WATCH THIS VIDEO....lets discuss this

[Guest rebeldrummer]

I want everyones opinion on this video...

I noticed this...

1) the person being tested was in the same spot each time, probably the toughest spot to defend/attack. I believe that was on purpose, which in this instance, sucked because it was done so to make them look bad/in experienced/ un-safe...

2)since they were in same spot, the "shooter" already knew who was next target (after initial target) In real life, the other shooter would be anywhere in the room and the BG wouldn't know exactly where to shoot.

I will say that yes this can be used as an "eye-opener" or to educate....but it needs to be done in the right context. Maybe I am wrong, and my opinion might be off....but to ME it seems very biased and shed negative light on the "sheep dog" community...

your thoughts??

[mikegideon]

I'm gonna duck. Can't say how I'll do, but I probably won't take any to the abdomen. The piece is biased... shocker.

[Guest db99wj]

Proves the point that most of us need more training. It points out that a lot of people out there have a minimum of training and mindset. I would be willing to bet that most people on here, have more training, more of the "mindset" needed to survive a scenario like this, why, because you are on here actively seeking more information, more awareness, etc. Many don't do anything more than the permit class.

This is an ambush from an experienced instructor. Advantage BG

This is an ambush from an active shooter. Advantage BG

The student is sitting in the center, directly in site of the active shooter, who had already taken down the intended target. Advantage BG

A real shooter is not going to be that prepared, they are not going to know for sure that there are other armed people in the room and once they take out the target, to be looking like they were for them. I for one, will not and do not sit in the front row, middle of anywhere I go, I'm a back row and far corner kind of guy.

The video is a lot of crap that just doesn't prove much of anything. It does prove that many of us, me included, need more training and to continue training and going through scenarios.

Edited March 29, 2011 by db99wj

[mikegideon]

Actually, a lack of crap (pants crapping). Notice how calm everbody is?

[1gewehr]

Ho hum. Golly, ABC goes out to prove that CCW is a waste of time. Imagine that!

They overlook a few points entirely though.

1) If there are no armed good guys around, the 'terrorist' gets to shoot completely free of worry. With even ONE person shooting back, the other students are free to escape.

2) They set the situation up so it is a 'no-win' scenario. In a 'normal' situation, you don't have a hidden terrorist who waits for the armed good guy to start shooting. That's as realistic as having a home invasion while the home-owner happens to be standing 20 heet away with his shotgun already loaded and pointed at the door. I guess the moral is to keep your weapon out, loaded, and ready!

[Guest rebeldrummer]

I see we are on the same page....good

[Guest nicemac]

Put the target font and center, wearing a helmet, gloves and a baggy shirt that makes drawing a gun almost impossible and see how many times a pro can shoot him before he pulls his weapon. Gee, how did the kids ever lose this one?

[Guest colombianito1021]

Not familiar with holster- advantage BG.

You give any one a holster they havent practiced with and they will suck!

[Guest drv2fst]

Notice what they did not say: While the shoot was focusing on the person with the gun, all of the others escaped. Even if the shooter did get the CC person all the others after the first one got out. While that is not our primary intent, it is better than the other scenario. If the CC person was not there the shooter could have killed everyone in the room. That's the real justification of CC. You give yourself and others at least a bit of a chance.

I'd say each of their shooters improved the odds for survival of the average person in that class. Maybe not for themselves but their odds didn't necessarily get worse either.

[dats82]

If you watch part one, the shooter always turns automatically toward the CCW. This video would be very different if the element of surprise were actually placed with the one who holds it in a reality. I am not disputing the idea that we can all use more training; that is always true. However, their conclusion that CCW actually kills more people is flawed based on the fact that there is no statistic evidence to evaluate for real encounters where guns were present.

This is just more libturd propaganda as far as I am concerned.

[Guest rebeldrummer]

This is just more libturd propaganda as far as I am concerned.

+1 on that statement

[memphisjim]

This proves not to be a geek student and sit at the front of the class. Besides you can't see the hot ladies that way

[vontar]

If you watch part one, the shooter always turns automatically toward the CCW. This video would be very different if the element of surprise were actually placed with the one who holds it in a reality. I am not disputing the idea that we can all use more training; that is always true. However, their conclusion that CCW actually kills more people is flawed based on the fact that there is no statistic evidence to evaluate for real encounters where guns were present.

This is just more libturd propaganda as far as I am concerned.

True, in this case the BG knew what to expect, of course everyone in the room knew as well.

Also if we want to go down a road like this, a room full of people if they would MOB mad rush one BAD GUY, it would be like storming a castle wall.

More training, DUCK, go for cover while pulling my gun needs to be in the plan. Need to be a hard target to hit while firing at the BAD GIRL (trying to be equal opportunity tonight, giving equal time).

Trying to make clean shots, Try to make the first shot count if at all possible.

[Guest Letereat!]

Originally Posted by dats82

This is just more libturd propaganda as far as I am concerned.

+1 on that statement

+1 to the + to that. There is VERY LITTLE anybody, no matter how well armed, can do in the first 2-4 seconds, when ambushed. The perp has a definitive and unmistakable tactical advantage and surprise is one of the most advantageous advantages, how many distinct advantages are there in an ambush?

Edited April 1, 2011 by Letereat!

[NRA]

very biased

[vontar]

very biased

Even though it is, it does give an idea how fast a situation could happen. It would be hard to simulate that situation as everyone involved would know something was going on, although they might not have all the details. They would be on edge until it happened.

[Guest db99wj]

Even though it is, it does give an idea how fast a situation could happen. It would be hard to simulate that situation as everyone involved would know something was going on, although they might not have all the details. They would be on edge until it happened.

This is the point I was making, as much as this story was a load, it still gives you some things to think about and take away from it. The tunnel vision thing is a real phenomenon that does happen, in training and evidently in real life scenarios, I experienced it in a class before. I shot in an area around the bad guys hand and gun, not center mass. I focused on the gun, not the individual.

[vontar]

Just a few weeks ago, an auto accident that happened right in front of me. When the traffic camera was flashing giving him a ticket for running the redlight, it put me in tunnel vision and I was focused on the flash just to my right and I totally missed the impact just barely to my left. The crash was not more then 20 yards from me and I could not be a good witness, in fact I told the LEO on site that the camera had a better view then I did because of the flash.

[DRM]

Where do you even start with all the flaws in that?

Only one armed good guy - why not 2?

Good guy was always in the same spot?

Bad guy KNEW there was a good guy, and where he was?

It's almost too frustrating to see what a lame "experiment" this was just on those few flaws.

[DRM]

All inexperienced, or relatively inexperienced.

None currently carry or practice carrying.

All using borrowed and unfamiliar guns, holsters, and baggy shirts

GRRRRRRRRR

[vontar]

Where do you even start with all the flaws in that?

Only one armed good guy - why not 2?

Good guy was always in the same spot?

Bad guy KNEW there was a good guy, and where he was?

It's almost too frustrating to see what a lame "experiment" this was just on those few flaws.

Here are some ideas.

We would have to put together pro gun venison of the video.

How about this.

Set the stage similar tell the actor Bad guy a general Idea, but lets confuse him. LOCK The DAM DOOR in at least one test.

OK, have to be a bit more real. Can't let him have any idea what or he is facing inside the room. In at least one room, let him bust in on a room full of undercover Officers that all proceed to unload on him, 1 controlled round each.

Another, no one armed but they all MAD RUSH HIM. Need to show the sheep what a stampede can do.

I have always felt there is no reason one gun man should be able to hold 20 or 30 people. Kinda like storming a castle wall, sure the first few in are most likely going to be killed but the others will live and win.

[Guest rebeldrummer]

I like your thinking Vontar

[DRM]

Another, no one armed but they all MAD RUSH HIM. Need to show the sheep what a stampede can do.

The BG in this setup was clearly focused on taking out the teacher then IMMEDIATELY taking out the known armed student. Watch both clips - the shooter clearly ignore EVERYONE else that is running around. In one shot in the #1 video that is shot from the BG's POV, you can clearly see the BG fire on the teacher, immediately turn to the KNOWN armed student, HOLD fire as a student passes between them, IGNORES the students standing with arms raised, and shoots the crouched armed student.

6:56 or so mark into the Part One video.

Absurd.

[Will Carry]

The ambush or "Sneak Attack" is the worst case scenario. They came to the false (anti-self defense) conclusion that a concealed weapon will do you no good at all, so why bother. They want the public to think that too.

[Guest mikedwood]

It was certainly a setup. I honestly think where that happened would make a difference.

Some places and Tennessee being one of them I would bet that several of the guys would rush the shooter. Dunno about students but if it happened in a place with fathers and grandfathers then and or men with their wives I don't think everyone would be helter skelter heading away. And I mean this in any random sampling of people assembled in Tennessee. At least half the men in Tennessee are going to run towards gun fire. It's in our nature.

To say the CCW stand in did no good as they said, I mean the girl made the bg use 10 bullets on her. As pointed out from others that was 10 shots on an unarmed person he didn't get. Possibly saving 10 lives. Plus the bg probably had tunnel vision as well and could have been rushed and while that seems crazy to rush him some guys certainly would.

Then they have a 2nd shooter as well. Pretty much a setup to make sure the ccw doesn't succeed.

It's the Kobayashi Maru of ccw setups. Would have been interesting if the ccw had head shot the bg in 1 second to see how they would have spun that into a failure.