From the January 5 edition of Fox News' Outnumbered:
Loading the player reg...
With the President's announcement today that he will take sensible executive action to strengthen background checks for purchasing guns, among other common sense measures, I can hardly wait to turn my dial to hear El Rushbo and friends' reactions. He's overstepping his bounds by bypassing Congress, he's taking away guns, public places are more dangerous if they're gun-free zones. We've heard it all before, folks. And there isn't a lick of truth to any of it.
Speaking of gun-free zones, I don't usually give advice to the GOP -- it's not exactly my business -- but this idea seemed so obvious for conservatives, I figured they just forgot to mention it: Why not let folks bring their guns to the Republican National Convention?
If you listen to the rhetoric of many conservative wackadoodles, guns should be welcome at Quicken Loans Arena. (The only flashes the event staff should worry about should be from photography, not firearms.)
The convention floor seems like logical next place to expand gun rights, a sort of manifest destiny for the Second Amendment. Republicans have already voted for your right to carry in all sorts of public places: churches in Georgia... state parks in Maine, Louisiana, and Virginia... stadiums, hospitals, and day care centers in Michigan... Mississippi high schools, courthouses, polling places, colleges, churches, and the passenger terminal of Jackson-Evers International Airport.
Thanks to Republican legislators, you'll soon be able to pack heat on the quad of Texas A&M or at the college bar in town. Which brings a whole new meaning to "taking a shot."
But for some reason, the march of progress hasn't made it yet to political rallies. The 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa - which adopted a platform "uphold[ing] the right... to keep and bear arms" - was curiously a "gun-free zone." Firearms were also disallowed at a campaign event last year in Nevada featuring Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz. And when the Republican hopefuls debate on January 28 at Iowa Events Center, they'll be doing so in an arena that usually prohibits "weapons of any kind," presumably because the event coordinators think it'll keep people safer. In yet another head-scratcher, the RNC has chosen Quicken Loans Arena, where a stadium policy "strictly" forbids firearms, for their next national convention.
This has to be an oversight.
See, the conservative argument against gun-free zones - and for the right to carry anywhere - is that it deters gun violence. And if it doesn't deter gun violence, then at least it gives anybody the chance to put two in the chest of a wannabee murderer. As Ted Cruz put it, "You stop bad guys by using our guns."
Cruz isn't alone here; conservatives haven't been shy about this. After the attacks in Paris, Donald Trump said that had the victims been carrying, it would have been a "much, much different situation." Then Ben Carson shared this interesting bit of history: Jews might have prevented the Holocaust if they'd been packing heat in the ghettos.
In other words: Guns don't kill people. Guns just kill people who don't have guns.
This is why it's crazy that the Republican National Convention hasn't declared itself a "gun-friendly zone" yet. Republicans know they need to protect themselves. RNC boss Reince Priebus should've put out a press release by now, a thumbs up next to a trigger finger, demanding that Quicken Loans Arena reverse its policy. And Ohio Governor Kasich and his Republican legislature should've already suspended the pesky law from July 18th to the 21st that allows the arena to set its policy so the Second Amendment can be in the speeches - and in the waistbands - of everyone at the convention.
After all, these big political conventions always attract their fair share of threats. And sure, the Secret Service is there with snipers to protect the nominee. But shouldn't the Republicans on the floor - the guys from the Sacramento Chamber of Commerce and the fellows of the Heritage Foundation - be able to lock and load if ISIS breaks through the security barrier?
Or what about outside of the arena? Republicans won't be exiting by way of the covered veranda at Augusta National. (There's always the 2020 convention, guys.) This is Cleveland, and Republicans know that Cleveland so urrrrban. It's full of... How do I put this gently? What's the euphemism they'd use? ... Cleveland is full of Democrats. (That sound you're hearing is a Republican dog whistle). And when you're feeling threatened in a city you don't know, you need protection.
Look, I don't really expect anything bad to happen in Cleveland this summer. Maybe the combination of $15-dollar stadium cocktails and Limbaugh-style rage will lead the delegation from the Columbia, SC statehouse to harangue some RINO. But beyond that, I hope the convention is as boring and unwatchable as all the others.
Nevertheless, as Senate candidate Sharron Angle reminded us, Republicans should be ready with "Second Amendment remedies" should a threat ever pop up.
And if the threat never comes? Well... at least the convention-goers can take some target practice when the balloons drop. There's nothing more fun than some .22-caliber fireworks.
Someone should just warn the nominee about the ricochet.
From the January 5 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
Loading the player reg...
The National Rifle Association is promoting the claim that President Obama is "our biggest threat to national security" in response to reports that Obama will soon take several executive actions to address gun violence.
Obama reportedly plans to announce the executive actions some time during the "next several days." While details of Obama's proposals have not been released, several news reports indicate that Obama will shrink the "gun show loophole" by using regulatory authority to require unlicensed sellers who are engaging in high-volume gun sales to become licensed and perform background checks on customers.
The NRA responded to Obama's forthcoming proposals in a January 4 video, with the gun rights organization labeling the president "our biggest threat to national security":
In the video, the charge that "the biggest threat to national security is sitting in the Oval Office" is made by former Bush administration official John Bolton, a Fox News contributor. Bolton has served in an NRA leadership position and frequently appears in NRA News videos to advance the gun organization's views.
The NRA previously supported, in the words of NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, "mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show," although the gun group has since abandoned this position and now claims expanded background checks would be the precursor to the confiscation of privately owned firearms.
President Obama will reportedly soon announce several executive actions to address gun violence. Although the details of the plan have not yet been released, several outlets are reporting that the Obama administration will address what is known as the "gun show loophole" or "private sales loophole" that allows the sale of guns without a background check at gun shows and through other venues such as online marketplaces. Although popular with the general public, conservative media often spread falsehoods about background checks on gun sales in order to attack proposals to expand these checks to more sales.
From the January 4 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
Loading the player reg...
From the January 3 edition of NBC's Meet The Press:
Loading the player reg...
Following another series of horrific mass shootings in 2015 that captured the public's attention, gun safety has emerged as a major campaign issue for the 2016 elections. It's already clear how the National Rifle Association (NRA) will use the issue to try to swing the elections and hamstring any attempts at new legislation - after all, they've been using the same playbook for years.
As U.S. gun deaths continue to tick upwards -- now on par with automobile deaths -- public interest in gun issues in 2015 rose to its highest level since the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. This year, Americans watched news reports of public shootings targeting parishioners in Charleston, South Carolina, service members in Chattanooga, Tennessee, moviegoers in Lafayette, Louisiana, students and educators in Roseburg, Oregon, people visiting a Planned Parenthood health clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and attendees of a Christmas party in San Bernardino, California.
Presidential candidates in favor of reform on gun laws released policy proposals, addressed the issue during debates, and argued for stronger background checks on gun sales and other proposals during campaign events.
Meanwhile, candidates who oppose stronger gun laws remained largely in line with the National Rifle Association, with the majority of the GOP field speaking at the NRA's 2015 annual meeting in Louisville, Kentucky. Republican members of Congress also fell in line with the NRA -- Politico summarized the state of affairs with the headline, "GOP unmoved on gun control as massacres pile up."
As The Washington Post noted, the attention paid to the issue by Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton indicates "a shift in presidential politics." Business Insider identified gun violence prevention as an issue that "suddenly looms large over the first Democratic presidential debate," and Politico called gun safety "one of the most volatile issues of 2016."
As the NRA gears up to poison the well on another national debate over gun violence, four main themes are likely to emerge:
With all indications pointing to the NRA utilizing its fearmongering playbook against the eventual Democratic nominee, it is worth examining the rhetoric used by the NRA to attack President Obama before the 2012 elections and what impact the NRA actually had on those elections.
The NRA began its 2012 campaign work in earnest with a September 2011 speech by NRA executive vice president and CEO Wayne LaPierre at the Conservative Political Action Conference. During the annual gathering of conservative powerbrokers, LaPierre announced the existence of "a massive Obama conspiracy" to destroy the Second Amendment during a second term. Claiming that during his first term Obama sought to "play us for fools," LaPierre said, "We see the president's strategy crystal clear: get re-elected, and with no other re-elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms freedom. Erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and exorcise it from the U.S. Constitution."
As Election Day approached, the NRA's rhetoric against Obama went even further off the rails, including when LaPierre analogized the prospect of Obama's reelection to the 2004 tsunami in South Asia in an article in the NRA's magazine that announced an "All In" campaign against Obama.
Describing the tsunami as "faster than a 747" and "carrying more energy than 1,500 Hiroshima bombs," LaPierre noted the disaster's 250,000 person death toll before writing, "Today in the United States, just as in Indonesia, too many Americans don't see -- or don't recognize -- the tidal wave that's bearing down on our nation and our freedoms. If we don't warn our fellow Americans in time, disaster could be upon us on Election Day -- just nine short months from now." According to LaPierre it was up to NRA supporters to "mobilize the American people to defeat Barack Obama before he dismantles our Second Amendment freedom -- and all of our freedoms as Americans -- completely and forever."
The NRA, however, failed on Election Day 2012. In an election year that was bad for conservatives generally, the gun group fared particularly poorly. The NRA Political Victory Fund (PVF) and the NRA Institute for Legislative Action spent over $12 million in the NRA's ill-fated quest to defeat the president.
More than 95 percent of the more than $18 million the NRA spent on federal elections went to races where the NRA-backed candidate lost on Election Day. The PVF in particular was one of the most ineffective outside spenders during the 2012 elections, achieving a "return of investment" on campaign spending of less than one percent.
The NRA also failed to garner Congressional victories. In six of seven Senate races where the NRA spent over $100,000 during the general election, the candidate supported by the NRA lost. Of 26 House incumbents who lost their seats -- including Democrats and Republicans -- 18 were endorsed by the NRA.
In addition to ineffective spending, the NRA's message, which largely cast the group as the singular force that could save the Second Amendment and America from destruction by Obama, was also ineffective. In three key swing states - Virginia, Colorado, and North Carolina - voters said they trusted Obama more than his opponent, former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), to oversee gun laws.
The NRA is already busy launching attacks against pro-gun safety candidates ahead of the 2016 election. The majority of the attacks have focused on Hillary Clinton - who the gun-group has a long-held disdain for, dating back to the Bill Clinton administration - but the NRA has also included former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley in its unhinged attacks.
In fact, the first cover of the NRA's magazine, America's 1st Freedom, to focus on the 2016 elections, published in September, was for a story that amounted to a lengthy smear of O'Malley.
The NRA's feature falsely attacked O'Malley on two fronts, claiming that he poses a threat to Second Amendment rights and accusing him of taking the side of criminals in Maryland -- even though courts have sided with O'Malley on the constitutionality of Maryland's gun laws and violent crime fell significantly during his tenure as governor. Echoing language seen during the NRA's 2012 attacks on Obama, the NRA's top lobbyist Chris Cox predicted that an O'Malley presidency could trigger "a fight for the survival of Second Amendment freedom as we know it."
The NRA's attacks on Clinton -- "the most anti-gun first lady in the most anti-Second Amendment administration in American history," according to them -- are perhaps more unhinged.
During a video montage shown at the NRA's 2008 annual meeting, the NRA linked Clinton to a plan to exploit a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. While showing an image of Clinton on screen, followed by archival footage of the aftermaths of major terror attacks, a narrator said, "If an anti-gun president occupies the White House, then the perfect storm is upon us. Its arrival would be hastened by a terrorist attack; an event that experts say is inevitable. Then the final disarmament of law abiding Americans will take place beneath the shroud of anti-terrorism legislation."
In 2007, the NRA was silent as one of its most prominent members of leadership, longtime board member Ted "I Am The NRA" Nugent, called Clinton a "worthless bitch" who should "ride" on his machine gun during an on-stage rant he delivered while wielding assault weapon props. Nugent, who has referred to Clinton as a "whore" and a "cunt," has also called for the former secretary of state's arrest. (The NRA has remained in the gutter on Clinton; during the 2014 debut of its web series targeted towards millennials the host said, "it's pretty blatant that Hillary is no longer sleeping with Bill Clinton, because if she were, he would inform her that this whole gun issue thing and trying to walk this elusive line of gun control but still for the Second Amendment rights is probably not the smartest thing to do because we're not idiots and we're not falling for it.")
The NRA began its 2016 attacks on Clinton with LaPierre's 2014 CPAC speech where he predicted that anti-gun forces were "laying the groundwork to put another Clinton back in the White House" with the ultimate goal being "to finish the job, to fulfill their commitment, their dream, of fundamentally transforming America."
LaPierre ramped up his attacks on Clinton during the NRA's 2015 annual meeting in April. During a speech before the NRA's leadership forum, LaPierre predicted that Clinton's potential election "will bring a permanent darkness of deceit and despair" to America while vowing that "in 2016, by God, we will elect our next great president of the United States of America and it will not be Hillary Rodham Clinton."
In widely criticized remarks before members during a later speech, LaPierre turned up the volume even more, launching a gender-based attack on Clinton while taking a racial dig at Obama. On the 2016 elections, LaPierre said Obama "intends to go out with a coronation of Hillary Rodham Clinton. I have to tell you, eight years of one demographically symbolic president is enough."
The NRA has also been busy crafting its massive Clinton conspiracy, which is copied from its Obama playbook. In 2008, the NRA distorted and strung together past statements on the gun issue by Obama to push the claim that as president, he would ban the use of guns for self-defense among other extreme positions. This claim garnered a "false" rating from PolitiFact and led FactCheck.org to conclude the NRA "falsely claims in mailers and TV ads that Obama plans to ban handguns, hunting ammo and use of a gun for home defense."
In a May article appearing in America's 1st Freedom, the NRA took the same approach, purporting to offer a history of Clinton's views on firearms in order to push the unsubstantiated theory that a Clinton presidency would bring about gun confiscation.
The NRA frequently argues that the only thing to stop the cataclysmic destruction of the Second Amendment and possibly America as we know it is the election of NRA-favored candidates for office. Despite these repeated predictions from the NRA not coming true, 2016 is proving to be no different.
2016: Just days after writing that "the future of our Second Amendment rights comes down to one day -- Election Day" 2014, and calling those elections "the most important of our lifetime," NRA leadership labeled the 2016 elections "the fight of our lives for American freedom." In the December edition of America's 1st Freedom, LaPierre predicted that the 2016 elections could spell "the final defeat for the Second Amendment and every freedom we cherish" before announcing an NRA membership due increase.
The NRA's apocalyptical predictions about 2016 echo rhetoric from previous elections, even if the Second Amendment - or America - never ends up getting destroyed.
2012: On the 2012 elections, LaPierre wrote, "This isn't just the most important election of our lifetimes -- it's the most important election for our children's, grandchildren's and great-grandchildren's lifetimes." He also wrote (emphasis original), "It might seem like a stretch to compare an election to one of the deadliest disasters in modern history [the 2004 South Asian tsunami]. This year's election could prove the most disastrous in the history of this country. Why? Because this election will decide whether Americans remain free."
The 2016 election promises to revive longstanding -- but evidence-free -- conventional wisdom seen throughout media coverage of the role of the gun issue in electoral politics, which is the claim that the NRA has the ability to determine election outcomes at will and punish politicians who vote against its agenda. While this myth is oft-repeated in media, actual data analyses of federal election cycles have proven that the value of NRA election spending and endorsements is vastly overrated.
Supposedly objective media outlets who push this narrative become unwitting allies of the NRA, which seeks to use overstated claims about its own electoral power to wield outsized influence in Congress.
Following the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, major media outlets were quick to suggest that politicians who supported gun safety reforms would be defeated by the NRA during their next reelection run.
That never happened. While 2014 was a bad election cycle for progressive politicians generally, the gun issue fared significantly better, including the passage of a "historic" background check ballot initiative in Washington state and the successful reelection of governors who signed into law the most significant gun safety reforms in response to Sandy Hook. At the same time, Democrats in the Senate who sided with the NRA on a background check bill compromise that was blocked in April 2013 lost their reelections, with the NRA failing to aid them or in other cases actively spending against them in favor of the Republican candidate. As one leading gun safety advocate put it, "with friends like the NRA, who needs enemies?"
The myth of NRA electoral dominance is actively being pushed by major outlets leading up to the 2016 elections. A January documentary about the NRA released by PBS and a July Washington Post article setting the stage for the role of guns in 2016 electoral politics pushed the claim that the NRA cost Al Gore the 2000 election. The Post article also posited that the 1994 assault weapons ban was responsible for Democrats losing the House during elections held that year.
While these claims have become electoral apocrypha, there is no statistical support for their validity according to political science experts who conducted data-driven analyses of the two election cycles. The NRA, however, will be counting on media to share these stories as it puffs itself up before Election Day.
Loading the player reg...
On the December 18 edition of CNN's New Day, host Alisyn Camerota used the term "so-called assault rifles," adpoting the framing of gun activists. Camerota said "I say so-called [assault rifles] because gun rights enthusiasts say what makes something an assault rife? That's a political term." In fact, the term "assault weapon" was coined by gun manufacturers and enthusiasts, to describe military-style semi-automatic rifles, but the National Rifle Association (NRA) and gun trade industry attempted to rebrand assault weapons as "modern sporting rifles" in 2009, pretending that the term "assault weapon" was invented by proponents of assault weapons bans in order to arbitrarily single out certain firearms for further regulation.
Loading the player reg...
The editor of an Ohio newspaper was fired this week after she questioned her publisher about the paper's refusal to run an editorial that was critical of the National Rifle Association.
Jan Larson McLaughlin, a 31-year veteran of The Sentinel-Tribune in Bowling Green, Ohio, says she had written the editorial, sought input from her staff and planned to run it a week ago when Publisher Karmen Concannon killed it.
"I have written editorials before that have not been positive about the NRA, and those have gotten through," McLaughlin told Media Matters on Wednesday. "For some reason our publisher felt it was insubordination for me to have our news staff read the editorial. I always have our news staff read the editorials and that has never been the issue before."
McLaughlin said she was fired on Monday after seeking to discuss the rejected editorial last week. She said Concannon told her that her termination was due to "insubordination."
"She said it was for allowing the staff to read the editorial before she approved it," McLaughlin recalls. "But I submit my editorials to her each time and at least 95 or more percent of the time I never hear anything from her, pro or con. I have the staff read them because that is the next process."
The Toledo Blade first reported on McLaughlin's firing and noted that there has been backlash to the decision within the Bowling Green community.
McLaughlin, who has been at the afternoon paper for 31 years and served as editor since 2013, said she wrote the editorial on Dec. 7 and submitted it to the publisher for approval on Dec. 8, with plans to run it on Dec. 9.
The editorial raised the issue of NRA influence on gun-related legislation and specifically a bill in the Ohio legislature that would allow loaded guns to be carried on college campuses.
Home to the 16,000-student Bowling Green State University, the community has been very mixed on the gun proposal, newsroom staffers said.
The editorial stated, in part: "The NRA has not always been the paranoid 'pry the gun from my cold dead hands' organization that it is now. It was formerly an association aimed at serving its membership by providing safety classes, marksmanship training and even gun control support. But somewhere it got hijacked from its real purpose to its fanatical presence. It's time for reasonable gun owners to say enough is enough."
But it never made it to print.
McLaughlin said Concannon informed her via email on Dec. 8 that the editorial could not run. She said when the Dec. 9 edition was published and some of her staff saw the editorial had been spiked, they approached Concannon with a joint letter urging her to reconsider.
"When the news staff saw it was not in the next day's paper, everyone wrote a letter to the publisher asking her to reconsider, to look at the editorial again and reconsider it because they felt it was worth publishing," McLaughlin said. "All I know is that she told the reporter that gave it to her that she would not read it."
The letter, which was obtained by Media Matters, praises McLaughlin for having "more Associated Press honors and news awards than all of us put together." It added, "If the reason for not publishing the editorial is to avoid what clearly is a controversial issue, we worry that doing so calls into question our ability to report news that some people might not like."
McLaughlin said she approached the publisher on Dec. 10 and asked to discuss why the editorial did not run since her past editorials are nearly always approved.
"She said she didn't have to give me a reason and I said, 'alright, but I need to know further direction for where I go from here,'" McLaughlin said. "She said she wasn't required to talk to me about it."
On the morning of Dec. 14, after that day's edition was published, McLaughlin said she was called into the publisher's office and given a termination letter. She adds that she was offered a $5,000 severance package if she agreed not to discuss the issue outside of the newspaper. She said she could not agree to that.
"I said, 'it's unfortunate that you can't listen to opinions that are different from yours.' It's just not good management."
Concannon, whose family has owned the newspaper for decades, did not respond to requests for comment. She also did not respond to the Blade's request for comment.
McLaughlin's supporters in and out of the newspaper have been up in arms about the firing.
"There has been an uproar because she is very widely respected," said Frances Brent, a former Sentinel-Tribune columnist who currently freelances for the paper. Brent noted the seriousness of the gun issue in town: "There was great concern on campus about the legislature allowing guns everywhere."
David Dupont, who worked at the Sentinel-Tribune for 20 years until he quit last month, said McLaughlin's firing was just the latest in a string of problematic moves by the paper's management.
"Just the total lack of support in the newsroom," he said of the publisher. "A real lack of respect for what the newsroom does. It was a constant decelerating lack of support, disrespect."
McLaughlin called the firing "surreal" given her time at the paper and her love of the job: "I have lived for that paper for 31 years. I'm a big believer in talking things over and listening to disagreements."
A commentary video from the National Rifle Association labeled those who called for more than thoughts and prayers following the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California the "Godless Left" and claimed that they "march hand-in-hand" with terrorists "toward the possible, purposeful destruction of us all."
In a video released on December 14 -- the three year anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre -- conservative radio host and NRA News commentator Dana Loesch criticized reactions to the December 2 mass shooting in San Bernardino that claimed 14 lives. Loesch singled out a New York Daily News cover that contended "God Isn't Fixing This" as well as commentators who called for stronger gun laws, arguing that merely sending "thoughts and prayers" to the victims was not a sufficient response to the shooting.
Claiming that those who made this argument "mocked the entire concept of religion" and carried out a "coordinated assault" on "our right to believe," Loesch said that "the Godless Left ... share the same fanatical fervor to tear apart the foundations of America as the terrorists who threaten our very survival. And together, they march hand-in-hand toward the possible, purposeful destruction of us all."
Conservative media are attacking President Obama for saying in his Oval Office address on terror that Congress should limit the availability of assault weapons and the ability of people on terror watch lists to legally purchase firearms, claiming his "entirely out of place" reference to gun legislation was an attempt to "shift the conversation" and "attack the Second Amendment." In fact, the discussion of guns was pertinent to terrorism in the United States because 95 percent of U.S. terrorism fatalities since 9/11 have been the result of gunfire and Al Qaeda has urged its followers to exploit America's weak gun laws to carry out attacks.
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.
Attempting to evacuate or hide only came up in passing when Hasselbeck asked the instructor what to do if you find yourself in an active shooter situation with alongside another potential victim. The instructor, said, "Once we're hiding, let's say we couldn't run away, and we hide and then we've realized that we might be discovered, we have to basically communicate with each other and say, 'Listen, this is what is going to happen, if I grab the gun, you guys are going to tackle the person.'" The comment didn't clearly explain that these steps should be taken first -- whether if you are alone or with someone else -- and the segment then moved on to another demonstration of disarming a gunman.
An on screen chyron described Fox & Friends' flawed discussion about what steps should be taken during an active shooter situation as, "Safety First":
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.
From the DHS manual:
Following the December 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, then Newsweek correspondent Megan McArdle was criticized for advising people in an active shooter situation to "gang rush" the gunman as a first, rather than last, resort.
From the December 7 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Loading the player reg...