Watch this video

I disagree with RGR's assessment of this video. It is not that I agree with every statement made in the video, but we are wise to heed what is said. One cannot go to the range once a month (or less) and expect to be able to react to a circumstance involving a gun and expect a successful outcome. Even if one were to shoot once or twice a week, it does not guarantee your outcome against a hostile force. One must practice, practice, and practice...and not just at shooting at paper targets. The video tells the story.

And this video also makes the point of those that would second guess (Monday Morning Quarterback) the actions of our soldiers and police. They are under constant stress in situations that none of us would ever want to be in and sometimes people get shot that probably shouldn't have been shot. This video demonstrates what the human mind and body reacts to.

In my opinion, those of us that don't believe every single word that is put out in the media, should garnish a better understanding of the need to train and train with more frequency and intensity.
 
Bad propaganda. Here's why:

Try running that same classroom scenario mock-shooting, but let's change a few things to make it more realistic:

1. Instead of highly trained cops, make the bad guy one of the participants who have little firearms experience.

2. Instead of only one person carrying a gun, have at least 3 people in the class with a gun.

3. Notice how everyone, except the test subject, was either a cop or a reporter. The cops playing bad guy who entered the class room shooting likely knew who the subject was and targeted that person knowing he had the gun. Again, run this drill with an untrained bad guy and three participants who can't be identified by the bad guy carrying weapons.

4. Let the scenario play out until the BG is shot or disarmed, or until everyone in the room is killed by the bad guy - don't just end it when one guy with the gun gets shot.

..........then let's see what happens.
 
Skans is right on target. This proves nothing, really.

Do the producers of this video think that not having a gun on one's person would have improved the odds of surviving an ambush like this?

It's absurd.

DD
 
First off, I do not position my holster on the front of my stomach and along side my crotch...that's because I know that if it were placed there, I may not be able to draw my weapon, depending on my body's position i.e., sitting, crouching, etc..

Second...

The cops playing bad guy who entered the class room shooting likely knew who the subject was and targeted that person knowing he had the gun.
Click to expand...

...Bullseye! Just where does that come into "play" in the real world?
 
I think you guys missed an important point. Whether or not a BG is trained with a gun has no relevance. His gun is out and he is shooting as soon as he entered the target area. The GG with the gun stands up and fumbles which makes him an instant target while the other "players" duck and scramble. Don't you think that is more to real life? If you didn't have a gun, you would have done the same thing...duck and scramble. You have to be tactical when defending yourself and others with a gun. Simply presenting the gun in an untimely fashion will get you shot and killed. Practice is the point of all this. And knowing tactics other than shooting off the bench at paper targets does not make one with a gun a defender of all that is good against all that is evil.

The other thing one has to remember when viewing a video like this or reading a story in the media is that half of what is presented is pure BS and the half of what is remaining is erroneous. You must extract what the valid points are and not take all of it as the gospel.
 
I am in Skans' camp on this one. The persons representing concealed carry licencees were young people with one training session. They not only had no further training, but no further opportunity to read or reflect on what they would do in various situations. I don't think any rookie cop or soldier would do well being placed in such a situation on the first day of training, either.

Perhaps more important, active shooters do not enter a room knowing which person is armed, where they are sitting, and how they are carrying.

Completely ridiculous scenario, but the twofold problem is gaining a platform with equal exposure, and making the point effectively. The press has much power.

Edited to add: The very fact that the trainees could not draw their weapon without getting it hung up in their clothing means that they were inadequately trained, does it not?
 
Last edited:
the main point of the video persuading against carrying a gun. the guy says "i would have been safer without a gun" just kinda funny. also the reporter who does that cop simulator hahahaha
 
Pure junk science. The purpose of scientific study is to explain things that happen in nature.

This experiment was set up to prove what happens in the real world is false. In the real world, good guys win gunfights every day. Not saying it hasn't happened, but I can not recall a real world event where the good guy was shot, because he could not clear his holster.
 
"One cannot go to the range once a month (or less) and expect to be able to react to a circumstance involving a gun and expect a successful outcome"

Most police officers who carry everyday go far less than once a month. Some go once a year for qualification and that's the only time they shoot all year so let's not pretend that every officer with a gun is some highly trained professional. The vast majority of them are not. Most of the people I know who are CCW permit holders are regular shooters and trust them with their firearms far more than the average police officer.

Want to be scared? Go visit the local range when the police are training and watch all the unsafe gun handling going on. People on the line handling their weapons while others are down range, etc. At our local club one range is designated for the local police forces to use. The roof over that range is riddled with bullet holes from ND's while the regular club member roofs (that are 4x as long) don't have a single hole.
 
Somebody should do a video in response, but don't tell the shooter which of the 30 students is armed. Then the outcome would be realistic.
 
Actually that would not be realistic. Active shooters in schools do not even consider that they will face an armed good guy. Schools are considered free fire zones for and by bad guys.
 
Actually that would not be realistic. Active shooters in schools do not even consider that they will face an armed good guy. Schools are considered free fire zones for and by bad guys.
Click to expand...

The vid was based on the premise that students could be armed, in fact a propaganda film to counter the movement to allow carry in schools. It's designed so that the carrier can not win.

The student has a gun in a holster in his front pocket seated at a desk while wearing a clinging tightly fitted shirt. The shooter knows he's armed and shoots him first among the 30 other students.

If the student was carrying properly and anonymous among the other students, he'd have an excellent chance of winning the fight.
 
I saw the whole segment on twenty twenty I believe it was or one of those shows. Their point was I believe, to show that the common average person without proper training, probably shouldnt carry a gun for self defense. And if you watch the video, you would see how they come to that conclusion. This is why alot of us instructors cringe when people say stuff like I know how to shoot, I dont need to take a class on carrying a firearm. I believe one of the students went to the range on a monthly bassis in the full segment anyway.

We can all learn from this video, the point was loud and clear. Put your ego aside and go get some training. You would be foolish (to put it politely) to think that a basic safety class or no training at all and just basic fundamentals would get you through that ordeal.

DD
 
The BG comes into the classroom and he knows exactly which student is armed. How is that realistic? Why not do the exact experiment but without the BG knowing who in the room is armed? I can't disagree that practice and more practice is critically important. However, you can practice all you want but reality is always different when you have a real gun and real bullets being fired in your direction. This Diane Sawyer/ABC video is nothing but anti-gun nonsense.
 
there were some good points in the video, as in the need for practice and developing muscle memory. But as dsa states, the situation was set up for the students to fail.
 
Their point was I believe, to show that the common average person without proper training, probably shouldnt carry a gun for self defense.
Click to expand...

A dozen years ago a family friend was going through a divorce with a dangerous lunatic - a man who had molested her daughter and made numerous threats against her. She went through the whole legal business with the restraining orders and so on, but she and the police knew it was a joke. The police advised her to carry a gun - this was prior to this state doing away with the need for a permit. They told her she wouldn't be charged for illegal carry and they meant it. She would have to had waited months for the next concealed carry class.

She came to me since she was my wife's friend and I had plenty of guns. I lent her a revolver after some very minimal training and felt fine about it.

Sometimes people need a gun NOW. They'd do better with training, but that should not be an impediment to the RIGHT to bear arms.
 
The entire scenario is so rare as to be insignificant.

Try doing something more common like a mugging/robbery in the park.

As for not being able to handle things based solely on frequency of practice, how often does the average policeman go to the range and practice?

At about every two weeks are am very sure I have them beaten.
 
The GG with the gun stands up and fumbles which makes him an instant target while the other "players" duck and scramble. Don't you think that is more to real life? If you didn't have a gun, you would have done the same thing...duck and scramble.
Click to expand...

You better believe I'd duck! I'm a real good ducker, just watch me. Scramble, no....take cover, yes. Going for my gun under that situation would not be the first thing I'd do. I'd make sure I had good cover first, and then IF and WHEN I felt it was safe to get my gun out, I would. But, even then, I'm not going to stand up and take 20 foot shots at the guy.

The problem is that the GG had minimal training but had the "mindset" drilled into him that he was supposed to somehow fight back. Of course, they never instructed how to take cover or take care of himself first.
 
The fact that the GG with the gun had freaking gloves on when the attack happened didn't help matters, either! Holy cow! Drawing from concealment is hard enough without gloves on. Could they have come up with any more ways to stack the deck? I'm surprised they didn't handcuff the guy, too.

What a load of bull.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top