Quote:
The fact that the GG with the gun had freaking gloves on when the attack happened didn't help matters
This is a very valid point, in a classroom setting like in the video, most people would not be wearing gloves. The gloves are worn to protect the shooters hands from the simunition rounds.
Quote:
Skans is right on target. This proves nothing, really.
It actually proves a very good point! The GG's in the video were only allowed to become familiar with the way the gun operates and shoots. They were not allowed to practice draw and presentation technique. Which to anyone who has any tactical sense, or even common sense in this matter, would tell you how important it is to practice from your choice of garment's you wear. The point they are making (my understanding anyway) is that the common person/gun owner doesnt practice these things which are vital to surviving an attack like portrayed in the video.
Quote:
"i would have been safer without a gun"
This is ignorance at its finest. Enough said on this statement.
Quote:
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.
This statement is partially correct, there are some instances that GG's wether it be LEO's or Civilians alike, have lost the battle for this reason. Another reason being, couldnt get a round in the chamber fast enough and or BG grabbed gun from them. If this was real world it wouldnt be that false after all. The gunman comes in and shoots the teacher, then a couple of students to the right and goes to the nearest target which is the GG. Seat placement and lack of training and practice is what gets people killed in the "real world". You just dont read about it, why? Because alot more people would go out and get some training and the Anti's wouldnt have any leverage if they did. Here where I live, you hardly ever hear of GG's fending off BG's with firearms even if they didnt fire a single shot. Why? Anti gun Democratic Bull Crap state where a majority of the people think that guns should only be in the hands of "Trained Police Officers" who are there to protect them. So why would you need a gun unless you plan on killing people with it. That is the way these people think, no matter what we tell them.
Quote:
"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"
They can if they practice the draw and presentation techniques under different scenarios. All this comes with training though, someone teaching you what to practice and how to practice it safely.
Quote:
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?
The other part of this video, is to show you why you shouldnt carry guns in a school setting. You and I know this to be crap, but the everyday joe and jane believe what the media tells them. Its kind of like the Priest melesting kids for god knows how long, parents wouldnt believe their children because why would a man of god do that? Why would he lie? We already know the answers to these questions, so I am not going to get into it.
Quote:
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.
This just enforces what I said above about the Anti's not wanting people to get trained. Do you really think the Govt. wants it's citizens to be able to proficiently protect themselves? If you do then say hi to Obama for me please!
Quote:
We can all agree to the wisdom of training. However, a brief instruction with re: to drawing from under a long bulky shirt doesn't amount to training at all. Training would include actually practicing it until some degree of proficiency was achieved.
Most of the gun owners in this country have the mantality that they dont need training to carry a gun. Think of that for a moment and see how it applies here!
I agree, the scenario is flawed in many ways, the GG should have been in a different location each and every time, the BG should not have been a Firearms trainer, but should have been someone who has gone to the range a few times and is at minimum proficient with said fiream. For these reasons is why I think the video is BS.
They should have stated the obvious,
1) The more training you receive, the better your survival rate.
2) Just because you can shoot a static target on a shooting range doesnt mean you can shoot a moving target that is shooting back.
3) On the shooting range, you normally don't have to try to find cover when everyone else around you is doing the same thing.
4) you also don't have 25-30 other people screaming like a bunch of hungry hiennas on a shooting range either.
About 85-90 % of LEO's dont shoot their duty weapon more than weapons qual. Out of the millions of gun owners, how many do you think even know how to shoot their weapon with their non-dominant hand or under stress, never mind from a concealed holster at various distances, yet still carry a gun for personal protection? I know of at least 12 people that fit this bill. And I have offered them free Instruction and choose not to take it because they dont think they need it. Why? Because they can shoot the static paper target at 50' with ease or a little bit of practice. Its their own ignorance that will get them and or others killed one day!
EDUCATE YOURSELF, TRAIN/PRACTICE, SURVIVE BY USING YOUR EDUCATION AND TRAINING!
DD