ABC video saying why CCW won't work

Status
Not open for further replies.
coloradokevin

coloradokevin

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
3,285
I'm sure I don't need to explain the flaws in this video to each of you, but here's a couple of points:

1) Amateur shooters, with no stated experience beyond range time
2) No familiarity with their equipment, as evidenced by their inability to draw from poor holster position choices
5) Force-on-force scenarios with people who are inexperienced going against police instructors who appear to be targeting them. No evidence that they were given ANY training for these types of scenarios. Gloves certainly don't help the "students" draw in these situations.
6) The "Range 3000" scenario that killed the reporter in this video is very survivable. We train our recruits with this system, live fire, and they usually survive.

Yeah, a brand new shooter with a new gun isn't automatically the Chuck Norris of CCW'ers. But, those of us who care, train. Those of us who train as we fight survive.

Anyway, watching these videos may prove politically important, because they show us how the other side views the things we do every day.

http://youtu.be/8QjZY3WiO9s
 
It appears the shooter that came into the room went straight for the armed student. That in itself is a bit unreal in that he chose the only armed person in a room full.

The students may have had practice but were told nothing about how to engage and enemy. The girl stood up, not much tactical ability there for sure.

The scenario was doomed to fail before it started with a college kid up against an instructor who seemed to know who to shoot first.
 
Ummm...... can I ask how many Joe Citizens who concealed carry in normal, everyday life also wear gloves and gas masks?
 
How many folks that carry forget to have the concealed carry mindset to go with it. For instance, I went to a movie with my wife the other night. I had my gun in pocket carry, easy to grasp even seated. During the movie, I noted anyone moving in or out of the theater. Reaction time is simply predicated on awareness. These college kids may have had some rudimentary gun training, but they probably had no idea on awareness and thinking through scenarios.

As others have pointed out, the instructor in both cases went right to the kid with the gun. Not realistic at all. If you are going to carry a gun, you FIRST must decide whether you are willing to use the gun in self defense before you ever put it in a holster and strap it on. In addition, gun retrieval is another very important skill while covered by clothing. Practice, practice, practice. But first, you have to have awareness at all times and mind preparation to react if needed.

Try doing the same experiment with an LEO in that situation and you will have a much different response.
 
I'm assuming you're referring to the Diane Sawyer piece on concealed-carry in the college classroom environment. The below was my response to the last thread (some time back) regarding this piece.:

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 (a few had some AirSoft playtime.)
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, and by the producers, not by the wearers.
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 is, these madmen want no resistance, and will fold and run (or commit suicide; more than 90 percent do) once faced with it.
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.


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.
 
You're not trying to tell me that a pseudo scientific study performed by news media is fundamentally flawed are you? How else am I to form my opinions if not for these scientist-journalists?
 
lol...that video is from 2010. typical biased piece.

shooter = highly trained and knows apparently where the CCW guy sits in the class room

CCW guy = nearly no training, crappy holster .....
 
Yeah, I realize this piece was a couple of years old, but the thought process that goes into making this pile of garbage is no different than the thought process that is going into a bunch of today's proposals... and they are often coming from the same people.

I'll admit, I didn't see this "documentary" when it came out in 2010, but stumbled upon it on Youtube today, and immediately thought of my friends here on THR.
 
Ten things I learned in this video:
  1. Police offer free "gun training" at college campuses.
  2. Everyone who CCWs wears baggy long sleeved shirts and flimsy holsters
  3. A gunman's second victim is always an armed individual, and before they draw or show furtive movement.
  4. Every unarmed person in the room will successfully escape a gunman unharmed except a concealed permit holder
  5. All police departments and academies spend "months and months speeding up reaction time" and all practice at least once a month or "they lose it"
  6. Shooting guns at a range for civilians translates to "hundreds of hours of training"
  7. Frustrated reporters will use a gun to point at things and wave guns around with their finger on the trigger.
  8. If cornered by a gunman a foot away, it's better to turn your back and run away.
  9. Don't run away, it's even better to play dead.
  10. Cell phones have the power to save the lives of those immediately around you
 
Cesiumsponge,

You pretty much caught my perspective on this one spot-on. I'm also a police officer and firearms instructor, and I don't follow any of the BS they were pitching in that piece.

Regardless, Fox news takes the top spot tonight, at least in terms of stupid gun-related stuff. They actually said something to the effect of:

"The group Code Pink protested a gun show today in (some state), asking that all high-velocity clips and assault rifles be banned"

In fairness to the news station, the members of Code Pink are as clueless as they come. I dealt with their protesters during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, and they are really out there in left field. Most of them are nice people, some are real obnoxious idiots, and on a whole their views of society are completely baseless (one woman actually told me that police officers and soldiers having guns are the cause of criminals being violent and having guns -- yeah, that stupid).
 
Watched part of that video once. They were showing a second shooter situation. First thing I noticed was that the second shooter had his eyes on the CCW individual and had even pulled his gun and aimed before the CCW individual drew. Tell me it wasn't a setup.
 
Stinks of Michael Moore and his "documentaries", for which he takes no responsibility with the copout "They're entertainment!"
It's proven, time after time, that armed civilians stop violent crime FAR more often, and faster, than law enforcement can, if only because the civilians are on site and able to respond more quickly. Even the documented cases far outstrip the wrongful homicides, and there's no way to quantify the number of times a shot was never fired and a report never filed.

It's BS, and so obviously staged that I'd half expect Moore to come out in mid-scene to preach at us.
 
I have seen that video. The GLARING disparity is ABC (by their own admission) picked people not very familiar with firearms. Most kids that age consider themselves experts in firearms from Call of Duty. Find someone who has a dozen firearms with 15 years experience on the same show and the reactions would have been totally different. I hate stories and studies that cherry pick data and subjects to align with their methodology and beliefs.
 
a brand new shooter with a new gun isn't automatically the Chuck Norris of CCW'ers.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to be. Of the top 15 school massacres only 1 of them was taken out by the police. 13 of them committed suicide. These people are cowards that shoot themselves at the first sign of resistance.

Heck, they shoot themselves before the first shot is fired at them.
 
Last edited:
They've also had a habit of changing their plans if they had even a hint that they'd meet armed opposition. Coward will always... ALWAYS... go after soft targets... unarmed innocents.
 
The video on Youtube was uploaded by the VPC, so I wasn't holding very high hopes. ABC did it more as a sham and had a conclusion they wanted, and probably looked at several departments until they found one willing to gather data and design a no-win scenario to meet their conclusion.

Considering many private firearm trainers come from the LE and military world, the quality of instruction from credible instructors out there is very high. It's probably never been better at any other time in history. Plenty of people make the effort to get training are usually getting good training. I've done it. Stuff in the private sector tends to change and evolve much quicker than large departments or something as massive as the military. It's also markedly different than the team or group tactics in the LE or military world. You're basically on your own as a civilian unless you're with other armed friends and family.

The video basically compared a lone, untrained armed civilian caught in condition white to a SWAT team or an entire squad of officers with overwhelming force. What ABC fails to mention is it doesn't do law enforcement scenarios where an officer is sitting in a classroom during a lecture and suddenly a rampage killer emerges. That isn't a scenario in their daily lives on the job. It also didn't bother tackling the idea of a uniformed officer running into a classroom with two dozen students running OUT of it to solve the scenario the ambushed students were given, with an active gunman shooting at them. The gunman could engage the officer entering the room long before the officer gets a clear shot with students out of the way. The gunman doesn't care about collateral damage.

The video is only legitimate in the sense that it shows what happens to people with no or little training under duress or stress. They do very poorly. The mental discipline in training one's self in situational awareness and tactics isn't there. Unfortunately there are plenty of people who get their concealed permits who have little or no training and the video probably reflects a harsh reality in that sense.

In the second part, they decided (for funsies) to introduce a SECOND shooter in the crowd to confuse one CCWer and split his processing abilities on two targets. They introduce it in such a manner to suggest that officers have scenarios like this "down pat". The last student, ABC criticizes her accuracy. Of course, it neglects to mention things like NYPD analysis between 1994-2000 showing that at distances of six feet or less, trained officers missed 62% of the time. There is a suggestion that all departments constantly train when this simply isn't the case because it's incredibly expensive and officers have dozens of skill sets they need to keep honed, not just shooting a gun.

One unintended consequence of both videos that goes against ABC's conclusion is that this: the concealed permit carrier engages the gunman so the gunman's goal is no longer "shoot as many unarmed people as I can, as fast as I can". The gunman's goal changes to "someone is shooting at me, I need to shoot at that person". While the volunteers all "lose" in the scenario by taking fatal wounds, the volunteer successfully buys time for all the students. Even the one that fumbles and fails to successfully draw. None of the students are hit and play dead (ABC would say otherwise) and none of the students are negligently shot by the volunteer (ABC could only say "almost").

Even in the worst case scenario in the six trials, the volunteers willingly engage the gunman, die in the process, but buy time for more people to escape. If you're willingly engaging someone in a gunfight, you accept the possibility of death. By sacrificing your own life, you've bought others precious time. ABC didn't bother arguing that the students were better off in the scenario where someone stood up and served as a distraction versus a scenario where a gunman walks into a room and has no disruptions from shooting as many as possible, as fast as possible.
 
Last edited:
Amateur shooters, with no stated experience beyond range time
Click to expand...
Unless your local police department hires combat veterans... or hitmen EXCLUSIVELY, the same applies to MOST law enforcement agencies, ESPECIALLY in places like NYC and Chicago.
 
I guess ABC views someone playing video games and someone who plays with airsoft as having experience. Why don't they look at real life situations when someone had a CCW was able to defend themselves and someone else.
The problem with media is when a bad guy with a gun that kills masses of people the whole world knows it and is covered for countless days.
Whereas a good guy/CCW'er stops a bad guy, nobody knows about it but the local paper.
 
The "Defender" was lucky this was not NBC. They would have placed explosives on her, to 'dramaticize' the story, ala exploding trucks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top