Announcement Module
No announcement yet.

So you have a CCW......Some food for thought

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
Conversation Detail Module
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So you have a CCW......Some food for thought

    Now I know that all you guys that carry have cat like reflexes and this couldn't possibly ever be you but watch it anyway.

  • #2
    I will concede many who carry would not react properly. But the "attacker" in this video is a firearms instructor, he knows who is armed and targets them. Apples and oranges.

    I get it, you don't think people should go about their daily lives armed even though you have a CCW. You only carry when you go to the store at midnight, that's fine. You live in the almost-ghetto, yet you have never needed your weapon. Good for you. That is your choice. I respect your choice, please respect mine. You are not going to change my mind. I no longer live in the city, I carry a firearm, I have been shot at, and I know how I reacted and it suits me fine. Do I ever want to do it again? HELL NO!, but I will if needed. I don't walk the streets in a Stetson, wearing boots with spurs waiting to see if I am quicker than the other guy. You would never know I was armed if we crossed paths.

    You are the anti-2A folks best friend because "you are a gun owner, but..."


    • #3
      Oh I am not anti 2A.

      I am about sensible restrictions.

      I agree that the student guinea pig should have been randomly placed thru the room.....the fact that the shooter is a firearm instructor is irrelevant.....What is relevant is he is there and has intent to kill and the ccw person is caught flat footed in all of the video we are shown.

      So what about the movie theater on a friday night?

      But the thing I took from it was.....the shooter had glock that had only 10 or so rounds in the mag. What if it had been a rifle with 30 or more rounds available???? he would have got the entire room.


      • #4
        It is relevant. He has experience in close quarters shooting, he knows where the armed individual was, and went right towards them. Everyone else in the room was LE or ABC personnel and told to run when the shooter starts. Add a little realism, not everyone is going to run for the door, or hide.

        The pit an individial who is used to carrying a gun against someone who is not. The expert is the aggressor and the defender is a novice at best. The aggressor comes into the room knowing who is supposed to engage him, he has his weapon at the ready while the defender with no training is forced to dram from a holster with a retention strap. Change the scenario, put the LE in the front row, weapon holstered, and let the novice be the aggressor.

        Let's be honest about the video. It was produced by the liberal ABC to try to change people's minds about carrying. Maybe it will, maybe it will encourage people to receive professional training like many of us have.

        Sensible restriction goes against the spirit and intent of the 2A. It has nothing to do with concealed carry, hunting, or recreational shooting. They are a by-product of it.


        • #5
          How do we know what the spirit or intent was?????

          So why the restriction on caliber size??? or fully automatic weapons?????

          I doubt the result would have been much different with an average joe being the shooter. the CCW person would have still hid, or failed to get the gun out.

          I would have like to see the test run with one of LEO with the concealed gun and what the results were.

          If the instructor/teacher in the room had the gun, he was the first killed so it makes his gun irrelevant.


          • #6
            "the shooter had glock that had only 10 or so rounds in the mag. What if it had been a rifle with 30 or more rounds available???? he would have got the entire room."

            I would venture a guess that I can shoot almost as fast, more accurate, the same number of rounds (say 30) from my 9mm with (2) 15 round mags than lots of folks with a "high powered" rifle. (ie, 223, 306 308) Dropping the empty and inserting the fresh takes less than a second. The rifle with 30 rounds in the mag has much more recoil so the acuracy goes away for most people. I find I lose accuracy with the larger caliber handgun. (.40S&W)

            Anyone else notice:
            1) The "bad guy" knew in advance who the person with the gun was, went right for them.
            2) An anti-gun/political undertone the second time I watched it.
            3) How large the firearms were. No wonder they couldn't get it out of the holster. The experienced CCW people carry much smaller.

            The moral of the story...Train, practice, repeat....Train, practice repeat....


            • #7
              So what get outdoors is trying to say is along with limiting capacity we need to also eliminate quick change magazines and clips.

              Or course it sound anti to you.....


              • #8
                So the element of surprise is a big advantage. That's some cutting-edge investigative journalism there!

                Yeah, that was probably good TV -- good biased TV. Probably did a good job of getting the gun control folks riled up and the Second Amendment types p.o.'d. Pretty standard fare for media today.

                Anyone wanna bet how it would turn out if the NRA produced the video? They would probably find some statistic that most criminals are under the influence when they commit their crimes and make the shooter wear beer goggles. Or that their point is that EVERONE should be armed and give guns to the whole class -- come to think of it, that would be pretty entertaining. Oh, you don't think the NRA wouldn't spin it in their direction, do you?

                But all of that misses the point that very, very few murders are these sorts of scenarios. If this is what you're prepared for you should build an ark too. Most firearm deaths are suicides or crimes of passion in which the shooter and victim know each other. But but watching some drunk try to figure out the combination on a gun safe wouldn't make very good TV.


                • #9
                  So was the fellows in chardin, aurora, colombine or Newtown drunk or stoned?

                  Don't think so.


                  • #10
                    BD -- if you miss what you are shooting at as badly as you missed my point, you're wise not to carry a gun.


                    • #11
                      Gack. I'm thinkin' we need a paragraph on every post sayin' "this is what I'm trying to address."

                      TwoCubDad, I think BD's point is that da NRA and folks here have proposed armed (CCW) college students or others as solutions to the spree-killing problem. Da ABC report attempts to evaluate that solution by taking college students through a median required course on pistol use/safety for concealed carry, and then observes how they perform against a prepared gunman in a surprise.

                      Do any of us who have ever fired a firearm doubt that such folks are not goin' to be successful in such a scenario?

                      In that way, I reckon da results are accurate enough, eh? I agree it's not research so much as an illustration of some of da issues, but it does illustrate that as a solution to being surprised by a premeditated spree killer, individual armed citizens with typical levels of training & proficiency are likely to just get themselves killed.

                      You're right that such mass killings are very rare, and other things like eating your gun, shooting your family and such merit far more attention. But that's a different thing, eh?



                      • #12
                        How about enforcing the 47,000 current gun laws on the books? I know for a fact that the mandatory 5 years for a gun crime is the first charge thrown out. Also there are many states that don't report those who are disqualified under federal law due to mental illness


                        So if the Pres wants to start issuing exec. orders maybe he can start with these two suggestions. Make the states report those who have been legally established as being mentally ill and have the feds prosecute more gun crimes.


                        • #13
                          I don't think an armed teacher is going to defeat a spree shooter at the front door.

                          After hearing gunshots in the hall (probably the shooter taking out the armed security guard), a teacher with only average gun skills should
                          1- Lock the door,
                          2- herd her students into the corner most out of the line of fire,
                          3- retrieve her pistol,
                          4- flip a sturdy desk over for cover
                          5- wait. (Calmly. Don't shoot the janitor coming in to apologize for dropping light bulbs...)

                          If you have teachers with more training and confidence:
                          1- retrieve weapon
                          2- don the brightly colored over-garment that marks them as armed teachers. (selected in advance in conjunction with the local PD)
                          3- move to the rendezvous point to pair up with another teacher
                          4- cover and advance toward the sound of gunfire.
                          5- after neutralizing any threat, cover and advance to clear the building of any additional shooters.

                          6- Call the media. Broadcast to the world that schools are no longer free-fire zones. When psychos learn that school teachers are waiting for them with plans and weapons, potential shooters will direct their evil at softer targets.
                          Maybe churches...


                          • #14
                            Yah, I don't have trouble with most of that, JoeBob. If yeh have teachers who have da training of LEOs and who drill together regularly according to a plan, that to my mind is da same as teachers who have training as an EMT who respond using their training to an injury on campus. But they have to stay licensed and current, and their firearm/med kit has to be somewhere students neither have access nor temptation to access.



                            • #15
                              I'm not opposed to the idea of arming teachers or staff, but agree that they need to be specifically designated, known to local law enforcement and train regularly them, and demonstrate equivalent proficiency. Ideally these might be former military, reserve or national guard personnel.

                              However, this should be considered the last line of defense. At the point you have armed educators responding to a shooter you have someone in the school with a weapon with intent to do harm. We need to look at policies, legislation and programs that makes this scenario much more difficult to even contemplate. This means doing a better job of identifying people that should not have access to firearms, and developing systems to limit their access.


                              (This message has been edited by scoutingagain)


                              • King Ding Dong
                                King Ding Dong commented
                                Editing a comment
                                We can start with, if you are the butt of a Jeff Foxworthy routine....