Active Shooter - Naval Medical Center, San Diego

[SpoonfulOSugar]

Not much known right now - active shooter per the center's Facebook page.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Active-Shooter-Naval-Medial-Center-San-Diego-366562931.html

I will update as I see accurate info . . . remembering that this is a breaking story, so the accuracy is NULL or NIL, depending on how one looks at it . . . . 

CNN, MSNBC, and FOX Headline news are all live.

[justwatching]

It's on CNN live right now, how scary!  Prayers for all of them!

[SpoonfulOSugar]

NBC 7 (San Diego) is tweeting live.

They are reporting that the childcare facilities on site are secured and all the children are safe.  (Thank goodness.)

[Whoosh]

Run, hide, or fight.  Good god.  I have no words for this.

[RosyDaisy]

Per CNN there is an active shooter. They are telling people in Building 26 to run, hide, or fight. No idea on who the shooter is or if there are injuries or deaths. WTH IS GOING ON????

Thoughts and prayers for everyone.

[SpoonfulOSugar]

3 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

Run, hide, or fight.  Good god.  I have no words for this.

[RosyDaisy]

Three nearby schools on lockdown.

[iweartanktops]

Wow, I didn't realize they're literally telling people to "run, hide or fight." It's so sad and scary that it's come to this! 

[SpoonfulOSugar]

1 minute ago, iweartanktops6 said:

Wow, I didn't realize they're literally telling people to "run, hide or fight." It's so sad and scary that it's come to this! 

I screencapped the post just because it is notable.

I do believe that is the new protocol for active shooting, though.

Most recent is that 3 shots were reported by a single individual.  It is NOT sounding like a mass casualty incident based on the current information.

I hope that information is accurate.

[clueliss]

I have a video on run/hide/fight that I watched in all honesty today due to training I was doing.   (it is also in my blog here)

 

 

 

[libriatrix]

Given that the shooting is at a naval facility, including fight in the list of options seems more reasonable than if it were at a movie theater, elementary school, or community college. 

 

also, can we take some time out to observe that each of those three locations represents an actual shooting that occurred in the past five years. The level of mass shooting going on is mind-boggling. 

[SpoonfulOSugar]

2 minutes ago, libriatrix said:

Given that the shooting is at a naval facility, including fight in the list of options seems more reasonable than if it were at a movie theater, elementary school, or community college. 

also, can we take some time out to observe that each of those three locations represents an actual shooting that occurred in the past five years. The level of mass shooting going on is mind-boggling. 

You would think "fight" would be more likely . . . but one of the issues already rampant on the NMCSD FB post is the topic of military armament.  Most service people on base have no weapons (are prohibited from having them, in fact), so their resources for "fight" are no better or worse than the other locations you mentioned.

It's an interesting conundrum.  I struggle with it.

[libriatrix]

9 minutes ago, SpoonfulOSugar said:

You would think "fight" would be more likely . . . but one of the issues already rampant on the NMCSD FB post is the topic of military armament.  Most service people on base have no weapons (are prohibited from having them, in fact), so their resources for "fight" are no better or worse than the other locations you mentioned.

wow, I didn't know that. I was thinking not just of weapons, but of training, but training probably wouldn't help much without weapons in a situation like this.

[clueliss]

the encouragement in run/hide/fight is to improvise weapons.  

[RosyDaisy]

If there is one place where guns are needed is military facilities.

[SpoonfulOSugar]

32 minutes ago, libriatrix said:

wow, I didn't know that. I was thinking not just of weapons, but of training, but training probably wouldn't help much without weapons in a situation like this.

I think it has some degree of both - in that training helps, but service members do tend to be frustrated by feeling that their hands are tied.

If you are interested, I will dig up some additional information.  I know it was a big topic after the Tennessee incident.  Recruiters are particularly vulnerable due to these policies.

It appears that this particular incident was a false alarm.  At least, that's my read right now.  (Thank goodness.)

[libriatrix]

4 minutes ago, SpoonfulOSugar said:

If you are interested, I will dig up some additional information.  I know it was a big topic after the Tennessee incident.  Recruiters are particularly vulnerable due to these policies

Yeah, I'd like to know more. Is this because it's a medical base and not an active duty one? What are the types of situations in which weapons are barred?

5 minutes ago, SpoonfulOSugar said:

It appears that this particular incident was a false alarm.  At least, that's my read right now.  (Thank goodness.)

oh GOOD!

[iweartanktops]

7 minutes ago, SpoonfulOSugar said:

I think it has some degree of both - in that training helps, but service members do tend to be frustrated by feeling that their hands are tied.

If you are interested, I will dig up some additional information.  I know it was a big topic after the Tennessee incident.  Recruiters are particularly vulnerable due to these policies.

It appears that this particular incident was a false alarm.  At least, that's my read right now.  (Thank goodness.)

That's what it seems to me, too. Thankfully. I'll take that any day! I still struggle with the fact that this is still happening with frequency, even since Sandy Hook. Other countries, such as Australia, were able to get things under control rather quickly, after tragedy struck. Anyway, I'm glad in this case, people are safe. 

[SpoonfulOSugar]

2 minutes ago, libriatrix said:

Yeah, I'd like to know more. Is this because it's a medical base and not an active duty one? What are the types of situations in which weapons are barred?

Here is an article from WaPo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/04/02/here-are-the-rules-on-carrying-firearms-on-fort-hood/

Quote

Soldiers on all military installations, including Fort Hood, are not armed while on post, nor are they permitted to carry any privately owned firearms. Only law enforcement and security personnel are allowed to have weapons on post.

As an anecdote - a soldier living off base is prohibited from bringing a personal weapon onto base.  If they choose, I believe they can store their weapon in an on-base arms room, but they have to follow the same policy a service member living on base does.

We tend to think of service members armed the way they are for deployment - enlisted with rifles and officers with side arms.  That, though, happens just hours (at most) before the unit departs the base - and they are locked down at that point, and turning in the weapons is one of the first things that happens when they return.

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/07/17/hunter-military-recruiters-weapons/30291235/

That looks specifically at recruiters.

I haven't followed the repercussions of the Tennessee incident, but I know there were personally owned weapons involved and that some survivors faced military sanctions for that.

I worked at a rural community college.  I would confidently wager that more weapons (although banned) were on our campus than were on most military posts.  It's a huge imbalance.

NOTE:  As I said, I'm not at all sure where I stand on this.  As many elements for potential abuse concern me as do the vulnerabilities.  

[Walking Cat Bed]

@SpoonfulOSugar has it right -- most military facilities that are not active combat areas don't allow anyone who isn't actively working as a law enforcement or security person to carry a firearm. Lots of reasons, but one big reason is that it's a lot easier for them to respond to an active shooter situation when they know who *should* have a firearm. And everyone -- officers, enlisted people, civilian employees -- are trained to know when to fight and when to run and/or hide. 

My workplace was the payroll office, and I was expected to periodically walk through the building (use the customer entrance to the workspace, check for anything that seemed "off") to make sure I had a sense of how things should be. In particular, I was expected to know sight lines from the customer door/window, since I typically worked in or near the customer service counter. If we got an "active shooter" notification, I was expected to help move anyone in the customer service area to the "office" area, where they wouldn't be seen. One of the people in a supervisory role was given the job of locking that door and turning off the lights (the same for any other entrances to our work area). I also seem to remember that our base had "code words", at least for training scenarios, that we would use as an indication that a hostile person was present, but I might have made that last bit up. It's been a...few years.

[SpoonfulOSugar]

1 minute ago, Walking Cat Bed said:

it's a lot easier for them to respond to an active shooter situation when they know who *should* have a firearm.

There are some good interviews with someone (cannot tell you who - but someone on-scene) after the Oregon attack who talked about NOT having a weapon - for exactly that reason.  It adds another dimension of complexity.

And then there is the sheriff who called for people to arm themselves.

Any "person" having a personally owned weapon does not also have the radio, etc. to know what is going on in the bigger picture.  Cell phones might mitigate that in a perfect scenario, but it's just very unlikely.

I just feel very conflicted about this whole topic, to be honest.

[RosyDaisy]

I didn't mean everyone at a facility should have a gun. I meant a few who are on duty and in uniform.