"Run, hide, or fight" sounds logical, but Chief Lanier, who is armed, would have the unwashed acting without the benefit of arms. I am not sure she has issued more than one carry license to a woman.
http://wtop.com/dc/2015/11/d-c-chief-la ... ituations/

WASHINGTON — In an upcoming segment of “60 Minutes,” Metropolitan Police Chief Police Chief Cathy Lanier says it’s unrealistic to think police will make it to an active shooter situation in time to save lives, so victims will have to prepare to “run, hide or fight.”

“If you’re in a position to try and take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, it’s the best option for saving lives before police can get there,” she tells Anderson Cooper for the segment, which will air Sunday at 7 p.m. on CBS.

Lanier said this is radically different from what police have often told people. But after a series of tragic domestic attacks – including the 2013 murders at the D.C. Navy Yard — it is clear that merely calling 911 and waiting for a response isn’t enough.

Associated Twitter feed on Lanier's statement:
https://twitter.com/WTOP/status/668104141785296896

Maybe it will sound better on 60 Minutes.

Sunday, July 27, 2008, Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church, Knoxville TN. Jim David Adkisson was, other that being older, a typical aspiring suicide-by-cop rampage shooter until several church members tackled him.

Yeah, fighting back is a good idea, especially when you might survive if you do but will definitely die if you don't.

SwampGrouch wrote:Yeah, fighting back is a good idea, especially when you might survive if you do but will definitely die if you don't.

That probably describes a lot of people's thinking on the matter. Though I'm sure plenty also figure somebody else will do something, the bystander effect and all.

I wonder if the DC chief understands the hypocrisy of the matter? "We need you to protect yourselves, but we won't give you a tool that equalizes the fight. Here's a nail file."

KnightsFan wrote:I wonder if the DC chief understands the hypocrisy of the matter? "We need you to protect yourselves, but we won't give you a tool that equalizes the fight. Here's a nail file."

According to the TSA, that's a deadly weapon capable of taking down a plane in flight, so…you're probably pretty lucky it's not controlled in DC already.

If today she starts to actually approve civilian CCW then I'll care what she has to say on the matter.

Ok, confused, what is the problem with what she is saying?

That's a shit load better than "hide and wait to die" like most jurisdictions preach. This is THE right advice.

Run. Hide. Fight. In that order. And then use this particularly sensible advice she is proselytizing to do something about her stance on CCW. But that doesn't make THIS any less good.

We sometimes even credit the NRA with making sense. This is advice that likely will save lives. As soon as their is resistance, the game changes. Just because you don't have a gun doesn't mean you are defenseless. The prepared are never unarmed.

Read Rob Pincus or Grant Cunningham's work on the subject, its good. The only links I have are Facebook at the moment.

Lets do more than parrot talking points, pointing out the irony is good, slagging the advice is less good.

Inquisitor wrote:Ok, confused, what is the problem with what she is saying?

That's a shit load better than "hide and wait to die" like most jurisdictions preach. This is THE right advice.

Run. Hide. Fight. In that order. And then use this particularly sensible advice she is proselytizing to do something about her stance on CCW. But that doesn't make THIS any less good.

We sometimes even credit the NRA with making sense. This is advice that likely will save lives. As soon as their is resistance, the game changes. Just because you don't have a gun doesn't mean you are defenseless. The prepared are never unarmed.

Read Rob Pincus or Grant Cunningham's work on the subject, its good. The only links I have are Facebook at the moment.

Lets do more than parrot talking points, pointing out the irony is good, slagging the advice is less good.

A quick read of the thread, including the OP, shows, as stated, Lanier's words are sound, but she gives that advice from a position of denying LTCs based on arbitrary criteria. That said, nowhere in this thread has anyone claimed being unable to carry a firearm makes one "defenseless." I'm not sure how books probably everyone on a gun forum has already read are going to add to the understanding of being prepared as it relates (or doesn't) to Lanier's hypocrisy.

As I've often posted, the Stalingrad Method rarely works. Maybe it would be more successful if we have armed Zampolit to ensure everyone does their duty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ3bzg-Tvt4

I understand the antis position. We're civilians, we'll probably shoot our eyes out. However I want to have the right to defend myself no matter how ineffectual my defense is. Even Bill Maher has said "No one's ever thought in the middle of these shootings "Geeze, I'm glad only the bad guy has a gun"

In reality cops are not navy SEALS and often perform just as bad. Just getting rounds on target even if you miss is probably going to disrupt the shooter's plan and at the very least make him focus on you.

I'm a civilian, if I had a gun and the shooter was in another building, I would run and seek cover. If he's in the same room with me. I'd rather go down fighting then waiting to get shot. This is not bravado. I would have more courage with a gun, then trying to bumrush a gunman without one.

DispositionMatrix wrote:

Inquisitor wrote:Ok, confused, what is the problem with what she is saying?

That's a shit load better than "hide and wait to die" like most jurisdictions preach. This is THE right advice.

Run. Hide. Fight. In that order. And then use this particularly sensible advice she is proselytizing to do something about her stance on CCW. But that doesn't make THIS any less good.

We sometimes even credit the NRA with making sense. This is advice that likely will save lives. As soon as their is resistance, the game changes. Just because you don't have a gun doesn't mean you are defenseless. The prepared are never unarmed.

Read Rob Pincus or Grant Cunningham's work on the subject, its good. The only links I have are Facebook at the moment.

Lets do more than parrot talking points, pointing out the irony is good, slagging the advice is less good.

A quick read of the thread, including the OP shows, as stated, Lanier's words are sound, but she gives that advice from a position of denying LTCs based on arbitrary criteria. That said, nowhere in this thread has anyone claimed being unable to carry a firearm makes one "defenseless." I'm not sure how books probably everyone on a gun forum has already read are going to add to the understanding of being prepared as it relates (or doesn't) to Lanier's hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, I am not living in the bubble of any one single thread. But, next time I will quote my complaint, just for you.

ErikO wrote:If today she starts to actually approve civilian CCW then I'll care what she has to say on the matter.

This is what I was replying to. And a quick read of the rest of the forum (and other arenas) has a lot more to say. And some people excoriating this chief have said exactly what this chief is saying. And our very own CDH types are saying they will listen to what she has to say when she is not being a hypocrite on guns, and that's wrong, because its good advice, and I am pleasantly surprised ANY LE is finally giving it, regardless of other issues LEO might have.

Thanks for reading.

Inquisitor wrote:

DispositionMatrix wrote:

Inquisitor wrote:Ok, confused, what is the problem with what she is saying?

That's a shit load better than "hide and wait to die" like most jurisdictions preach. This is THE right advice.

Run. Hide. Fight. In that order. And then use this particularly sensible advice she is proselytizing to do something about her stance on CCW. But that doesn't make THIS any less good.

We sometimes even credit the NRA with making sense. This is advice that likely will save lives. As soon as their is resistance, the game changes. Just because you don't have a gun doesn't mean you are defenseless. The prepared are never unarmed.

Read Rob Pincus or Grant Cunningham's work on the subject, its good. The only links I have are Facebook at the moment.

Lets do more than parrot talking points, pointing out the irony is good, slagging the advice is less good.

A quick read of the thread, including the OP shows, as stated, Lanier's words are sound, but she gives that advice from a position of denying LTCs based on arbitrary criteria. That said, nowhere in this thread has anyone claimed being unable to carry a firearm makes one "defenseless." I'm not sure how books probably everyone on a gun forum has already read are going to add to the understanding of being prepared as it relates (or doesn't) to Lanier's hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, I am not living in the bubble of any one single thread. But, next time I will quote my complaint, just for you.

ErikO wrote:If today she starts to actually approve civilian CCW then I'll care what she has to say on the matter.

This is what I was replying to. And a quick read of the rest of the forum (and other arenas) has a lot more to say. And some people excoriating this chief have said exactly what this chief is saying. And our very own CDH types are saying they will listen to what she has to say when she is not being a hypocrite on guns, and that's wrong, because its good advice, and I am pleasantly surprised ANY LE is finally giving it, regardless of other issues LEO might have.

Thanks for reading.

So when you appear to be taking issue with something in a thread, others can assume you _might_ really be responding to an amalgam of posts from any number of other threads. Knowing that is helpful.

Had a chance to watch the clip. Yes, she's completely correct in her statements. Yes, she takes a logically inconsistent and hypocritical position on gun control. She's a political animal and is unwilling to end her career by saying what she, as an experienced LEO and rational person, really believes. Few have the courage to do this in a gun-hostile political environment - in 2013 the Interpol secretary general suggested that armed citizens have a role to play and he's got a different job now.

I'm not inside her head but I've trained and competed with dozens of DC Metro cops (there was one in my CC course yesterday) and they say that DC politicians' gun control fanaticism is not shared by most of the rank and file.

when i first read the OP, not knowing anything about this person advocating self-defense, i wondered why anyone would find it objectionable. so now that i know who made these remarks, i can rag on her for hypocrisy, or praise her for recognizing facts. or both. i like both.

lurker wrote:when i first read the OP, not knowing anything about this person advocating self-defense, i wondered why anyone would find it objectionable. so now that i know who made these remarks, i can rag on her for hypocrisy, or praise her for recognizing facts. or both. i like both.

She was appointed by mayor Adrian Fenty, one of the grabbiest gun grabbers to hold DC office. He's the loser of the famous 2008 DC v. Heller case and spitefully left a legacy of disdain for gun rights by appointing pet ideologues like Lanier.

There are Run, Hide, Fight posters all over the place at OSU. I think it's terrific advice and may well save lives over the old 'hold tight and wait' advice.

It may be heresy to say this, but sometimes I make a choice not to link my CCW feelings with other things. This is one of those moments for me. Would I rather be armed in an active shooter situation? Yep. Do I think people should have an option? Yep again. To be honest, though, I get tired of looking through the same lens all the time and sometimes - sometimes - I worry that knowing the background of the speaker unfairly colors however I am going to interpret anything that comes out of their mouth. For me, it applies here.

Run. Hide. Fight. That's sound advice, period. I don't need to load that up or qualify it by saying, 'Yeah, but...' I'll save that fight for another time.

It's hard to be completely objective. Frequently impossible. Self-defense situations are just problems to solve. Gather information, choose the best tool, act, live with the consequences.

begemot wrote:It's hard to be completely objective. Frequently impossible. Self-defense situations are just problems to solve. Gather information, choose the best tool, act, live with the consequences.

This is good.

Inquisitor wrote:Ok, confused, what is the problem with what she is saying?

That's a shit load better than "hide and wait to die" like most jurisdictions preach. This is THE right advice.

Run. Hide. Fight. In that order. And then use this particularly sensible advice she is proselytizing to do something about her stance on CCW. But that doesn't make THIS any less good.

We sometimes even credit the NRA with making sense. This is advice that likely will save lives. As soon as their is resistance, the game changes. Just because you don't have a gun doesn't mean you are defenseless. The prepared are never unarmed.

Read Rob Pincus or Grant Cunningham's work on the subject, its good. The only links I have are Facebook at the moment.

Lets do more than parrot talking points, pointing out the irony is good, slagging the advice is less good.

The message she has personally made until now is that she does not trust anyone who lives in DC or works in DC to be responsible for their own defense. Maybe she is seeing the light, which she can follow up by processing the backlog of permits. Yes, there are alternatives to firearms for defense, as I am sure that everyone who spends time in DC and is not a 'special snowflake' badge holding member of one of the alphabet soup agencies already is aware of as that is what they have been reduced to use.

Doesn't minimize the actual message,which is an important one.

Inquisitor wrote:Doesn't minimize the actual message,which is an important one.

After her ignoring David Gregory's felonious possession under DC law, I put her in the same boat as Chief Dotson here in St Louis. The message is important but is modified by the messenger.

ErikO wrote:

Inquisitor wrote:Doesn't minimize the actual message,which is an important one.

After her ignoring David Gregory's felonious possession under DC law, I put her in the same boat as Chief Dotson here in St Louis. The message is important but is modified by the messenger.

Baby/bath water.

I welcome any person's changing stance to realize that self defense is important, even if it comes from previous ivory tower figures like the DC police chief. I'm with quiz here, we should encourage her and other people to keep evolving in their attitudes towards self defense, and it should be possible to do that while keeping her feet to the fire with regards to CCW permit processing =)

pdoggeth wrote:I welcome any person's changing stance to realize that self defense is important, even if it comes from previous ivory tower figures like the DC police chief. I'm with quiz here, we should encourage her and other people to keep evolving in their attitudes towards self defense, and it should be possible to do that while keeping her feet to the fire with regards to CCW permit processing =)

Me, too - on both counts. I also agree that sometimes it is good to separate out arguments/issues. (baby's bathwater and all that)

I completely agree with her stance. Those making this a CCW argument, an armed person faced with death who freezes just provides the threat with another weapon. I'd rather the "hero" in this recurring hypothetical respond with a beer bottle, respond with a chair, or respond with a rolled up magazine than CHOKE with a gun.

REDONE wrote:I completely agree with her stance. Those making this a CCW argument, an armed person faced with death who freezes just provides the threat with another weapon. I'd rather the "hero" in this recurring hypothetical respond with a beer bottle, respond with a chair, or respond with a rolled up magazine than CHOKE with a gun.

I'd prefer the option to conceal carry. I don't believe in "heroes".

And apparently I am not the only one who reads other threads.