Media Matters
A Fox & Friends demonstration where children neutralized a gunman during an active shooter situation offered dubious advice to parents, as experts emphasize that confronting the gunman should be "a last resort."
The Fox News segment never explained that in an active shooter situation people should prioritize escaping and hiding over physically confronting the gunman -- only mentioning the first two actions in passing -- and instead emphasized engaging the gunman in a physical confrontation.
The December 8 broadcast of Fox & Friends featured two krav maga instructors and three children who demonstrated martial arts techniques that could be used to disarm an active shooter.
Co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck introduced the segment saying, "In an active shooter situation five seconds can mean the difference between life and death. But there are some things that you can do, and your children can do, to make a difference" before asking the instructor to "display for us and exemplify what would happen in an armed shooter situation." The instructor then used a stapler as a prop while his co-instructor demonstrated how to disarm a gunman from behind.
"The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has specific guidelines on how to act when one's life is threatened in a shooting situation. The first objective is to evacuate, and if you cannot evacuate, objective two is to find a hiding place: "If evacuation is not possible, find a place to hide where the active shooter is less likely to find you." DHS recommends that people take action against an active shooter only "as a last resort" and when your life is in imminent danger."
ReplyDeleteSo there seems to be agreement with the Department of Homeland Security as to confrontation being a last resort. Medias Matters's only bitch seems to be that they didn't spend equal time on the running and hiding options. Perhaps they figured that CNN and MSNBC had those options covered.
Yeah, or perhaps the Fox News actors and actresses are instructed to appeal to the right-wing fanatics that make up moss tof their viewers.
DeleteThey can run when the shooter has to reload because his clip only holds ten rounds.
ReplyDeleteBad advice, unless they are The Flash. Reloads don't take that long, they may have more than one gun, and they may not actually be empty.
DeleteThat has to be the funniest comment ever made by you. Question, what makes you think he will only be using ten round "clips"?
DeleteWell, thanks to you gun nuts he probably won't be. There are enough extended magazines out there no to supply every mass shooter for the next hundred years, regardless of what laws we pass. Good going guys. You can take full credit for this one.
DeleteBit you'll want them banned anyway just to screw over people who would use them for defense.
DeleteTalk to the people in Paris who are only alive because they ran while the shooter was reloading. But you gun loons don't care about life, so skip the facts.
DeleteIf you make standard mags illegal, they will only be illegal to the law abiding people. Do you REAALY think someone intent on murdering people (already illegal) to follow some stupid arbitrary law of limits on rounds? Really? Your off your nut if you believe that. And since the criminal is going to break the law by murdering someone, or many someones, its not going to make any difference to him if his mags or "clips" are illegal as well. It does make a difference to me though, that arbitrary number restriction makes it harder for me to fight back against such a criminal.
Delete"AnonymousDecember 14, 2015 at 8:52 AM
Talk to the people in Paris who are only alive because they ran while the shooter was reloading. But you gun loons don't care about life, so skip the facts."
Yeah, reloading 30 round mags in their full auto AKs. Someone needs to learn what the facts are.
Oh and MikeB, thanks a lot for creating more criminals. The more gun things you make illegal, the more the criminals get and use them.
Maybe you should treat the gun things like you want to treat drugs. Legalize everything and everyone will lose interest in them?!? Right? Right!
Well Anon, I haven't heard of any of the firearms used being legally owned. France has licensing and restrictions on all civilian firearms AND ammunition. And of course, its hard to run fast enough to escape the detonation of an IED despite what you see in the movies.
DeleteTS, no one is using them for defense, except in your imagination. But, we do have several gruesome examples of people using them for offense.
DeleteThat's incorrect, Mike. Magazines that hold over ten rounds are standard issue for almost all police forces and even the gun control advocates agree that they have value for defense as every ban proposed exempts police. Even retired police.
Delete"Talk to the people in Paris who are only alive because they ran while the shooter was reloading."
There were multiple attackers. Are you suggesting they synchronized their magazine changes?
May I remind you, Mike, that you just said these bans will be useless for the next hundred years, and by then who knows what technology advancements might make the whole point moot. So the only result of these bans is limiting defense, and the additional criminal burden that comes with your no-grandfather bans.
DeleteMikeB: "There are enough extended magazines out there no to supply every mass shooter for the next hundred years, regardless of what laws we pass. Good going guys. You can take full credit for this one."
Humbly, I can only take partial credit. My role was pretty small, but thanks.
I have no idea why legal, or illegal has anything to do with the fact that Paris citizens (multiple citizens) said they got out while the shooter was reloading. The gun loons don't care who gets killed.
DeleteReally? I hadn't heard anyone say they got out during a reload. Point to a site where I can hear or read that for myself.
DeleteAs far as legal or not was a point you brought up first, "They can run when the shooter has to reload because his clip only holds ten rounds" thus the question, what makes you think that a killer on a rampage is going to limit himself to a ten round "CLIP"????
Perhaps you'd care to share a link to a source quoting these citizens?
DeleteWhether the weapons used were legal or not in France is quite germane. The gun control lobby likes to hold up European countries as a benchmark of how the US should model their gun laws.
France has pretty much all of the gun laws that said lobby supports and bad people still managed to get selective fire weapons, evil magazines, and to top it all off, explosives.
Only one, Sarge, you don't really expect our anonymous friend to start backing up his claims, do you? No, his answer will be something along the lines of, "do your own homework". Yes, you must scour the entire internet looking for this quote that he read but refuses to provide a link for.
DeletePerhaps you "know-it-alls" on guns would keep up with public knowledge. Check all the news outlets, they all had stories of Paris citizens getting out while the shooter reloaded. But of course you prefer to believe the news media are all liars. Laughable. Do your homework liars.
DeleteSorry Anon, since you made the claim, you bear the responsibility of providing proof to back up your claim. And no one here is accusing the media of lying. This actually qualifies as your homework.
DeleteI look forward to you completing it.
Hehe. Nailed it.
Delete"France has pretty much all of the gun laws that said lobby supports and bad people still managed to get selective fire weapons, evil magazines, and to top it all off, explosives."
DeleteYeah, a whole two times this year. Compare that to the Land of the Free.
Mike, there were three mass shootings in Paris alone this year, compared to four in the US for 2015.
DeleteAnd what's with the implication that two mass shootings is an acceptable amount? Despite France having 1/5th the population of the "land of the free", and you having missed this event:
Deletehttp://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6444418
Are you suggesting the US should be allowed up to ten mass shootings a year (accounting for population), or even not accounting for population, be allowed two before the bleating for more gun control starts? I have never heard a gun control advocate say anything along the lives of, "hold on, guys. That's only the first mass shooting of the year. Let's just be cool and not freak out." Have you ever heard that?
"four in the US for 2015."
DeleteWhaaaat?
Yes, Mike. Umpqua college, Chattanooga recruitment center, Charleston, and San Bernadino. Are there any others that you can think of? But if you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Mother Jones, whom you've cited here as an authority on mass shooting research many times:
Deletehttp://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html?_r=1&referer=http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=nyt+real+count+of+mass+shootibgs&fr=iphone&.tsrc=apple&pcarrier=Verizon&pmcc=310&pmnc=000
From the article you quoted, which was an opinion piece, by the way:
Delete"we used that criteria of four or more killed in public attacks, but excluded mass murders that stemmed from robbery, gang violence or domestic abuse in private homes. "
That partly explains the difference, plus, I suppose the larger claims include incidents in which 4 or more people are shot but not killed.
Regardless, there's a serious problem here for which proper gun control, among other efforts, is the answer.
And TS hits the nail squarely on the head. Good call!
ReplyDelete