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

[GEM]

Real live shooters?

1. I think several of them had been shown to practice on the ranges. That's probably as much as the average CCW type.

2. Grossman has argued that video game practice by some probably stood them in good stead with the real shooting occurred.

 

[henschman]

Even if the armed student goes down, it forces the attacker to have to go defensive and focus his attention on him for a moment. This probably allowed several more innocent bystanders to get away safely. Even in their rigged scenario, I bet there would be less innocent bystanders killed in the situations where there was an armed student in the class.

In the real world, lots of different things could happen. What if the armed student is in another classroom? He would hear the gunfire and be able to draw and ready himself before confronting the threat, or would be able to take a good defensive posture for when the threat comes to him.

Even for a police firearms instructor, it would be a much harder scenario if he had to move through a campus shooting people at random, not knowing whether or where he will run into any armed resistance.

Run THAT scenario scientifically, and if there isn't a lower body count when there are armed students present then I will eat my hat.

 

[MisterMike]

I think it's pretty evident from the outset that this "story" and the scenarios concocted by ABC were intended to support a preconceived conclusion. Others have noted those deficiencies already.

But, this also plays into an illogical argument that we let the anti-rights crowd get away with all the time: "Being armed did not work in this situation. Ergo, it never works." That exact argument was raised in the Arizona shooting by Loughner, and, indeed, a nearby armed citizen was not able to intervene. However, that argument ignores the fact that millions of times every year, firearms are used to successfully thwart mayhem and murder.

So, yes, you can always imagine or create a scenario where an armed defender will not succeed in successfully defending himself or others. But, it's logically fallacious--and disproven by the statistics--to extrapolate any given failure to the entire universe of situations where firearms may be used in self defense.

Don't give in to the stupidity.

 

[robmkivseries70]

It was a setup from the word go. Which network did the expose' on the pickup truck that exploded when "t-boned"? They ate some crow when the smoke pots set under the truck to ignite the gas from the fuel tank were spotted. I generally feel nothing but contempt for network television.
Best,
Rob

 

[mdThanatos]

I saw that when it originally aired. It is a poor example of a real life situation. He was positioned by the staff, he didn't get the option to choose his seat. Personally when I go into a class room or a room with one entrance, I try to position myself towards the back, away from the door, that's just me. Needless to say, training and mindset go hand in hand with ccw, and that broadcast was horrible to say the least.

 

[GLOOB]

Well, duh. Lot of problems with the "experiment" that have been pointed out.

To add to the list:

1. All firearms are loaded.
2. Don't draw a firearm unless you life is in danger.

If your life is in danger, last thing you need to do is draw a real gun filled with paintballs.

If your life is not in danger, last thing you need to do is draw a real gun (filled with paintballs) in a crowded room and shoot it at people.

Unless the rules and expectations are clearly delineated beforehand, it's hard to justify pointing a REAL handgun at another human being that is not a true threat.

 

[Headless]

Complete nonsense. Did you guys see the huge ass unwieldy gloves the students were wearing? I don't think my finger would even fit in the trigger guard wearing those gloves; i own a pair. Not to mention the helmets and massively stretchy t-shirts that none of the students had ever practiced drawing from. And full sized guns in retention holsters carried OWB, of course. And of course the instructor shot the teacher...THEN IMMEDIATELY focused on the student who they knew already had a gun as if they were running through an IPSC stage. Sure, it MIGHT go down that way in reality, but the chances are quite low, especially with so many people running around screaming, the shooter likely being just as untrained as the students, the shooter being in the midst of a crime of passion, etc. etc..

Just as likely that the person doesn't notice the armed person until it's too late. Or that instead of the students being surprised completely, that they first hear gunshots from an adjoining classroom allowing them to prepare and simply shoot the guy as he enters the room...or...or...or......or ad infinitum. Anyone can think up a scenario where carrying a gun doesn't help. But it's worth noting that under all of those scenarios the person with a gun isn't any LESS screwed than if they didn't have one. Either way they'd have been shot, even if they failed to deploy their weapon. Might as well have a chance.

Straw man BS.
All that video shows is that the producers of the video are building a straw man argument against CCW holders. Talk about living in a dream world.

 

[Bozwell]

The gloves and the masks really sabotage the "experiment" in my mind. I'm sure they did the masks so that they didn't pop a student in the eye by accident with some paint balls, but that doesn't replicate a realistic classroom environment. At the end of the day, if I'm in a classroom that's getting shot up, I'd rather have a gun on me than not, and all the video really did for me is to emphasize the training that should go into your carry routine if you want maximum effectiveness.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

To add to the list:

1. All firearms are loaded.
2. Don't draw a firearm unless you life is in danger.

If your life is in danger, last thing you need to do is draw a real gun filled with paintballs.

If your life is not in danger, last thing you need to do is draw a real gun (filled with paintballs) in a crowded room and shoot it at people.

Unless the rules and expectations are clearly delineated beforehand, it's hard to justify pointing a REAL handgun at another human being that is not a true threat.

It is simmunitions training. Suggesting that you don't point such guns at one another is pretty silly. The student was told he would be using his gun against another person for training, later. The instructor bad guy comes in and shoots the lecturer with a simmunition round. That pretty well starts off the event to respond. I don't see a problem there at all. After all, it is very hard to simulate not being prepared for the start of a fight when you are told to prepare to fight.

This is where a lot of things like draw times do not realistically represent anything about response time. For most folks, more time is lost in the bewilderment period of time when they are trying to figure out what is going on, why, how, who, is it real, than in their actual physical response.

The response of folks to gunfire at a gunshow is somewhat telling in this regard. Generally speaking, somebody shoots a round or two at a gun show, even if one or more people get shot, what does almost everybody in the room do? They stop and gawk. They waste precious time trying to figure out if they really need to do something or not.

When people are in places where a shooting occurs, even a mass shooting, one of the most common responses people have is that they think it is strange or a prank that somebody has set off fireworks. Sometimes they even mention conversing about the lunatic with the fireworks until the realization happens that the lunatic doesn't have fireworks, but firearms. You even get trained cops exclaiming such things on occasion.

I have read numerous accounts of people being involved in shootings that thought the shooting that they were in (as a witness) was some sort of staged prank. The hero of the Springfield Mall shooting in 1985 thought Sylvia Seegrist was firing blanks and he walked right up to her and took the gun from her hands. It wasn't until afher he had her under control that he realized that people had suffered real injuries and that some had been killed.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/sylvia_seegrist/index.html

So in real life, there are very real delays in realization for most people between what they think is actually going on and the realization of what is actually going on. It may be a quarter second, several seconds, or even a minute or two depending on the proximity and intensity of the event. So if you want to simulate something occurring unexpectedly, you can't simulate it occurring unexpectedly if you tell the person it is about to happen.

While we could not run the unexpected drill, I was part of a shooting group that did used to one one drill that was particularly enlightening and it was a good way to help rotate some carry ammo. We all arrived at the range in our street clothes and upon arrival, eat shooting would be given muffs and glasses and taken to the line to perform a drill of some sort, the drill being described on the way to the line. The shooter did not have time to do all the normal setup things shooters do when they come to the line in competition. There was no "gettng ready" aside from donning the safety gear. So the drill was shot cold. What we learned was that all sorts of garments being typically worn for concealment could significant slow down the shooter. Holsters had managed to move some during the course of the work day and the position or cant of the holster wasn't the idea for the shooter. Deep concealment needed for some work situations resulted in terrible draw times. Going for the gun on your waist when you were only carrying on your ankle (stressed induced amnesia) was not good either. Accuracy was also much poorer and accuracy tended to diminish more if the shooter had a problem producing his gun during the draw (fluster factor).

So there is some reality to the notion that most shooters probably aren't as good as they think they are going to be during a crisis if they have to respond absolutely immediately. However, those that see a situation develop and are able to think through their response before engaging, that is basically mentally and/or physically setting up for the response before responding, won't do as badly.

 

[leadaddict]

Anyone can think up a scenario where carrying a gun doesn't help

I agree, and there are many where it doesn't, but all you have to do is read some news to see many scenerios where it would have helped, and where each of these studends could have succeeded, or at least had a chance.

 

[FLAvalanche]

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.

You should always question that. It's something that you should always practice for and strive to improve.

Face it, under most circumstances, with just about any level and amount of training, the bad guy is always going to have the drop on you. He's always committing the crime, you're always reacting to his actions.

 

[Cop Bob]

You should always question that. It's something that you should always practice for and strive to improve.

Face it, under most circumstances, with just about any level and amount of training, the bad guy is always going to have the drop on you. He's always committing the crime, you're always reacting to his actions.

True Statement...

 

[bthr22]

Watch the video, then go through a few of the MANY suggested videos to the right that proves their theory that CCW holders "delusions" are completely wrong.

 

[Nushif]

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.

This. In the classical bump in the night scenario, do you put on your belt and holster your weapon before checking it out or are you at the low ready?
I know I am at the low ready.

 

[mortablunt]

@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."

One of the students did have experience, but he was an airsoft guy.

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

That's pretty important. Holster types make a big difference when ever decisecond is important.

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

And might I add that most people don't carry there

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

They also didn't have the muscle memory for the proceedure either.

"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."

Mass shooters are cowards. Hell, someone who breaks into your house is likely not loking for a fight. I experienced this firsthand, but on to my next point.

"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.)"

The students were not informed as to when or where the aggressor would come.

"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."

Most people who get shot survive. Besides, with adrenaline going through you, you can fight for a bit even with mortal injuries.

"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."

Still, even a 1:1 trade of attacker for defender in a potential massacre situation is something I would count as a win. I once had to fight off a "madman" and I was the one without a gun.

"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."

I agree absolutely.

"10) Every scenario assumed only one potential defender."

There are also brave people who might try to resist without a gun. ANd sometimes, the madman gets mobbed by people. Flight 93 spring to mind?

"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."

Definitely. Everyone who gets a CC Permit is likely to know and accept that one day, they might have to use their guns in a fight to the death. Thus, they ought to have trained and prepared themselves for the worst possible situation.

"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."

That is why crime rates go down after carry and guns are legalized. You wouldn't rob a "weak" victim if they could very well put you in a grave?

The last thing that I would like to point out is that the attacker was tactically trained and already had a plan. Still, during the time that the defender fought back, it was time for more students to escape.

Finally, a slim chance of saving lives is better than no chance. If your chance of pulling off a successful defense in such a situation is 1% with a gun and 0% without one, it is still much better to at least try to do something rather than be a fatalist.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

So you think they need to be much closer, like here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AA_dgRdDhk&NR=1
Lots of folks draw successfully on drawn guns.

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."

One of the students did have experience, but he was an airsoft guy.

"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."

Definitely. Everyone who gets a CC Permit is likely to know and accept that one day, they might have to use their guns in a fight to the death. Thus, they ought to have trained and prepared themselves for the worst possible situation.

Y'all are very naive if you think that everyone who gets a CCW is mentally, physically, and logistically more skilled than the folks they had in that room. Some will be. The vast majority won't. The vast majority are just people who have managed to get a CCW, but they are still the exact same people they were before they got their permits. Based on the classes that I have been in and classes where I played RSO for people qualifying to get permits, far less than half will carry regularly and consistently. Like many cops, most only go to the range once a year or less and often only go because they are afraid they won't shoot well enough to requalify. They don't have well developed muscle memory. They are not thinking about their situation on an ongoing basis and considering what-ifs as they go through the day. They don't have a personal safety plan. Most CCW people spend 99% of their time in total condition white just like the rest of the population.

"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."

Mass shooters are cowards. Hell, someone who breaks into your house is likely not loking for a fight. I experienced htis first hand, but on to my next point.

For the life of me, I don't know why so many folks are hung up on calling bad guys names such as "cowards." The moniker is pointless to the scenario. The shooter in the scenario showed the exact same behavior that may of the goal-oriented mass shooters show when they have planned targets. Whether or not we call them "cowards" does not change the fact that the behavior exhibited by the shooter does in fact match many of the mass shootings such as several of the workplace and some of the school shootings.

 

[FTG-05]

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.

Excellent analysis. The only thing missing was the obvious bias by the news against concealed carry.

 

[mortablunt]

^ Mmmhm. Even if the odds are stacked against you, a gun in your hand is better than all the world's arsenal downtown.

 

[MedWheeler]

We call them that because they are. I had a much more detailed response typed, but the site timed me out before I could post it, and no longer lets you log in without clearing your intended post first (it now requires you to "refresh" the page, which is something new.)
In a nutshell, their targets are chosen by an assumed lack of risk (none is assumed to be armed, unlike in the scenario, in which the "shooter" knew one was, and where he/she would be.)
I do agree that many carriers are not that well trained but, as someone else pointed out, in a situation in which, if you are spotted alive by the shooter, you are a target, even a one-percent chance of survival beats a zero-percent chance. Imagine an untrained, armed person firing wildly at the mass-shooter, scoring absolutely no hits, but prompting him to flee that room. I'd say the goal of survival has been reached.

I don't know why so many folks are hung up on calling bad guys names such as "cowards." The moniker is pointless to the scenario. The shooter in the scenario showed the exact same behavior that may of the goal-oriented mass shooters show when they have planned targets. Whether or not we call them "cowards" does not change the fact that the behavior exhibited by the shooter does in fact match many of the mass shootings such as several of the workplace and some of the school shootings.

 

[bthr22]

Does it really matter what the vast majority of CCW holders may or may not do in the way of training? IMO the only thing that matters is what YOU choose to do. You are responsible for your own personal safety and well being. You can either prove that experiment right or wrong. So I would worry about how I am going to prepare to defend myself in dangerous situations and not about how others are preparing to defend themselves. If you can effectively neutralize a threat to your safety, then more than likely, you will have done the same for those around you as a result.

If I'm looking at this the wrong way, or veering too far off what this thread is about, please let me know.

 

[B1gGr33n]

bthr22: I look at it this way; If I'm carrying, I'm assuming the responsibility of not only protecting myself, but those around me, whether they be loved ones or strangers. If I'm with my wife and daughters, I'll happily sacrifice myself to neutralize a threat and get them to safety. Same of a stranger. Good training is just a way of bettering your odds that 'sacrifice' isn't on the list. As they say, "Luck favors the prepared."

 

[bthr22]

B1Gr33n: Yeah, I guess that is a better way to look at it. And that is typically how I look at a defensive situation. If someone is putting my friends/family/innocent people in danger, I will do what I can to stop them. I was directing that more towards yourself vs. other CCW holders, who have the same responsibility to protect others around them.

Not sure if I'm totally making sense, but its an attempt lol.

 

[ball3006]

Yeah, I carry and live in a dream world. I dream about better guns, holsters and tactics. I also have nightmares about having to shoot someone and the legal bill it will cost me. I am not a wealthy person.....chris3

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I found this quote interesting. More reaction time lost to disbelief. It pertains to folks reactions that I mentioned above...

At first a number of people thought it was a joke but soon realised the reality of the situation when Breivik began chasing his victims down.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sses-horror-idyllic-island.html#ixzz1T1rt8hQS

 

[00__LUGER__00]

Another thing about this video- what about the good guy with a gun in the next room, or next building, hallway, etc?

So- maybe the gunner shoots all the people in the first room. If there are people carrying in other places, they would have plenty of time to take up a defensive/or even offensive position and maybe take the bad guy out.

I think if there were armed citizens at many of the past and present mass shootings, someone would get the better of the bad guy. Maybe that is how the video should end, the CCW carrier runs in guns blazing and takes the shooter out.