Do Concealed Carry permit holders really live in a dream world?

[o Unforgiven o]

I just watched these two clips on youtube that really got me to thinking. The videos are about how the reaction time of average folks may not be enough when faced with a shooting.

I have never taken a formal firearms training class and I always thought I was pretty good at drawing and putting shots on target quickly. This video has caused me to question that.

What say you?

Part One http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s&feature=related

Part Two http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLN6_s66wTg&feature=related

Edit; Yes I do realize that there is an Anti bias in these but none the less I think they raise a valid point.

 

[*NOVA*]

Subject was discussed at length on another forum:

http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/...-carry-permit-holders-live-dream-world-44818/

 

[*NOVA*]

not that I'm discouraging discussion here, I'm just saying providing the link for anyone interested...

 

[Bubba613]

So let me see, they take some kid with minimal experience, give him gloves and a mask, and expect him to outperform a trained firearms instructor in a very rare scenario? What is that supposed to prove? I'll bet if you put 80% of the police officers in the country in that same scenario the result would be the same.
I think many permit holders have unrealistic ideas about all kinds of things. But this video doesn't prove much.

 

[Jason_W]

I'm completely untrained, but in that scenario, my first instinct would be to find cover (or at least concealment) and then work on getting my gun out.

It seems like standing up and basically screaming to the bad guy, "HEY, I HAVE A GUN!!" is the worst possible thing a person could do.

 

[JustinJ]

There are countless potential scenarios for which a firearm can be used effectively to defend one's self, loved ones and/or property. The recently discussed barber shop incident is a prime example. That example is just the tip of the iceberg of documented cases of effective use of a concealed carry weapon.

 

[catnphx]

In this scenario, the shooter comes directly toward the kids holding the gun and the probability of that happening is slim but possible (there are other kids in the room so the probability of this happening goes down). Also, the shooter will be jacked-up too so that will even the odds a little. I think they looked at the worst case scenario and, yes, your odds of surviving go way down in the worst case but I'd still rather have the chance.

Finally, they keep bring up cops but most cops don't continue training. The one advantage for cops is their situational awareness is very high (for most anyway). Also, in the video they show a SWAT Team as their example and that is very extreme ... they are well trained and continue their training.

I think I'll continue carrying.

 

[o Unforgiven o]

Like I said in my first post, I understand that they did not really give the student much of a chance. I would say from the time he walked in the room the student had maybe 2 seconds to react, so would any of you have done better?

I guess what I really wanted to know is would it be unrealistic to expect that placed in the students shoes, you would have got him first.

 

[quatin]

CCW carriers that don't seek training are living in a dream world or preparing for some very different scenarios.

 

[CTPhil]

If I'm in a SD scenario that comes down to a quick draw contest, I don't expect to win, I'm just not that good. I certainly don't think that invalidates my decision to carry, however. I'm guessing that the majority of SD situations don't hinge on a quick draw as much as situational awareness.

 

[ForumSurfer]

I'm not a fan of those videos, I'm just sayin!

But it does help to look at reality. Stuff like how long does it actually take you to draw and put two shots center mass (2 seconds is pretty good time from concealment of any type), how much ground people can cover in that time frame while walking or running toward you (4+ feet per second walking, 11.5+ feet per second running). Thinking about the physical aspects of scenarios caused me to step up my drills quite a bit and put more thought into the fact that sometimes, drawing and firing may not be possible nor wise. Unfortunately events are going to unfold dynamically and your target will not be standing still and neither should you.

Do Concealed Carry permit holders really live in a dream world?

So yeah, I think some of us do, others don't. A great many responsible and well trained individuals (some even experienced) post here in the S&T forum, so I like to read it often. You can get some good advice and contemplate what these guys are saying as food for thought, regardless on whether or not you agree or disagree. Sometimes you may even change your point of view and adapt a different way of looking at a situation.

 

[ForumSurfer]

I'm guessing that the majority of SD situations don't hinge on a quick draw as much as situational awareness.

The funny thing is, for many of us...our draw is horrible. Mine is improving, but there is much room for improvement (I always feel there is room for improvement in anything I do). Why is it funny or odd that our draw suffers? Because it is the one aspect of our training that doesn't require money, range time, walking out to our favorite shooting spot or anything else...yet it is the most oft neglected aspect of self defense for some reason. You don't even need to get off the couch for crying out loud, you can practice drawing from a seated position...move over to the left side and the couch arm will replicate your door even! I'm not harping on you because I had to force myself to practice more often, as well...still do. I remember to chastise myself if I spend more time posting than practicing drawing

 

[Mainsail]

I'm not going to watch the videos, but will point out that almost every day little old ladies with no training successfully shoot their attackers. Have you ever read The Armed Citizen in the NRA magazines? I have yet to read one that involves someone tactically trained in firearms. I'm not saying training and practice are not a good idea, but historically the people who have armed themselves somehow prevail.

 

[MedWheeler]

These are the faults that lie in this "experiment", faults that make the scenario vastly different than the one the show was supposedly trying to replicate:
1) None of the students had any firearms experience; they were chosen only after showing an "interest" in the subject, then shown pretty much only which end of the gun points away from you.
2) The guns were worn in basic, strapped holsters, not the kind that are used in tactical carry.
3) The holsters were placed in awkward, inappropriate locations on the belt.
4) The holsters were covered by markedly oversized T-shirts or other clothing, on which the guns frequently snagged.
5) The "madman" was not the cowardly, deranged subject that usually appears in real-life mass-shootings, but was, in fact, a law enforcement firearms instructor.
6) The "madman-instructor" was briefed beforehand in each scenario who to shoot at first (the teacher, then the "defender"), and exactly which student was the "defender", and where he/she would be seated (right in the middle.)
7) The scenarios were ended each time a "defender" took a hit, despite the fact that countless anecdotal evidence shows that a person fighting for their life can continue to do so in most circumstances even after being hit.
8) The scenarios were not necessarily ended when the "madman" took a hit, and credit was not given for it, since the "defender" usually took one as well. This assumes that any defender who is shot will drop right there, while any BG who is will soldier on. Truth it, these madmen are, in fact, cowards, and will fold and run (or commit suicide; more than 90 percent do) once faced with armed resistance.
9) In one of cases in which the "madman" took a hit, the shot came close to another student. The "defender" was criticized for the shot for endangering her fellow student but, in a real life scenario, if she withheld fire against someone bent on killing all, the other student, as well as herself, would be killed anyway. Against such an adversary, any defensive fire is worth the risk.
10) Every scenario assumed only one potential defender.
11) Bottom line is that most CC licenseholders would be far better prepared, equipped, and trained mentally, physically, and logistically, than any of the students that participated in this, and the deranged mass-shooter would not have the "advantages" afforded to him.

It doesn't take courage or bravery to enter a crowded school with two semi-automatic firearms and a couple hundred rounds of ammo, and proceed to open fire. Lawful concealed carry would change that.

 

[Kleanbore]

The videos may be enlightening to those who have had little training other than range shooting, and they may help some people get rid of some of the misconceptions to which they cling most dearly.

The do point out the need for good training.

They are not a basis for concluding that concealed carry is not a good idea.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The idea that the only scenario is gun-v-gun ignores the fact that self defense law justifies lethal force under circumstances where a reasonable person would be in fear of imminent death or greivous bodily harm. Our most prolific local murderer used knife and baseball bat to kill three people. A person who would threaten life or limb would not necessarily be gunman in a spree-killing scenario.

Self defense with a gun is not always (or even most of the time) self defense against a gunman. Very often it is women or elderly with guns versus younger, stronger or more numerous threats.

The first person I knew who got a handgun carry permit was a lady doctor (wife of a co-worker) who often found herself alone in scary places due to work requirements. She did not anticipate a gun battle with Chacal from "Day of the Jackal": she anticipated being accosted in the parking garage at night by a drug addict or rapist.

 

[mljdeckard]

Medwheeler summed it up perfectly.

 

[JoeSlomo]

Do Concealed Carry permit holders really live in a dream world?

No more so than any other segment of the population.

However, most concealed carry folks realize that their defensive firearm can only increase their CHANCE of survival in a deadly force encounter, not guarantee it.

The ONLY guarantee that comes with concealed carry is that IF the opportunity presents itself, you may be able to use a proven defensive tool to stop a threat. You MAY not even have to fire it. Non-carriers don't have that guarantee, and must resort to less effective forms of defense to stop a threat.

That video?

Transparent as glass to anyone with even half a functioning brain.

 

[GEM]

It was set up to 'prove' that campus carry was useless.

I'll bring up another point. In many incidents, the shooter attacked one classroom and then moved to another. In some cases, the people in the rooms successfully barricaded the doors or escaped. In some, they did not - shot through the doors.

However, if you had the time to get set, a shooter wouldn't get through the door if you had minimal competency.

Also, in a very large classroom, the odds the shooter targets you first are low.

Yep, I know plenty of folks who don't train but I know responsible folks who do. Rerun the thing with them without the fix being in.

 

[B1gGr33n]

I'm not advocating that this is a fair and practical study, but it definitely points out some of the problems with general CC.

MEDWHEELER helped highlight those points.

1) None of the students had any firearms experience; they were chosen only after showing an "interest" in the subject, then shown pretty much only which end of the gun points away from you.

Actually, a couple of the students were fairly familiar with firearms, both real and 'toy'. Though 'familiarity' and 'training' are vastly different.

2) The guns were worn in basic, strapped holsters, not the kind that are used in tactical carry.

How could you expect someone without proper training knowledge to make that differentiation?

3) The holsters were placed in awkward, inappropriate locations on the belt.

It would require training and experience for people to find their most comfortable and efficient way to carry.

4) The holsters were covered by markedly oversized T-shirts or other clothing, on which the guns frequently snagged.

With proper training, this could be overcome.

5) The "madman" was not the cowardly, deranged subject that usually appears in real-life mass-shootings, but was, in fact, a law enforcement firearms instructor.
6) The "madman-instructor" was briefed beforehand in each scenario who to shoot at first (the teacher, then the "defender"), and exactly which student was the "defender", and where he/she would be seated (right in the middle.)

I agree... somewhat. I don't recall where it stated that the "madman" was informed about where the defender would be.

I'd like to see this scenario set up where all the participants are average joes, and run through the various scenarios with the madman only knowing that his adjective is to wreak as much havoc as possible. Let that be the constant. For the variable, mix up who, how many, and even if anyone is armed. Run that several times and study the outcomes.

 

[Mike1234567]

Personally, I'd argue that NON-CCW/CHL citizens live in a "dream world". That stated... I'm still just in the planning stage.

 

[JackCrow]

^^This^^

 

[JR47]

The problem here is that some of the posters are too proud of their "training". I don't really care who you are, if someone already has a gun in their hands, drawing against them is a losing proposition at those distances.

Training, if it at all resembles real life, will teach you that. You're a concealed carrier, why would you give up the advantage of that concealment by showing someone that you have a gun while he's already pointing one at you?

You can make a video that shows anything that you like. I would dare say that the people who live in the most dream-like world would appear to be those with a couple of classes under their belt. They actually think that the class they took four years ago will take the place of on-going practice.

Anyone who thinks that reaching for a gun, instead of maneuvering away from the threat first, is indeed in a strange and wonderful dream.

 

[JR47]

The guns were worn in basic, strapped holsters, not the kind that are used in tactical carry.
How could you expect someone without proper training knowledge to make that differentiation?

Sorry, but even as a non-trained rookie I made sure that the belt I wore was designed for a holster, and sized properly to hold it in place against the draw. That comes under the heading of common sense.

The holsters were placed in awkward, inappropriate locations on the belt.
It would require training and experience for people to find their most comfortable and efficient way to carry.

Again, common sense would show that some of those positions were counter-intuitive. Face it, even the most naive CCW sees how many others carry their guns, if only on TV. ANYBODY who buys a concealment rig is going to try it BEFORE they wear it out for defense. Human nature alone will cause them to try it out of curiosity. They WILL eventually position, and dress, in a manner that allows them access to the gun.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JR47: I don't really care who you are, if someone already has a gun in their hands, drawing against them is a losing proposition at those distances.

Almost always.

Training, if it at all resembles real life, will teach you that.

Yep.

Anyone who thinks that reaching for a gun, instead of maneuvering away from the threat first, is indeed in a strange and wonderful dream.

That's one way of putting it!