Chapters 00:00 Introduction and Motivations for Attending Active Shooter Response Classes 04:29 Common Myths and Misconceptions about Active Shooter Response 06:27 The Importance of Taking Immediate Action 08:15 The Ineffectiveness of Lockdowns and Building Hardening 10:05 The Need for Violence as a Response 12:14 The Effectiveness of Armed Citizens in Stopping Active Shooters 13:20 The Ineffectiveness of Gun Control and Mental Health Solutions 16:21 The Importance of Time and the Role of Armed Citizens 18:20 The Psychological and Physiological Aspects of Stopping an Active Shooter 20:36 Strategies for Confronting an Active Shooter 26:03 Considering Demographics and Motivations of Active Shooters 28:21 Decision-Making and Actions in Different Venues 30:44 Overcoming Social Rules and Legislation 33:24 Preparing Mentally and Strategizing for Active Shooter Situations 38:49 The Importance of Violence as a Response on Active Shooter Day 44:22 The Need for Carrying Firearms and Taking Responsibility 46:45 Choosing the Right Gun for Self-Defense 47:41 The Importance of Rule Four in Gun Safety 48:40 The Need for 100% Hits in Active Shooter Situations 49:09 The Challenge of Rule Four in Real-Life Scenarios 50:07 Paying Attention to Rule Four in Training 51:35 The Value of Ed's Seminars and Speaking Engagements
Nice to hear the voice of reason for a change. This is the kind of sober discussion one cannot get from normal media outlets. I like how Ed Monk shows his proof in a mathematical way that is completely convincing. He also has solid credentials - and can speak on this subject with the authority of experience. Thanks for posting this, Gila.
We need Ed here in Oregon where they disarmed the SRO's on campuses to not traumatize the students, seriously? The 1st. responders are the ones that are already there. The 2nd. responders document the crime scene. Law enforcement can't be everywhere at once.
After the last few shootings, particularly Parkland and Uvalde, there was a thought going around the internet that police are not duty-bound to engage active shooters. They CAN, but they don't automatically HAVE to, was the claim. Can anyone say if this is true or not?
By vocation they should engage, but... they are not legally required to protect every citizen (only the collective); they are not legally required to endanger themselves, like engaging the active shooter, they (depending on city policies) may wait for backup or some special response team or a convenient circumstance where the shooter assumes a tactical disadvantage (run out of bullets or something). They are required to not just ignore a dangerous individual, but that doesn't require to engage, they may just follow him, so long as they are monitoring the shooter (waiting for a good chance to engage), they are not ignoring it. There may be police departments with the policy that an active shooter must be stopped (shot) immediately, in which case yes, the officers from there must engage.
Chapters
00:00 Introduction and Motivations for Attending Active Shooter Response Classes
04:29 Common Myths and Misconceptions about Active Shooter Response
06:27 The Importance of Taking Immediate Action
08:15 The Ineffectiveness of Lockdowns and Building Hardening
10:05 The Need for Violence as a Response
12:14 The Effectiveness of Armed Citizens in Stopping Active Shooters
13:20 The Ineffectiveness of Gun Control and Mental Health Solutions
16:21 The Importance of Time and the Role of Armed Citizens
18:20 The Psychological and Physiological Aspects of Stopping an Active Shooter
20:36 Strategies for Confronting an Active Shooter
26:03 Considering Demographics and Motivations of Active Shooters
28:21 Decision-Making and Actions in Different Venues
30:44 Overcoming Social Rules and Legislation
33:24 Preparing Mentally and Strategizing for Active Shooter Situations
38:49 The Importance of Violence as a Response on Active Shooter Day
44:22 The Need for Carrying Firearms and Taking Responsibility
46:45 Choosing the Right Gun for Self-Defense
47:41 The Importance of Rule Four in Gun Safety
48:40 The Need for 100% Hits in Active Shooter Situations
49:09 The Challenge of Rule Four in Real-Life Scenarios
50:07 Paying Attention to Rule Four in Training
51:35 The Value of Ed's Seminars and Speaking Engagements
Monk is gold; packing some serious food for thought.
Great guest and conversation. Thank you!
Nice to hear the voice of reason for a change. This is the kind of sober discussion one cannot get from normal media outlets. I like how Ed Monk shows his proof in a mathematical way that is completely convincing. He also has solid credentials - and can speak on this subject with the authority of experience. Thanks for posting this, Gila.
Wonderful interview. Thank you both for sharing these thought provoking topics.
Great presentation!
Excellent, numbers based analysis. Points to the only solution. Thanks.
fantastic discussion.
Thank you the talk!
What a great video, thanks for the info.
We need Ed here in Oregon where they disarmed the SRO's on campuses to not traumatize the students, seriously?
The 1st. responders are the ones that are already there.
The 2nd. responders document the crime scene.
Law enforcement can't be everywhere at once.
After the last few shootings, particularly Parkland and Uvalde, there was a thought going around the internet that police are not duty-bound to engage active shooters. They CAN, but they don't automatically HAVE to, was the claim.
Can anyone say if this is true or not?
By vocation they should engage, but... they are not legally required to protect every citizen (only the collective); they are not legally required to endanger themselves, like engaging the active shooter, they (depending on city policies) may wait for backup or some special response team or a convenient circumstance where the shooter assumes a tactical disadvantage (run out of bullets or something). They are required to not just ignore a dangerous individual, but that doesn't require to engage, they may just follow him, so long as they are monitoring the shooter (waiting for a good chance to engage), they are not ignoring it. There may be police departments with the policy that an active shooter must be stopped (shot) immediately, in which case yes, the officers from there must engage.
We like Ed!!!