Washington DC police chief Cathy Lanier has some advice for us in the event of a terrorist attack. CBS News reports:
Active shooters like the terrorists in Paris call for more active responses, including running away, hiding or actually attacking the attacker, says Washington D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier.
. . .
"Your options are run, hide, or fight," says Lanier. "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," ...
In recent years, mentally ill gunmen and now terrorists have killed victims indiscriminately, their aim to kill as many as possible, rather than taking hostages. These events call for more active approaches, she says. "That's kind of counterintuitive to what cops always tell people, right? We always tell people, 'Don't...don't take action. Call 911. Don't intervene in the robbery'...we've never told people, 'Take action.' It's a different...scenario."
There's more at the link.
That's good advice (I've echoed it myself), but Chief Lanier's arrogance and hypocrisy are staggering. After all, she's the Chief of Police in a city that for years - decades! - flatly refused to allow its residents to own a handgun at all (the most effective means of personal protection against crime and terrorism that can be carried on your person). When a Supreme Court ruling forced the city to change its ways, it did so as slowly and restrictively as possible, leading to further lawsuits. To this day, it's impossible to get a concealed carry permit in Washington DC, despite legal rulings against the City's over-onerous regulations, because legal measures to implement such a permitting process have not yet been implemented. Furthermore, Chief Lanier herself is in large measure personally responsible for this imbroglio.
That being the case, how are we supposed to "take the gunman down" except at the risk of our own lives, by tackling him (or them) unarmed? The odds of success are very low, and the odds that he/they will kill anyone trying it are very high. I agree that it's "better to die on your feet than live on your knees", but when DC's gun laws make the former almost inevitable, that sours the prospect considerably. At least, where I live at present, I'll be better equipped to attempt such actions with a reasonable prospect of success.
Chief Lanier is now confronted with the logical contradiction between reality, and her own policies and actions. She's one of those who've done their best for years to make it almost impossible for Washington DC residents to defend themselves effectively in public . . . so now she expects them to do so without the tools required, even if that means their almost certain deaths.
As a retired Federal officer, may I say that I expected (and still expect) no less from Chief Lanier and those like her - of whom there are, tragically, all too many. Our welfare is not their concern.