>> If you have ever run to the sound of the guns you may offer your opinion, if not just let it go. <<
You make a very valid set of points, and I understand exactly.
In fact, my conclusion in light of your comments is that the 90% of our military who are non-combat should be trained to fight back in such an incident, that is, to rush the guy, hit him with anything they have — belts, books, shoes — and take him down. One or two will of course be killed. But not 12.
Furthermore, to respond specifically to your last question, Yes, I have “run to the sound of guns.” I worked as a civilian in Saigon in 1967-68. One day a group of us civilians were leaving the office at about 6 p.m. when the sound of shots rang out. We all rushed for cover.
But an American soldier was in a guard box at the building’s entrance. He left his position of relative safety and went out on the street, where he kneeled and raised his rifle to a combat position. His training and sense of duty led him to step directly into harm’s way, while the rest of us followed the normal human instinct to run away.
Fortunately, nothing further came of the incident. The sound we heard might even have been nothing more than the backfiring of an old 2CV. But the image of the brave Amercian soldier is burned in my mind, as clear today as it was 41 years, and I hope I never forget this unsung hero.
“He left his position of relative safety and went out on the street, where he kneeled and raised his rifle to a combat position. His training and sense of duty led him to step directly into harm’s way, while the rest of us followed the normal human instinct to run away.”
Glad to know you are ok and thanks for your service.
Problem with this is that he was armed and on guard duty. Your first post you thought the unarmed personnel should have done a hollywood unarmed banzai attack. He had 2 weapons, and it was close quarters. He had an overwhelming advantage, and they were overwhelmingly disadvantaged. The danger was coming from someone in uniform, an officer, one whom they might already know, and in a ‘safe’ area. That is why he picked it - no immediate counter response.
From what I read they all acted accordingly and the sgt. that ultimately took him down did so too. She was tactically trained and armed, just like the guard in your story.
I understand your sentiment that they should have fought back, but considering the time frame evolved, the lack of high 'situational awareness' of the environment, and the lack of coordinated counter response at hand, there was no other way for it to play out.
As to training the entire military to some SF level, it can be done but the cost would be a little high and unless everyone practiced everyday to be a warrior you still end up with a similar outcome.
The bastard didn't choose one of the many live ranges to exact his vengeance, he selected a undefended and helpless population. Typical muslimb tactic.
My job requires I carry and I carry when off duty, all the time. I avoid areas that require I disarm myself whenever possible. I always try to have a high situational awareness level, and I know that I can still be the first person shot dead by the first shot fired. If I'm not, there will be a 'sign of a struggle' at the scene.
Just saying that it is easy for you and I to make comments one side or the other because we have the benefit of not being there at the time.