooter outbreak. What's different now compared to say 50 years ago? Social media for one. I think the social media accounts of the shooters really need to be analyzed to see if there is a link between social media posts and violent behavior.

 

[Koolau]

Just a quick search so I could be wrong, but recent stats indicate there are more gun related deaths in the US than auto fatalities per year... Of course that is different than "active shooter deaths", I guess. (definitions again) I'm not sure if they have stats for actual active shooter deaths. It's probably tabulated somewhere.


EDIT: This link breaks it down a bit better. Interesting to me to see how few "events" actually make it to news headlines on the major networks.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

Also if you really look at these stats, you're much more likely to commit suicide than be killed by anyone else - especially in an "active shooter" incident. This is also true in Canada. Suicide is a significantly greater "risk."

 

[Car-Guy]

Also if you really look at these stats, you're much more likely to commit suicide than be killed by anyone else - especially in an "active shooter" incident. This is also true in Canada. Suicide is a significantly greater "risk."

Me? Never say never but....

 

[OldShooter]

Also if you really look at these stats, you're much more likely to commit suicide than be killed by anyone else - especially in an "active shooter" incident. This is also true in Canada. Suicide is a significantly greater "risk."

But looking at the ratio of active shooter deaths vs other gun deaths doesn't tell the story either. The comparison is the probability of your dying in a car crash vs the probability of your dying in an active shooter scenario. Other gun deaths are irrelevant to the comparison. A quick search gives me 46,000 car crash deaths annually vs 100 active shooter deaths. Deaths from foodborne illnesses amount to about 3,000. Really, active shooter situations, while dramatic and being very effective click bait, are just not a big deal numerically.

FWIW, DW gets very grumpy when I point this out. The horror of school shootings is so great that she just doesn't care about their rarity..

 

[Chuckanut]

Many, many years ago I took a three day self defense gun safety class.

Day1. How to avoid situations where you might need a gun.
Day2. If you have to pull the gun out or are getting ready to do so, how to avoid having to fire it.
Day3. If Day2 training isn’t enough, what to do if you have to pull the trigger.

After the class I decided to not buy a gun, and concentrate on Day1 training tactics. So far it’s worked.

 

[Car-Guy]

So in Texas, when they first passed concealed carry 20+ years ago, we had to take a two day class to get a license. Covering, the use of deadly force, current relevant laws, a little on conflict avoidance/resolution, basic screening of license applicants, etc... Then we had to take a fairly lengthy written test and then proficiency shooting testing. (50 rounds) Not perfect, but I though it was pretty good. Refresher courses required every 2 to 4 years.

Now, we have open carry for pretty much anyone who legally owns a gun. No screening, no training/education/testing, no proficiency shooting testing, no license required.

 

[Walt34]

I think this mindset can be applied to the active shooter outbreak. What's different now compared to say 50 years ago? Social media for one. I think the social media accounts of the shooters really need to be analyzed to see if there is a link between social media posts and violent behavior.

I'm not sure it's what's posted on social media that matters so much, as in the amount of "verification" that a given individual finds online for views that the vast majority of the population find abhorrent. Then they find that there are indeed others with the same, uh, views, and that makes them feel that they aren't such outliers after all. So having company validates their view, at least in their mind. I think that's the real issue/problem. I also haven't the foggiest idea of how to change it without making some major changes to U.S. constitutional law, and that ain't gonna happen.

 

[old medic]

Also if you really look at these stats, you're much more likely to commit suicide than be killed by anyone else - especially in an "active shooter" incident. This is also true in Canada. Suicide is a significantly greater "risk."

Several years ago, several of us at work started digging into some stats from both FBI and CDC...
You were 4 times more likely to be killed by a falling object like a tree limb than some random mass shooter.

 

[CaptTom]

I agree that most people are not good at statistics.

That said, it's not just the numbers. There are what we call "senseless" killings. Things that could have, and should have, been prevented. I don't think we should just give up and not even try to prevent them, just because there are other risks which are higher.

We get in our cars every day, knowing the risks. Yet we don't let just anyone drive. We try to keep drunk drivers and people who have too many infractions from driving. We have requirements and inspections for automobile safety equipment. We do all this even though we know driving is still risky. Maybe we can't prevent all accidents, but we work pretty hard to minimize the risk anyway.

 

[Car-Guy]

We have requirements and inspections for automobile safety equipment. We do all this even though we know driving is still risky. Maybe we can't prevent all accidents, but we work pretty hard to minimize the risk anyway.

As I mentioned earlier, Texas has eliminated training/testing/licensing to carry a handgun. Now, beginning in 2025, they are eliminating annual car inspections. Doing things like this makes me wonder what the heck are they thinking.

 

[Koolau]

I agree that most people are not good at statistics.

That said, it's not just the numbers. There are what we call "senseless" killings. Things that could have, and should have, been prevented. I don't think we should just give up and not even try to prevent them, just because there are other risks which are higher.

We get in our cars every day, knowing the risks. Yet we don't let just anyone drive. We try to keep drunk drivers and people who have too many infractions from driving. We have requirements and inspections for automobile safety equipment. We do all this even though we know driving is still risky. Maybe we can't prevent all accidents, but we work pretty hard to minimize the risk anyway.

Most "senseless" killings we hear about are not accidents as is the case with most automobile accidents. Apples and oranges and so are the "solutions."

By the way, and just "because:" There are 100 million more guns in the USA than there are automobiles. Yet there are typically about 500 accidental gun deaths per year. Roughly 1% of automobile accidental deaths. Apples and oranges.

 

[Badger]

This is not just a problem with the average workplace. There were 300+ school (K-12) shootings in 2022. The vast majority have involved student shooters. In the past 5 years there were 1056 wounded or killed. Most (if not all) of the training for students and teachers is no different than the 1950s "Duck and Cover". I understand the need to protect yourself and other students but if you were a teacher and were allowed to carry how would you feel about shooting one of your students?

Cheers!

 

[Gumby]

None of the teachers I know, and that is a fairly large number, wants to carry a firearm at school. Or, to be accurate, I have never heard a single one of them advocate for that.

 

[Koolau]

This is not just a problem with the average workplace. There were 300+ school (K-12) shootings in 2022. The vast majority have involved student shooters. In the past 5 years there were 1056 wounded or killed. Most (if not all) of the training for students and teachers is no different than the 1950s "Duck and Cover". I understand the need to protect yourself and other students but if you were a teacher and were allowed to carry how would you feel about shooting one of your students?

Cheers!

Schools are more an issue of hardening than teachers carrying. They are already a very controlled space. Hardened entry points are almost all that are needed to prevent most of the problems we have seen in past years.

We'll likely be totally hardened within 5 years (maybe less if infrastructure money is placed on such a valuable resource as our school kids.)

I hate to say this is an "easy" one, but realistically, it's at least simple. Doors no one can get through unless they are supposed to and searches (metal detectors or otherwise.) That's 99% of the battle.

You don't see airports in similar situations for the most part (certainly NOT past the screening.) Yeah, I know there are a couple exceptions - but NOT past screening. YMMV

 

[Koolau]

None of the teachers I know, and that is a fairly large number, wants to carry a firearm at school. Or, to be accurate, I have never heard a single one of them advocate for that.

As mentioned: Hardened entries and screening would mean no teacher ever has to make such a decision. YMMV

 

[OldShooter]

I agree that most people are not good at statistics.

That said, it's not just the numbers. There are what we call "senseless" killings. Things that could have, and should have, been prevented. I don't think we should just give up and not even try to prevent them, just because there are other risks which are higher. ...

In classical risk management there are three factors: (1) The risk; what is it and what's its impact? (2) The probability of that risk occurring. And (3) The cost to mitigate.

If mitigation is very inexpensive, mitigate serious risks regardless of probability. In the case of active shooters, I think mitigation would probably be very expensive (like hardening all schools in the US) or impossible. So given the very low probability of the risk happening, mitigation (even conducting corporate training) is probably a waste of money.

That's the engineering look. The real world, though, is more like @erkevin points out in post #53. The reaction is to spend money to increase the feelgood factor. Money well spent? I don't know. DW would say so simply because of the horror of the risk. But assuming that money is not unlimited, what other risks are not being mitigated and what is the impact of that?

 

[Koolau]

In classical risk management there are three factors: (1) The risk; what is it and what's its impact? (2) The probability of that risk occurring. And (3) The cost to mitigate.

If mitigation is very inexpensive, mitigate serious risks regardless of probability. In the case of active shooters, I think mitigation would probably be very expensive (like hardening all schools in the US) or impossible. So given the very low probability of the risk happening, mitigation (even conducting corporate training) is probably a waste of money.

That's the engineering look. The real world, though, is more like @erkevin points out in post #53. The reaction is to spend money to increase the feelgood factor. Money well spent? I don't know. DW would say so simply because of the horror of the risk. But assuming that money is not unlimited, what other risks are not being mitigated and what is the impact of that?

I hear what you're saying, but sometimes it is "worth" the money to mitigate the "impression" or "feelings" of risk. It would be worth it to harden our schools so millions of parents would "feel" better about the safety of their kids - even though the risk is actually very small.

We simply can't deny people's feelings in all of this. But, YMMV.