Interesting video about concealed carry

[KYCaster]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=8QjZY3WiO9s

[Blammer]

so staged and unreal it's pretty much worthless

[gbrown]

Interesting. As former police officer & military, had countless hours of training. I don't know how many concealed carry (concealed handgun in TX) licensees have any. Is crisis intervention the point to concealed carry? Most of the armed citizen accounts I read in the National Rifleman are not. Seems that they had to think a lot to come up with one scenario out of a thousand that would prove a point they had already decided upon. Kind of weird (or bad) science in my way of thinking.

[gbrown]

Another thing I would add. I've been around long enough to remember some sad instances. One is the "Bakersfield shootout", I believe it is called, where 3 or 4 police officers were killed. Led to the speedloaders for revolvers, as I remember. Back in the late '60s or early '70s I think. The other was the "Miami shootout" with FBI agents. Point is, even highly trained people sometimes don't respond as they should under extreme duress.

[220swiftfn]

I know that this is an old story that has been hashed over before, so just as a reminder, the "active shooter" knows that there's someone carrying AND WHERE THEY'RE SITTING..... Watch the video, as soon as he's in the room, he shoots the professor and then targets the carrying person....... Last time I checked, I didn't walk around with a neon sign stating that I'm armed...


Dan

[gbrown]

Very good point 220swiftfn

[DLCTEX]

If they hadn't had a gun they would have had zero chance. I'd rather have a small chance than none. Why wasn't their first instinct to dive for cover? I think most people would.

[white eagle]

one sided pov
their trying to make another anti gun move
well their loss

[KCSO]

I guess all those armed citizen notes in the Rifleman sice 1950 have all been lies???

[KYCaster]

I know that this is an old story that has been hashed over before, so just as a reminder, the "active shooter" knows that there's someone carrying AND WHERE THEY'RE SITTING..... Watch the video, as soon as he's in the room, he shoots the professor and then targets the carrying person....... Last time I checked, I didn't walk around with a neon sign stating that I'm armed...


Dan




That's exactly what I thought.

What would have happened if 3 to 6 of the students were armed and the perp didn't know which ones they were.......completely different result.

The exercise is designed to show concealed carry in a bad light....right down to the choice of shirt worn to conceal the gun. What else would you expect from the media?

It's still an interesting exercise and points out the fact that simply having a gun doesn't mean you're prepared to defend yourself against a threat.....no more than having an audience makes you a responsible journalist.

Jerry

[hiram]

Squared off glocks with oversize, long, baggy shirts. Destined to fail.

[Skrenos]

Umm, hello... What did you expect from the Violence Policy Center?

[220swiftfn]

That's exactly what I thought.

What would have happened if 3 to 6 of the students were armed and the perp didn't know which ones they were.......completely different result.

The exercise is designed to show concealed carry in a bad light....right down to the choice of shirt worn to conceal the gun. What else would you expect from the media?

It's still an interesting exercise and points out the fact that simply having a gun doesn't mean you're prepared to defend yourself against a threat.....no more than having an audience makes you a responsible journalist.

Jerry

That's what I was thinking too.... I believe that the REPORTED national average for legal concealed carry is 3% (emphasis due to many not divulging for personal reasons, I know I wouldn't) so in the average lecture hall with between 100 and 200 students there'd be what, 4 or 5 legally carrying?? Much different result. Big shirt, gloves, no peripheral vision, and the BG having the "inside scoop" definitely skew things a bit.....


Dan

[MBTcustom]

The whole test was faulty. Every key player had information that they shouldn't have had.
Check it out:
The perpetrator was a highly trained firearms instructor.
The perpetrator knew there was a gun present in the room and who was carrying it.
(Both of those things make the test faulty.)
The armed citizen was untrained.
The armed citizen was carrying a gun that someone else had given them in a holster that someone else had picked out.
The armed citizens only experience with that weapon system was under close supervision in a controlled environment.
The only part of the test that I agreed with was tricking the armed citizen into being off guard. Everything else was set up to make them fail.
I have no doubt that some armed citizens are totally unprepared for a situation that calls for action, but if you were to do this test with an average armed citizen using their weapon in their holster you would see a much different scenario unfold.
First off, the perpetrator would have no more experience than I do and probably less judging from what I read. They have a whole pile of stresses on them that give a slight edge to you the random assailant, chief of which is that they are betting that they are the most heavily armed person in the situation. The second you start firing a weapon at them the tables are turned because they never would have entered a situation where someone was armed as well as they were.
Oh well, just another bunch of liberal tripe aimed at discrediting the people who dont like being sheep and are brave enough to be willing to bite back if things get out of hand.

[shooter93]

I saw that "special" when abc originally ran it. To say it was the most absurd test I ever saw would be kind. The "invaders" knew exactly who had the defense weapon and simply shot him as soon as they enterd the room. Given that a number of people COULD have been armed and not having that prior knowledge or knowledge of those people's skills I'll wager the outcome would be entirely different.

[BD]

I believe the jury is in on this issue. With all but a few states allowing CCW we now know that when concealed carry goes up; crimes against people go down. I'm trying to remember a story where someone carrying legally turned out to be a disadvantage in a situation like the one they staged. Can't think of a single one.
BD

[Hamish]

Practice, practice, practice,,,,,

[Ozarklongshot]

:shock:The news is lying:shock:

Say it aint so:roll::guntootsmiley:

[Arceagle]

Pretty typical of the staged bull hockey that ABC calls news. I haven't watched
ABC since they planted the explosives on a chevy truck to prove they blew up when in a accident.

[danski26]

I was actually given this vidoe by one of my bosses when Wisconsin CCW passed last year. I reviewed it, recognized it was a fraud AND an embarassment for the cops involved in making it. You gentlemen quickly pointed this out. When I pointed this out to my boss I added that a VERY high percentage of cops would "fail" this test also. I am a trainer for my department and I think in my department about 90% would fail however, the point as we have recognized in this setup was to cause a failure.

Two things could have made this much more realistic;

1 Don't tell the bad guy who was CCW
2 Let the CCW choose what gun to have, how to carry it and where to sit.