I agree that the importance of training cannot be overstated. However, this is a very flawed and biased experiment designed to support a pre-determined outcome. The active shooter was a trained firearms instructor who knew where the armed student was seated every time he entered the room; the armed student was seated front and center in the exact same location every time the experiment was run. I don’t have time to point out all the flaws, but there are many that destroy the validity of this experiment.
Watch this video
- Thread starter RGR3/75
- Start date
More anti gun propaganda. Get folks all scared so they will not want to have the ability to even protect themselves. Sheep lead to the slaughter. Running is going to protect you?
I also say put together one that not one person knows about the other, then lets see how it ends. The shooter was targetted in both vids. Why? To justify their poor position on guns in the hands of civilians.
I also say put together one that not one person knows about the other, then lets see how it ends. The shooter was targetted in both vids. Why? To justify their poor position on guns in the hands of civilians.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
The importance of training can be overstated if it causes someone to not even bother due to the expense of said training.
The fact is, shown over and over, that a good guy with a gun stands a better chance in most situations than a good guy without a gun. End of story.
Training or no training. If you know how it works, you should carry it.
I have never heard of a defensive incident wherein the defender was a significantly trained civilian. There just aren't a lot of Rob Pincus' getting attacked out there. Most of the civilian defense situations involve a defender with little or no formal training and the VAST majority of those instances end up well for the defender. Physically well, for the time being anyway.
Blue Steel
New member
Even if you accept the premise of the video (which I don't), how is being shot with a firearm worse than being shot without one.
In a real life active shooter scenario let us imagine the classroom next door with the armed faculty or student. They have more time to respond, locking or barricading the room, taking a position of cover, deploying their firearm. Let see if those people would rather be armed or just waiting in the room for the shooter to kick-in the door.
In a real life active shooter scenario let us imagine the classroom next door with the armed faculty or student. They have more time to respond, locking or barricading the room, taking a position of cover, deploying their firearm. Let see if those people would rather be armed or just waiting in the room for the shooter to kick-in the door.
Absolute BUNK!!
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.
Why were they allowed to SHOOT extensively, but not DRAW.
Seems like Dillon's hours of practice shooting the air soft didn't help him when he couldn't, for lack of practice, draw his weapon--no kidding.
Diane Sawyer has done this before. The "attacker", (a firearms instructor whose skills would exceed the typical classroom murderer), knew right where the armed students were sitting and came in and shot them immediatly.
And just like before, the students were given a bulky shirt from which they had to draw from concealed without practice after a brief instruction.
Sawyer then couldn't draw and shoot fast enough to deal with the attacker in the truck and proclaimed that one just couldn't react fast enough. The most elementary training teaches to break for cover and get the hell out of the way--not stand there in the open.
This video was rigged from the start with the outcome predetermined just as it was when ABC aired a similar program some months ago with no difference in the out come at all. Don't know for sure, but could have been the same video.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
Last edited:
I call extremely biased reporting.
The test was set up for the students to fail
firstly, they have very little practice, except for that one bloke who has "hundreds" of hours on the range. There is also another girl who has experience with guns, and she fares better than the rest. Even I practice my draw at home when my boy is asleep or occupied. When finds permit, I'll be doing some IDPA to practice drawing from concealment. None of the test subjects had practice drawing from concealment.
Secondly, the students are in the same location in every test. This is unrealistic. If an armed BG bursts into a room, he will not know if anyone is armed or not, let alone where they are in the room. This fault in the test becomes blatant when the BG comes in, takes out the instructor, one student, then immediately turns on the armed student. Every time without fail, he finds the armed student immediately and concentrates his fire.
Thirdly, the report is aimed to disprove that carrying in a school / university environment is of any use. When a person sets out to accomplish a goal, They are likely to succeed. They will figure out exactly how to get the results they want. Journalists are not stupid people, they know how to make connections to get the leads necessary to complete a story. They could easily use this ability to arrive at the result they want or are told to arrive at.
The test was set up for the students to fail. plain and simple. A person who actively carries a firearm legally often does or at least should train regularly.
Personally, I take it upon myself to be proficient with my weapon before I start to carry it. I go to the range when I can. I practice drawing all the time. I may not be the best critical situation responder, but I think I'd fare a little better than average joe who does not practice at all.
The test was set up for the students to fail
firstly, they have very little practice, except for that one bloke who has "hundreds" of hours on the range. There is also another girl who has experience with guns, and she fares better than the rest. Even I practice my draw at home when my boy is asleep or occupied. When finds permit, I'll be doing some IDPA to practice drawing from concealment. None of the test subjects had practice drawing from concealment.
Secondly, the students are in the same location in every test. This is unrealistic. If an armed BG bursts into a room, he will not know if anyone is armed or not, let alone where they are in the room. This fault in the test becomes blatant when the BG comes in, takes out the instructor, one student, then immediately turns on the armed student. Every time without fail, he finds the armed student immediately and concentrates his fire.
Thirdly, the report is aimed to disprove that carrying in a school / university environment is of any use. When a person sets out to accomplish a goal, They are likely to succeed. They will figure out exactly how to get the results they want. Journalists are not stupid people, they know how to make connections to get the leads necessary to complete a story. They could easily use this ability to arrive at the result they want or are told to arrive at.
The test was set up for the students to fail. plain and simple. A person who actively carries a firearm legally often does or at least should train regularly.
Personally, I take it upon myself to be proficient with my weapon before I start to carry it. I go to the range when I can. I practice drawing all the time. I may not be the best critical situation responder, but I think I'd fare a little better than average joe who does not practice at all.
I just found this video, that shows that a person who is armed in their home is far more likely to come out the victor. The portion of the video in question is at the end.
It shows that a person who is prepared to deal with a situation is capable of dealing with it.
Overall I think the moral of the story, is get trained, and be prepared to deal with the worst.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1IKeyTvakA&feature=related
It shows that a person who is prepared to deal with a situation is capable of dealing with it.
Overall I think the moral of the story, is get trained, and be prepared to deal with the worst.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1IKeyTvakA&feature=related
Deputy Dog
New member
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
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
I'd like to see the tables turned:
Have one of the students they 'trained' go into a lecture hall of police, every one of them armed with holstered paint guns, half-way donning protective equipment, taking notes about their upcoming training exercise. The student has an individual they are targeting, but secondary objective is to shoot as many innocents as possible.
How well do you think the student "active shooter" would do? I'm guessing they would hit their target (especially if sitting in the front row like the students were set up) and hit at least one other person.
Give Airsoft-boy an automatic MP-5 with a 30rd clip and I bet he'd tag 3 or 4 before any of the police got their guns out. Just spray the front row 1920s-Harlem style.
At 9:16, I like how the LEO points his gun right at her face while making his point. Even if it's an unloaded paint gun, that's not exactly safe practice.
Also, in every iteration of the scenerio, there is somebody hopping up over the front row towards the shooter as they escape. I'm sorry, I know the idea is to create confusion, but I don't see that happening in real life.
Have one of the students they 'trained' go into a lecture hall of police, every one of them armed with holstered paint guns, half-way donning protective equipment, taking notes about their upcoming training exercise. The student has an individual they are targeting, but secondary objective is to shoot as many innocents as possible.
How well do you think the student "active shooter" would do? I'm guessing they would hit their target (especially if sitting in the front row like the students were set up) and hit at least one other person.
Give Airsoft-boy an automatic MP-5 with a 30rd clip and I bet he'd tag 3 or 4 before any of the police got their guns out. Just spray the front row 1920s-Harlem style.
At 9:16, I like how the LEO points his gun right at her face while making his point. Even if it's an unloaded paint gun, that's not exactly safe practice.
Also, in every iteration of the scenerio, there is somebody hopping up over the front row towards the shooter as they escape. I'm sorry, I know the idea is to create confusion, but I don't see that happening in real life.
Last edited:
Deputy Dog
New member
Quote:
Also, in every iteration of the scenerio, there is somebody hopping up over the front row towards the shooter as they escape. I'm sorry, I know the idea is to create confusion, but I don't see that happening in real life.
As stupid as the human race is, I would believe it in a second. I have seen something similar, not as drastic, but similar. People do the dumbest things when fear kicks in.
DD
Also, in every iteration of the scenerio, there is somebody hopping up over the front row towards the shooter as they escape. I'm sorry, I know the idea is to create confusion, but I don't see that happening in real life.
As stupid as the human race is, I would believe it in a second. I have seen something similar, not as drastic, but similar. People do the dumbest things when fear kicks in.
DD
Let's take a group of untrained persons to see if having a gun works.
But to make sure it's not too easy, let's do some things to hamper their movements. Let's...
In the first place, I'd never wear a long t-shirt like they showed. First off, it appears to be a knit shirt (snag prone) and as shown it's long enough that you can't easily clear the weapon by lowering it again.
Adding the masks was probably done for safety reasons (i.e. avoid eye injuries). But donning the gloves was an extra impediment and the folks weren't trained to draw wearing gloves.
Given the same constraints, we can prove that ABC's Sawyer isn't a journalist by equipping her with a consumer grade video camera, basic editing software and giving her 30 minutes to cobble together a 2 minute piece on air conditioning repair.
But to make sure it's not too easy, let's do some things to hamper their movements. Let's...
- put them in extra-long knit t-shirts with long sleeves.
- Make them wear bulky gloves with no sensory input from fingers
- Don't let them practice drawing the weapon much, especially while sitting.
- Finally, let's impair their vision and head mobility by making them don a helmet/mask combination.
In the first place, I'd never wear a long t-shirt like they showed. First off, it appears to be a knit shirt (snag prone) and as shown it's long enough that you can't easily clear the weapon by lowering it again.
Adding the masks was probably done for safety reasons (i.e. avoid eye injuries). But donning the gloves was an extra impediment and the folks weren't trained to draw wearing gloves.
Given the same constraints, we can prove that ABC's Sawyer isn't a journalist by equipping her with a consumer grade video camera, basic editing software and giving her 30 minutes to cobble together a 2 minute piece on air conditioning repair.
I believe this is Chris Cox's (NRA American Rifleman) debunking of the ABC "investigation"
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=363&issue=003
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=363&issue=003
Last edited:
TeamSinglestack
New member
Actually, there are thousands of people who go to the range LESS than once a month and are expected to successfully react to circumstances involving guns.
They're called the POLICE...
There are no guarantees regardless of how much, what type, and how often, you train. PERIOD. Training can stack the odds on your side, but lady luck can be a spiteful wench and deal you a crap hand.
The video is obviously a biased piece of cow dung.
MilProAkron
New member
yeahhh....
I watched this when it originally aired and it was all I could do to not throw something through my television. My observations were the same as those here. The segment was nothing but an attack on guns and an attempt to disparage anyone willing to defend themselves. I suppose the mainstream media would prefer that we all just sit down, allow ourselves to be killed, and die like the mindless masses they want us to be.
I have teenagers and I've analyzed the response programs they have at the schools here in Ohio for active shooter scenarios. After review, I told my sons, "When the SHTF, I don't care what you have to do, but get the F out of that building. If you break a leg going out the 2nd floor window, thats better than being executed." Piling unarmed citizens in small rooms is not a protection, its a shooting gallery.
I watched this when it originally aired and it was all I could do to not throw something through my television. My observations were the same as those here. The segment was nothing but an attack on guns and an attempt to disparage anyone willing to defend themselves. I suppose the mainstream media would prefer that we all just sit down, allow ourselves to be killed, and die like the mindless masses they want us to be.
I have teenagers and I've analyzed the response programs they have at the schools here in Ohio for active shooter scenarios. After review, I told my sons, "When the SHTF, I don't care what you have to do, but get the F out of that building. If you break a leg going out the 2nd floor window, thats better than being executed." Piling unarmed citizens in small rooms is not a protection, its a shooting gallery.
Kjackson35
New member
What if...
the GG is relaxing in class one day when he hears shots ring out in the hall way?
He would have time to unholster his gun before the BG even walked through the door. Also, at my college the doors are always kept shut and locked. If you have to go to the bathroom, enjoy knocking to get back in.
In this particular situation, maybe you are screwed but more than likely you're not going to be in the first classroom that takes engagement by the BG with absolutely no warning. And if you are one of the first ones targeted, lets just hope that some other fine student takes care of what you weren't able to.
the GG is relaxing in class one day when he hears shots ring out in the hall way?
He would have time to unholster his gun before the BG even walked through the door. Also, at my college the doors are always kept shut and locked. If you have to go to the bathroom, enjoy knocking to get back in.
In this particular situation, maybe you are screwed but more than likely you're not going to be in the first classroom that takes engagement by the BG with absolutely no warning. And if you are one of the first ones targeted, lets just hope that some other fine student takes care of what you weren't able to.
eldogg4life
New member
Pay Attention
They chose these six people.... hmmm
Is it possible they might have dismissed people who could have performed better?
It should have been a blind random drawing of students not the ones "they" (whoever they are) selected.
I love science and this sounds to me like an experiment that was done once a conclusion was reached. Thats not science.
Let the question(s) guide the process not your predetermined conclusions.
"The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true." Carl Sagan
They chose these six people.... hmmm
Is it possible they might have dismissed people who could have performed better?
It should have been a blind random drawing of students not the ones "they" (whoever they are) selected.
I love science and this sounds to me like an experiment that was done once a conclusion was reached. Thats not science.
Let the question(s) guide the process not your predetermined conclusions.
"The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true." Carl Sagan
Deputy Dog
New member
Thousands of Police Officers have initial training that is better than no training at all. But that doesnt mean they shouldnt be hitting the range to help hone in the skills and keep on top of the game. Especially since shooting skills can deminish with time. When you go to the range, remaining in one spot or static shooting at static target isnt going to help you either. The more you practice & train the better you increase your chances of survival.
I dont care what anybody says or what stories of un-trained survivors say.
Training courses for LEO's and Personal Protection holders is a little more than just deploying your weapon of choice or issue. It's about tactical mindset and learning how to recognize a threat or potential threat before they strike. Something that is taught not born with.
DD
I dont care what anybody says or what stories of un-trained survivors say.
Training courses for LEO's and Personal Protection holders is a little more than just deploying your weapon of choice or issue. It's about tactical mindset and learning how to recognize a threat or potential threat before they strike. Something that is taught not born with.
DD
I have seen this video a while ago. As mentioned before this is a fix test to back up their propaganda....its biased / one sided. I do agree that people need to train with their firearms and to be alert no matter where they are, but the way they fixed it to their advantage makes it look bad and worthles to have a firearm. This is just another ploy that they will use against you to take your firearms.
As was posted on you tube....
"Please, if you're watching this video you have to understand that this test is completely bogus. Not only does the gunman know who has the gun, he also knows exactly where he's sitting in the room.
In this scenario they've completely taken away the element of surprise, which is the biggest advantage of the Concealed weapon.
In a real-life situation, a gunman has no idea who has a weapon - or where they are sitting..."
As was posted on you tube....
"Please, if you're watching this video you have to understand that this test is completely bogus. Not only does the gunman know who has the gun, he also knows exactly where he's sitting in the room.
In this scenario they've completely taken away the element of surprise, which is the biggest advantage of the Concealed weapon.
In a real-life situation, a gunman has no idea who has a weapon - or where they are sitting..."