The Department of the War (DOW) advocates and trains the Run, Hide, Fight (RHF) model as a primary response to active shooters on military installations. This article contends that RHF, a model designed for untrained civilians, is fundamentally misaligned with the doctrine, training, and ethos of uniformed personnel. We advocate for its immediate replacement with the Assess, Report, Neutralize (ARN) model, which aligns directly with established battle drills. While common counterarguments—such as risks of friendly fire and legal liability—are serious, they are addressable problems of training, and command and control, not disqualifying flaws. Drawing on FBI data, cognitive science, and military doctrine, we explain why service members, already conditioned to act under fire, must be empowered and trusted to do so in garrison. This recommendation has added gravitas considering Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s recent authorization for off-duty service members to carry personally owned weapons on installations and his repeated calls to restore the warrior mindset across the Department of War.
Introduction: The Inevitable First Responders
The instinct of trained service members to neutralize a threat was clearly demonstrated during the August 2025 Fort Stewart active shooter incident. When a gunman opened fire in the 2nd Brigade 3rd Infantry Division area, unarmed soldiers did not default to a passive civilian protocol; they immediately closed the distance, subdued the attacker, and transitioned to providing life-saving combat casualty care. Their actions, occurring long before law enforcement could intervene, illustrate a fundamental truth: the ingrained training and warrior ethos of military personnel compel them to neutralize a threat, not to shelter from it. As Army Secretary Dan Driscoll observed following the event, these soldiers...
"ran at and tackled an armed person who they knew was actively shooting their buddies."
Most recently, on 12 March 2026 at Old Dominion University, Army ROTC cadets demonstrated the same warrior instinct. When an attacker shot and killed their professor of military science, Lt. Col. Brandon Shah, the cadets immediately closed distance, wrestled the gunman to the ground, and neutralized him with improvised weapons—saving additional lives before law enforcement arrived. These examples are not anomalies; they are proof that the military’s trained response is to act, not to run, hide, or wait. These most recent events are not unique and are one of many that provide evidence that passive civilian active shooter models are misaligned with our warrior culture. Case studies from the 1995 Fort Bragg shooting to the 2015 Thalys train attack reinforce that service members, when faced with a lethal threat, should be encouraged and empowered to act, not instructed to remain passive.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member