Better to run for cover?

[SupaRice]

Saw this when I was browsing YouTube.... Hope it's not a repost.

I thought it was an unrealistic test given the retards they had in the test just stood up and didn't take cover AT ALL... but...

What's your thoughts?

[Superman]

It's BS, really. I'm sure it has been posted here before, I've seen it many times. If you pay attention you can see the the "bad guys" know who the "good guy" is everytime and take aim at him first thing. Plus they put very inexperienced people in there as the good guys and very experienced people for bad guys.

Try that same test with some one that has actually handled a gun before and dont tell the badguys who has a gun

[bigwakes]

I'm certain the shooter is a police or military veteran. Most BG shooters will be more like the school board idiot hat didn't hit his target from 3 feet away and then hit the floor with a negligent discharge. The same tunnel vision going on for you happens for the BG. Just because he has thought and planned out an attack does not mean he is immune from adrenaline. This video intends to prove that shooting at a BG will only get you killed. She shows videos of careless people with guns and never mentions all the people who's lives are save because they had the guts to do the right thing and arm themselves.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I dunno tactics from plastics, but if guns are so hopeless for self-defense then maybe they are equally hopeless for offense?

Maybe it would be just as easy to make a staged "experiment" where two amateurs are instructed to be pretend bad guys but they always get blown away for their trouble?

If armed defense is so hopeless-- Risk of accidental shootings-- Putting the armed defender at increased risk of being shot-- Then it stands to reason that we are putting our police and soldiers in needless peril by making them carry guns! Wouldn't police and soldiers be safer from attack-- More likely to survive an attack-- If we take away their guns?

The first ccw test subject in the video hits one bad guy and gets hit by the other bad guy. Even if the remaining bad guy is a steely-nerved psychopath stoked on PCP and Meth, then at least it has been whittled down to one nut shooting up the classroom rather than the original two nuts shooting up the classroom? How is that a bad thing?

If there were real bullets whizzing around, then it doesn't seem likely that either attackers or defenders would be standing straight up emptying their weapons at each other? Not really training as much as raw animal instinct. Unless the attacker is a highly-trained infallible operator, am guessing the attacker's aim ain't gonna be nearly so good if there is lead heading back in his direction. Even if none of the lead has got him YET?

Face it, if we happen to be sitting in a classroom and get attacked by a pair of navy seals, then most likely we are toast!

Edited January 26, 2012 by Lester Weevils
spelling and grammar

[SupaRice]

Yeah, that was my thought.... They put people who obviously are beginners in the mix with attackers who are at least moderately trained. I don't think that would be a fair representation. Especially if the attackers knew who to gun for from the get go.

This sort of setting does seem, if it were handled a little differently, like it would be a good training tool for students that are seeking to carry. Not in place of working on the fundamentals at a range, but in addition to. So that the first time you find your self needing to actually shoot in defense isn't the first time you've shot under stress at moving targets that shoot back.

Do any of the schools around here do something similar?

[mikegideon]

I'm no tactical expert, but I'm not going to make myself the biggest target in the room. The video is nothing but BS anti-gun garbage.

[Guest drv2fst]

There are many real shootings where mass shootings have actually been averted by one armed citizen. The media just does not air these stories since they do not further their agenda.

Always keep in mind that a few media moguls control the "news" media. These moguls don't want the rest of us to have access to guns or news.

Their objectives are to increase their wealth by producing "infotainment" so they can sell advertising.

Reporting, Publishing and broadcasting the news is not good business, bummer.