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

[B1gGr33n]

JR47: I wasn't addressing the belt the holster was worn on, but the holster itself. And common sense is relative. Any one of those people could have adjusted the holster to a position that they found comfortable (in fit and function). You yourself say "eventually". Good decisions come from experience. Experience comes from bad decisions. Training helps to identify good/bad decisions in a setting that's not life threatening. I myself have never had any formal training. My training has consisted of acquiring an Airsoft replica firearm of the type I intend to carry that mimics it's feel and operation, and practicing drawing and firing until I found the combination that afforded me the most comfortably reliable position to carry. It's not a substitute for the formal training I hope to be able to invest in, but it's better than just strapping one on and leaving it at that.

 

[GEM]

I've seen folks draw against guns pointed at them and make the shot in FOF. Granted it may not go well in real life.

However, in a crowded classroom, unless you stand up and yell - the crazed killer might not key on you before you can draw.

But if you don't have the gun, what you gonna do but get shot. Throw your lap top. That's BS for most large lecture room sizes. Tackle the guy - not in a big room. Tried at VT and the charged was shot to pieces. Even at close distances, you probably take a round.

 

[Strykervet]

You can look around on here and find folks carrying in a dream world. And we all have our misconceptions. I think the point of stuff like this is that we can wrap ourselves in the illusion that we are protected because we tote firearms. I think the other point that should be given is that we should do our best to not succumb to complacency.

 

[Mike1234567]

I'll throw in another arguement. If most people carried, as they should IMHO, then the bad guys would be far outnumbered thereby discouraging violent crime and ending it when one or more of us shoot the sons o' B's.

 

[sidheshooter]

Dug the video, lots of food for thought. Of course, those thoughts lead me to a much different conclusion than the viewpoint promulgated in the video...

I think others have picked over the issues with the experimental methods pretty well. I'd like to see the classroom experiment run the other way, with the (tactically) inexperienced students assigned to go in and shoot people, and the LE trainer sitting in the class...

As mentioned above, even more interesting would be multiple armed defenders in the class lecture with the lone shooter. I'd be curious to see that one run on camera a few times.

So far as training, I agree that the majority of CCW holders could stand to train more. I'm doing my part to up the average, FWEIW.

 

[Searcher4851]

Any "study" can show pretty much whatever you want it to show, as long as you set it up right.

I don't know how many students in classrooms wear helmuts (impairing visibility) and gloves (impairing dexterity). The shooter was less impaired because he already had the gun in his hand.

It's mostly a BS propaganda piece, but what else would you expect from her.

It DOES raise the point of just packing heat, doesn't make you effective.

 

[amflyer]

I think a reasonable answer to this experiment would be to replicate it for ourselves with the sides perhaps a bit more even. Anyone have the material and recording devices necessary?

 

[GEM]

You could do it with a large classroom, airsoft and eye protection (need it!).

However, if you did it - everyone in class would be on edge and it wouldn't be totally realistic. But it would be better than that fake test.

I've been in some similar FOF, you are on watch for the fight to break out. I note that sometimes that innocents get shot (me! ).

The bottom line is that without firearms, in a large classroom, the shooter will easily hit 10s of people. Would we be better armed - YES!

Should you train rather than just posture - YES!

 

[content]

Hello friends and neighbors // Thanks for the link, it is good to remember the awesome responsibility that goes along with a CWP.

The main thing I noticed is how quickly the student became a target.

Perhaps someone standing their ground or frozen in place is instantly perceived as a threat/target. I'm sure the gunman would shoot any stationary target, especially one shooting or drawing a handgun.

I think in this case the teacher knew full well who to shoot but it is still worth considering.

I practice shooting on the move and from different positions but realise now I'm stationary when I draw. Looks like I'll be practicing drawing while diving for cover.(starting with a BB gun.)

As for moving target practice, throw a cheap 10-12" ball up a berm then draw and shoot it as fast as possible. Start with a BB gun, very humbleing but well worth the practice.

Thanks for making me think.

 

[Deaf Smith]

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.

Unforgiven,

Tom Givens of Rangemaster has had 56 students in gun fights (CCW holders at that.)

The only two to fail didn't bring their guns!

So while you may contimplate a video about reaction time, the street shows a different outcome.

Deaf

 

[9mmepiphany]

I remember watching the whole show/segment and thought the experiment was pretty realistic...given safety concerns. I seem to remember that the students were a real cross section of the campus...they did have to show some interest...and they were taken to a range for familiarity and practice with the guns before the experiment. They were also shown how to draw from the holster, given time to practice and were able to position it how they liked. At least a couple of the participants were gun owners and had previous experience. The lowered the awareness level, while heightening the safety factor by having everyone kitted up for the class.

What does become apparent is that the ability to react correctly isn't natural for most people. The desire to use the gun often overcomes normal reason, which would usually dictate cover or at least movement...my personal choice would be to present myself as a lessor threat to regain the element of surprise (but that is a rather advanced technique)

I am a bit saddened at the rationalization of some of the posters over the realism or need for training to better deal with a like situation. The scenario of someone entering a classroom and shooting the professor isn't new or even drawn from recent headlines...this has been a standard training exercise (in observation/recall skills) in LE academies for well over 40 years.

The message anyone who chooses to CCW should take from these demonstrations/displays, is that carrying a gun isn't a magic shield. They should be looking to get some formal training and at least practice drawing from concealment and placing shots on target. At the very least, they should look into shooting in one of the Action Games (USPSA/IDPA) to induce some pressure and include movement into their practice.

 

[onfloat]

None of the defenders made the situation worse and a few made it better by scoring at least a hit on the 'bad guy'.

 

[jwgross2]

Let see, Take away her cue cards don't let her know the story line in advance and film it all live, how well will it turn out..... Even if I have a one in ten chances, I what it. Why should I be forced to be a victim.

 

[PowerG]

If the armed student would have been in a random seat, rather than front and center, a couple of them might have taken the BG out. The shooter clearly focused right on the armed student each time. Also, if the scenario would have had multiple students armed, even just two or three, the BG would likely have been stopped quickly. There have been so many encounters where concealed handguns have stopped crimes in the real world that the demonstration is pointless.

 

[ChCx2744]

I'd like to run those scenarios with the make and model weapons I carry (also fitted with simunition rounds and barrels) along with my choice of holster, my choice of face protection and an extra mag of simunition rounds; the results would be drastically different. I've trained with simunitions (shotguns, semi-auto rifles and pistols, no SMGs) in multiple active shooter, CQB, traffic stop, building clearing, multi-threat and armed robbery scenarios, therefore I know how simunition ballistics work and how they feel. They do tend to be a bit more accurate and less recoil prone under 25 yards, as opposed to live ammo. The only downside would be that I only trained with department weapons with department issued level 3 holsters on a secure gunbelt...I've never trained with a CCW style IWB holster and a compact gun like my EDC. Even so, with the equipment shown in the video, it's no surprise the results were as such. Equipment really does matter, and the stuff they gave to the students are not proper CCW scenario training material.

Although this may be the case, I also agree that the video does at least address the need to train.

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

Because lying on the floor, just hoping the perp. doesnt kill you / your family is preferable?

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

The videos are about how the reaction time of average folks may not be enough when faced with a shooting.

So a peaceable person, unaccustomed to violence, and in fact indoctrinated over a lifetime to avoid it, hesitates or even freezes with indecision when suddenly confronted with it? Who would have thought? (The sarcasm is not directed at you.) At least when armed we have an option.

 

[chhodge69]

Politics and bias aside, these videos reinforce one valid and important point:

It's not enough just to buy a gun and slay paper zombies once a year. Practice, Practice, Practice.

 

[MikeNice]

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.

My gun stopped me from being stabbed and robbed in a parking lot. It also helped prevent me getting bludgeoned with a tire iron and robbed.

In the real world guns are used between 750,000 and 2.9 million times a year for defensive purposes. It all depends on which study you read. What it boils down to is simple enough. Guns save civilian lives every single day. By conservative estimates they save lives 10 times more often than they take lives.

I would say the CC crowd is ahead of the curve.

 

[RevDerb]

Yes, I have a recurring dream that a bad guy with a gun or a knife is threatening my life and I have a fighting chance of defending myself because I am licensed and trained to do so. Therefore I won't die without at least putting up a good fight.

 

[American Finn]

It is interesting to read all of this, and everyone has made some very good points and comments. I especially like the comments about the need for training.

Yes, continuous training is necessary for every CCW holder, and not just the 8 hours that you get in a class here in Michigan (I don't know what it is elsewhere, but I am assuming that the requirements are similar). That being said, I have taken it upon myself to obtain some really good books about self-defense tactics and training. In addition, I have had formal training in kickboxing and other unarmed self defense techniques (a really good book is "Get Tough!" by William Fairbairn). I regularly go to the range and practice shooting each month, as well as drawing from my holster in front of a mirror. I was taught that you should be fast enough that by the time you finish the sentence "oh my god, but I can't believe this is happening" your firearm should have left its holster and brought into action.

Now, growing up, I was exposed to firearms on a continual basis. My paternal grandfather was a sniper and machine gunner during WWII, and was expert with a handgun. He taught me all of the basics such as breathing, sight picture, grip, etc. At a young age, he made a statement that still rings in my mind concerning the use of deadly force. My grandfather told me "you don't ever pull your gun out without reason or purpose, but if you are forced to pull it out to defend yourself or ones you love, you shoot to kill because anything less and someone may die". Judging from his experiences, the man knew what he was speaking about. I would consider myself to be above average in skills than rather than the typical person because of my grandfathers teachings.

Having said all of this, and after watching the videos, I feel that it was unfairly rigged as well. The shooter was already keyed in on the student defenders, and was an expert law enforcement officer. The cards were stacked in his favor already. I think this would have been a very different scenario if the shooters were evenly matched.

In this situation, I would have reacted in the following manner: find cover as rapidly as possible, assess the situation, and react with deadly force as necessary. While doing this, I would have made sure there were not any innocents in my line of fire, and would have pulled my firearm while under cover so as to hide my movements. In addition, I would have been wearing different clothing so my firearms was more accessible. I am not standing up and presenting the shooter with a nice target. The test subjects had no training in properly assessing a situation, or how to find cover, prior to this scenario.

Finally, this couldn't have happened in Michigan. In reality, I would have had to run to the door, fly out a window, or play dead. We are not allowed to carry concealed on college campuses. I am not even allowed to carry at my place of work; nice when just the other day we had some knucklehead running through the building with a gun (some domestic violence incident, thank goodness the police caught him before he killed anyone).

 

[chhodge69]

Did you notice how they had the subject sit in the center, hemmed in by the desk, chairs and other students? That alone might be enough to sway the encounter. Run that same scenario again, let the subjects choose a seat as we would and see what happens.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

The biggest problem from this experiment (Which has been discussed at length in the past) is that ABC started out with a conclusion, then wrote a story, then did an experiment, then drew the conclusion for which they were hoping from the ambiguous results of the experiment.

An alternative conclusion could be this:

1. Despite lack of familiarity and training (One guy's experience was that he played Airsoft every now and then), the worst possible choices in equipment, and an unrealistically skilled OPFOR (Police firearms instructor), and the likelihood that the OPFOR either knew or could obviously tell who the armed student was, the armed student did in fact hit the active shooter in a not-insignificant number of the scenarios. Past active shooters have fled or suicided upon armed resistance, so it's entirely reasonable to say that even a wounding shot could have stopped the attack. No guarantees, of course, but it's reasonable.

2. The armed student did NOT hit any of the other students, despite the classroom being full and the armed student having such little experience, and the Brady Campaign's assurances that CCW permit holders will only kill more innocent people because they can't shoot and aren't trained.

And the biggie:

3. The presence of the armed student at no time caused the death of any innocent people, and occasionally did stop the shooter, meaning that it did no additional harm and sometimes did some good. Even slim odds are better than none, a point made even more clearly by how cold ABC stacked that deck.

 

[seal]

for me i dont think i live in a dream world i dont think i am going to outdraw a trained fire arms instructor who came in weapon drawn. Especially not while im wearing gloves and a big helmet.

I dont carry a weapon to be the hero. I may well end up dead in the end but to me to have any chance is better than none.

If people carried swords I would want a sword. I may not be the best guy with a sword but it sure makes my chances better for survival than if i was to have to face an opponent who has one.

 

[riseagainstforme]

I think people who don't carry a gun are in a "dream world"

CCW holders are level headed/law abiding people that know the world isnt always safe and that police could take a Looooong time to show up, and longer to secure the area.

Where as non-CCW holders think that violent attacks would never happen to them and they only happen in the bad neighborhoods. And that the police are gonna show up and save them.