I only read that the op was planning a ccw course and a pistol class.
I didn't see where he said he was training tactical mall ninja teams.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:
I only read that the op was planning a ccw course and a pistol class.
I didn't see where he said he was training tactical mall ninja teams.

Cool. However, when YOU start spouting off “just for thought” stuff outside of your lane in a class especially designated to service “church security”, YOU have to be able to defend it in court. “I read it on a gun board” probably isn’t going to cut it. The court has ruled over and over. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it is a duck. If you are adding in active shooter stuff into a class, you'd better have an instructor that is certified to teach active shooter. Another example is our legal stuff is taught by....an attorney. Medical stuff taught by.....medical personnel. And each are verified to teach in the area they do. And so on. If I start rattling on about medical stuff out of my lane, in a class directed towards medical stuff, guess what? I am a had lad when the lawsuits come.

The lawsuits are coming. We are already starting to see an uptick in NDs. Perhaps I planted “food for thought” and saved someone’s house.

While you may not see what it is that I am saying, because you don't see the harm, the courts are full of case law that disagrees with your interpretation. FYI.

I'll put away my soapbox now and not derail the thread further.

For academic study:
The FBI study on Active Shooter Incidents
The study itself has been rebutted, challenged , etc. But it can be informative.

I would defer to JlJones and Strambos' comments on the significance or lack there of the duration of previous incidents.

I would also highly recommend take JlJones's advice on training as among other things he runs a good (IMHO) training program.

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:
This is the sort of thing where an average number is absolutely meaningless. The biggest factor is the speed of intervention. Without intervention, it goes on until the active shooter runs out of ammo, or accomplishes whatever they feel their goal was. With intervention, it rapidly ends (suicide or they get capped).

Nailed it.

Columbine doesn't count as a modern example, IMO, since at the time, policy was to barricade the perp(s) and start negotiating. Once the new 'active shooter paradigm' took hold, LEOs generally try to engage the shooter(s) ASAP to limit casualties. The only reason Columbine lasted 48 minutes is because the LEOs didn't realize the perps were trying to kill as many people as possible - they weren't trying to hold hostages for $1 million and a helicopter. . .


For OP, good on you for at least trying to do something positive. I recommend checking Carl Chinn's web page out. He was at New Life Church in Colorado Springs 10 years ago when they had their active shooter, and he is now full time (IIRC) involved in church security issues nation-wide:
http://www.carlchinn.com/

Any church that is serious about security MUST get help from the established experts, IMO; not just 'throw together' a bunch of trusted CCW'ers from the congregation (although that is better than nothing). A few people with CCWs don't make a 'Church Security Team' any more than having a garden hose makes me a firefighter.

Thanks everyone for the information and opinions. I value them all, and no offense taken on any of the “soapbox” warnings, the potential consequences are of concern and duly noted. It is a sad fact that we do live in the land of litigation and everything we do has the potential to come back and bite us in the ass regardless of intentions. I’m not in the business of training tactical response teams nor is that the purpose. I was merely wanting impress the importance of time and having a plan of action in place. Again, I thank you all.