The Truth Behind the Run-Hide-Fight Debate | Psychology Today
Critics of the Run-Hide-Fight concept, and there are a vocal few, suggest that each of the three steps has its flaws. They say, “Don’t leave a safe place in the building to run into harm’s way! You could be much safer staying where you are and not encountering the shooter in a hallway as you try to evacuate.” Or they say, “Don’t run and hurt yourself as you flee! That would only make it easier for the shooter to get you.” They don’t like the shelter-in-place idea either, “Don’t stay in one room like sitting duck! You could get killed in there! Get out of the building!” Finally, they say, “Most people aren’t trained in self-defense techniques. Fighting back could get you killed!”
To all this I say, “Run when it’s safe to run. Hide where it’s safe to hide. Fight if you or others around you have no other options.” It ain’t a perfect world and under the stress of these intensely frightening events, would you be able to remember to do ten things or only three?
Until active shooters stop their attacks (not likely, especially as we consider the increasing movements of international terrorists back to our shores) or someone comes up with a better plan that doesn’t involve eleven steps and issuing everyone ballistic vests, I vote for Run-Hide-Fight.
No comments:
Post a Comment