Va. Tech shooting survivor at heart of HBO documentary

[Hoopla Phil]

I'm going to go straight to the comments section on this article:

Posted By: JJSwiontek
Report Abuse


"The film shows an exercise done by ABC's 20/20, in which armed, trained students were unable to respond to a sudden intruder."

Not quite... The ABC's 20/20 sham showed trained SWAT shooters (using paintball guns) entering a classroom where 1 untrained student (also armed with a paintball gun) was sitting with a bunch of 20/20 extras. The SWAT shooters knew who the student was and exactly where he was sitting in the room. The extras knew what was about to happen. Only the student didn't know the SWAT shooters were coming in.
The SWAT shooters burst into the room; the extras, on cue, get out of the way of the shooters and away from the target student; and the SWAT shooters open fire on the unsuspecting student. The unprepared student tries, in vein, to draw his paintball gun and and fire back.

http://www.dailymail.com/Entertainment/201104120998

It looks like this is going to be just another anti-gun hit peace dressed up to look "fair and balanced" Reminds me of a news organization. . .

[villager]

1. NRA informed you it was a sham, did they?

Thanks for dutifully passing that along...

[Hoopla Phil]

4. Did the Brady bunch tell you how to respond?

Thanks for not addressing the issue but trying to deflect - very poorly played as it was.

[cleanhippie]

5. Hey look, a parrot.

[RSillsbee]

26. Any one who watched it knew it was a sham

The episode in question was called “If I only had a gun”. It was an obvious hit piece from the start. The “victim” was giving minimal familiarization w/ a simunition GLOCK then dressed in a T – shirt three times too big, issued a crappy holster and made to wear BMX gloves than stuck in room full of actors always in the exact same seat.

Every time the SWAT guy burst into the room they took one shot at the "professor" and immediately went after the 'victim". All the extras in the set did everything they could to get in the victims way as soon as the "shooting" started. What people don't note is that a couple of the "victims" actually got shots off and hit the "shooter".

The day after the piece aired the ABC website was flooded w/ negative comments such that they had to close commenting on the article.

[Pullo]

2. Barbara Kopple worked with the Brady's when putting this together

I'm not expecting much from this.

[rl6214]

3. Wasn't this one shown a while back

Only problem here is that they are running a senario on a single class. Have them run it exactly the same way Cho did it. Chain the doors, have him go from room to room shooting and reloading as he goes. I think we can be pretty sure that some of the initial students the shooter fires at are going to get hit and die. I think we can also be pretty sure that students in other classrooms, as they hear the shooter coming down the hall are going to barricade themselves and take up defensive positions to shoot the assailant as he comes through the door. I think we can also be pretty sure that 32 people won't die.

[Hoopla Phil]

6. All valid points. The fact is,

The scenario was set up for the CHL student to fail. It's just that simple. This was no different than setting up model rocket engines to insure that a side impact of a truck results in a fire.

[rl6214]

8. "The scenario was set up for the CHL student to fail"

Agreed 100%

[Glassunion]

24. No... Nhhhoooooo!

This was no different than setting up model rocket engines to insure that a side impact of a truck results in a fire.

Never happened. Case closed... The media will never do that. NEVAR!!!

[cleanhippie]

7. +1. But reality does not affect the anti-gun mind at all.

[sharesunited]

9. The point is Not Safer By Adding Guns. Only Safer By Subtracting Guns. Or Subtracting Ammo.

[PavePusher]

10. If you are talking about From The Criminal, then yes.

Otherwise, you merely create more potential victims.

Keep up the good work.

[sharesunited]

11. Fewer guns and less ammo will affect everyone for the common good.

[PavePusher]

12. Again, Criminals first.

Let us know how that works out, eh?

[sharesunited]

13. Again, the easier the access to guns and ammo, the more plentiful in the hands of criminals.

The hydraulics of floodwater.

[Hoopla Phil]

16. Please show how criminals get their guns legally through our system.

[sharesunited]

18. Huh? They're criminals. Their access is limited only by availability.

You're advocating that abundance of guns and ammo is helpful.

I'm advocating that abundance is harmful and scarcity is beneficial.

Gradually decreased availability for one and all is the way to proceed.

[Hoopla Phil]

19. Yet what you advocate has not been proven to work.

I'm am advocating the the lawful use and ownership of firearms as the most affective means of self defense and a basic civil right. Please provide evidence that your position is correct. And please do not cite the thoroughly discredited Keller study. lol.

So, if a handgun is not an affective tool for self defense, why do police carry them?

[sharesunited]

22. Now you're advocating that their effectiveness makes the harm they cause acceptable?

It's all worth it?

[Hoopla Phil]

48. I'm saying that the legal use far outweighs their illegal use. Again you

fail to back up your assertions with any facts or figures.

[Hoopla Phil]

49. Yup, they are criminals and laws will not stop them. Even if they steal them

from police.

I am advocating that lawful ownership and lawful use is helpful.

Gradually decreasing the availability for one and all is only a prescription for the week, elderly and infirm to become victims, and is NOT the way to proceed.

[one-eyed fat man]

100. You mean like England?

Where the yobs and yardies have to import their guns from former Soviet republics? Drugs coming in from the Hindu kush for centuries and smugglers can't figure out guns?

Lithuanian vet who put hundreds of guns on the streets of London and Manchester

[Hoopla Phil]

101. Humm, interesting article. Thank you for the contribution. n/t

[Katya Mullethov]

23. That is called a "CI" or........ "Confidential Informant "

And they are always part of a "long running investigation" which will normally run for at least a year .....unless of course , someone's ass in a wringer .

[Hoopla Phil]

50. "unless of course , someone's ass in a wringer . "

In which case, of course, it will run for MUCH longer. Citation to the current "gun walker" scandal.

[oneshooter]

33. Have you finished talking to Mexico and Canada? When are they

going to send their Army's across the USA to confiscate our firearms?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoopla Phil]

15. Fewer illegal guns yes. Please point to me where legal concealed campus carry has

been a problem on any of the campuses that allow it.

And on a side note, how do YOU propose to keep illegal guns off campuses without violating students civil rights.

[rl6214]

25. when you can ensure that every gun has been taken from every criminal

Then maybe you have a point. But that's never going to happen.

[Hoopla Phil]

14. Yes, those no guns signs worked so well didn't they.

The POINT is that legal guns on campus is not a problem. The POINT is that illegal guns are the problem - and there is no legal way to keep them off of campuses.

Please point to me a single problem of legal concealed carry on any of the campuses that allow it.

[sharesunited]

17. Legal versus illegal guns is a red herring debate. The issue is Fewer versus More.

Make 'em scarce.

[Hoopla Phil]

20. It is not a red herring. It is just what you do not wish to address as your

position losses credibility on that point so you do not wish to address it. Please show how less guns equals less crime? Especially in light that we currently have more people carrying concealed across the US of A and violent crime is at an all time low. It would seem on that fact that more guns equals less crime. (I do not claim such a correlation/causation but that IS how the numbers line up)

[one-eyed fat man]

30. What about the distribution?

You carelessly or perhaps deliberately ignore the problem of the distribution of a scarce resource.

Makes guns as scarce as you wish, totally illegal except for the police.

If anyone has a gun that is not a policeman, they are a criminal.

People who are by nature risk averse, timid, weak, or infirm do not undertake careers involving confrontation and physical violence like robbery. If they risk averse, they are also unlikely to also break the law and have an illegal gun.

According to some figures, law enforcement is under 1% of the population. Career criminals make up about 6% of the population and account for 75% of the violent crime.

If crooks outnumber cops 6 to 1 then if you encounter an armed individual chances are six times more likely they mean you no good, and that's assuming the all cops are not crooks.

Regardless, you are 100% defenseless, completely at the mercy of whatever psychopathic whim the criminal has enter his mind, unless he commits the crime in front of a cop who deigns to intervene.

Far-fetched?

Watch a room full of pre-schoolers fight over the "cool toys." Absent the intervention of some "power on high," the bullies and the bastards wind up with the best stuff. Firearms are what allowed those who were not in the warrior and ruling class to inflict democracy on those who'd been in charge since man dwelled in caves and settled his disputes with pointy sticks, sharp rocks and muscle.

[spin]

29. If you post your idea one million times, do you think people will

suddenly agree with you on the next post?

It's a nice idea but what you always ignore is that there are 300 million firearms in this nation and there is no magic wand or spell that you can wave or invoke that will make them disappear overnight.

You could pass a law that would ban and confiscate firearms and at the best there probably would be 100 million firearms coated with cosmoline and buried in PVC pipes along with large quantities of ammunition and another 100 million firearms that were never turned in along with a large number of people who would be willing to shoot it out with whatever Gestapo force you would send house to house.

Of course, the criminal element would laugh at the new law and immediately begin smuggling firearms into the nation and selling them on the street corners along with the drugs that are already banned.

It may be unfortunate, but firearms and ammo are and will continue to be a fact of live in our nation.

Firearms in the wrong hands cause tragedy. Some who suffer from serious mental issues hope to lash back at society by finding a place where they can go amok and kill a large number of people. A unarmed college campus attracts such individuals like a bee hive attracts a bear. Future mass murderers are fascinated by the 24/7 news coverage and start to fantasize about how they could rack up a higher score of kills.

The solution is to allow licensed citizens to carry firearms on college campuses just as they do outside the campus. The college would no longer be viewed as a duck shooting gallery to some insane person.

[YllwFvr]

21. I remember seeing the 20/20 episode when it came out

You can still find it on youtube. Nearly all the comments show they know its bull. Gloves, over-large shirts... The whole situation is, as others here already said, designed to have the student fail.

That they expect anyone to fall for it is truly astounding. I was truly hoping for an unbiased report. Maybe some day. I know some officers who did active shooter scenarios with sim rounds in a school. It didnt go very well.

[RSillsbee]

27. I looked all over youtube and couldn't find it

ABC got that crap off the air as soon as they could

[YllwFvr]

38. Ill take a look on my breaks in class

If I find it I'll give the link. I watched it again like half a year ago

[YllwFvr]

44. you are right

I intended to favorite the video if I found it again, but I cant find it anywhere, even through a google search.

[PavePusher]

47. I looked for it last night and couldn't find it.

Revisionism, it works, eh?

[Euromutt]

56. I had the links, but it says "This video has been removed by the user."

I'd say your assessment of ABC's actions is spot-on.

[Hoopla Phil]

51. Would you mind please,

giving some more info from your active shooter scenarios?

[lawodevolution]

28. Not surprising being that lies, deception and the spread of ignorance and the death and injury of

Others benefit the Brady campaign and VPC. Only the dirtbags remain members of and part of those groups.

[Hoopla Phil]

52. There really are no members of the VPC and Brady Bunch.

All their money comes from the Joice Foundation.

[Glassunion]

31. Fair and balanced.

With an agenda..

[MyrnaLoy]

32. want a real life example?

Two armed policed officers on the west side of Washington eating, shooter comes in and kills them both. What is it you don't understand about trying to pull a gun on someone who already has a gun in hand?

[PavePusher]

34. It does happen. You can look it up... if you want to.

But no-one here has ever claimed or even implied that a gun is 100% protection 100% of the time.

Unless, of course, you can cite to where someone has....

[Straw Man]

36. Real life can play out in any number of ways...

...but feel free to keep cherry-picking if it gives you that special glow.

[Big Al Mac]

39. Check your facts before you post

You'll look less like an idiot.

It was FOUR police officers, in Tacoma. I guess you can call Tacoma west side Washington but I wouldn't.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-29/justice/washington.police.shooting_1_police-officers-ed-troyer-lakewood-police?_s=PM:CRIME

[MyrnaLoy]

102. thanks

for reinforcing my argument. So now we know 4 armed officers couldn't stop one gunman who had his weapon drawn.

[Hoopla Phil]

53. I'd respond with real facts and figures but that seems to have already happened.

My thanks to those that understand what, and why, the 2A is there.

[Glassunion]

35. So... How do we open up NICS to private sales,

without violating anyone's privacy or other rights? How do we prevent abuse of the system?

[Blown330]

37. You can't.

Gov't can't even get reliable access to those already required to use it. Simply not feasible or enforceable.

[Hoopla Phil]

57. I don't think we can, nor do I think it is a problem that has shown.

The whole FFL thing is allowed by the interstate commerce clause. Take away the interstate commerce from the equation then the Federal authority also goes away. Many, if not all, acts of atrocity with firearms have been preceded by other acts that should have disqualified a person from owning/purchasing a firearm.

Take the latest event - the Lochner incident for example. This person had multiple encounters with the police and showed clear evidence that he was "unstable". HOWEVER! The sheriff failed to exercises do diligence (IMHO) and did not put him into/through the system. Perhaps it was do to the fact that his (Lochner's) mother was a county employee and may have had a personal relationship with the sheriff. "Professional courtesy" don't ya know. . .

[Hoyt]

40. Doesn't take much thought to realize most gunners are ill equipped to respond- despite their beliefs

Hours shooting paper targets and practicing fast draw don't mean squat when something happens that is over in a few seconds.

[rl6214]

42. Then you admit then that police are even less prepared

to handle a situation because they don't even spend hours shooting at targets since they only shoot once a year during qualification.

I will admit though that the police ARE well equipped to respond because that's all they do is respond. They don't Serve and PROTECT, they respond after the event is over, write a report and maybe clean up the mess.

[Hoyt]

43. Actually, having known number of policemen and private gunners, police are infinitely more prepared

and responsible. But thanks for asking -- for the 10 millionth time -- another trite pro-gunner rationale for arming the public.

[PavePusher]

45. Prepared, how?

Should we all walk around expecting to be imminently attacked at all times? I thought that's what you keep saying we don't need to do.

Now I'm confused....

[Hoyt]

55. Maybe I should have made it simpler for you Pave. Police are better prepared.

Confusion among gun carriers is bad. Get disoriented and you might shoot an innocent person. Not sure you guys care, as long as you can pat your gun when you get pass a bunch of trees where the muggers are supposed to hide.

[Hoopla Phil]

58. With all the right to carry states I'm sure you can cite to evidence.

Can't you?

[Hoyt]

60. What evidence? You carriers fear there is a mugger behind every tree, not me.

Your fear is unfounded, as is your belief your gun is going to help you in the unlikely event someone sticks a gun to your head.

Or are you asking for evidence police are better prepared? Let me say this, too many of you guys think your training shooting paper targets and practicing fast draw in front of a mirror is going to do you a bit of good. My favorite, was the toter who described his dodge and shoot training -- wow, that'll work well in a crowd of innocent people. Most of you, in the unlikely event a situation ever arises, will be slinking away afterwards so that no one knows you had a gun, but couldn't do a dang thing while some unarmed, sick old lady jumped on the perp (like Loughner and other recent accounts).

[rl6214]

67. Again with the unfounded BS

"you guys think your training shooting paper targets and practicing fast draw in front of a mirror"

Did you find this in a Dick Tracy comic book once? Surely if not you can cite where you found this gem from.

[Hoopla Phil]

69. That's about all the prohibitionist's have. Unfounded and uncited allegations.

That is why they are loosing the debate - along with the court known as "public opinion".

[Katya Mullethov]

73. But it'll lead to harder stuff .

[Hoopla Phil]

68. LOL, I'll take that as a "no" that you cannot cite any evidence for your position.

But nice inflammatory remark though. Care to try again on that "evidence" thing?

[Hoopla Phil]

89. Still waiting on how campus carry is a problem on the campuses that allow it.

Surely you can come up with something other that rhetoric. LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!

Yup

































































































I sure am!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rl6214]

66. "Confusion among gun carriers is bad"

Which oraface did you pull this one out of? Again you are posting a steaming pile of BS followed by a bigger pile of BS in the form of a veiled insult.

You really can't be so stupid to believe any of the crap that you spew, can you?

[rl6214]

65. You didn't address anything I said

all you did was make a false statement with nothing to back it up.

Cops shoot 100rounds a year for qualifying, most that are into recreational and competitive shooting fire 1000s of rounds a year. You tell me who is better qualified to handle a firearm. Be truthfull if you can.

[Euromutt]

54. It sure as fuck didn't take any thought on your part

That's what you want to believe, that's what you keep telling yourself, and hey presto, that's what you "realize"! You don't even get as far as confirmation bias, because you had your mind way before you even got to examining evidence.

[Hoyt]

61. So you think you are a prepared cowboy? -- You've cleaned your gun almost daily, shot hundreds of

paper targets, read American Rifleman, watched video, bought all the latest fad accessories and loads, know all the laws for packing across country, etc. And I guess you are prepared to look at things objectively and then lay your guns down. I doubt it.

[Euromutt]

63. I don't know whether I'm prepared; but I do know one thing

Which is that you are no more in a position to know whether or not I am than I myself am. And given that you don't know what I've actually done to prepare myself (hint: there's no benefit to cleaning a gun that hasn't been fired, for a start) you're actually in a much worse position.

And you're going to be have to be more explicit as to what I'd presumably see if I were "prepared to look at things objectively." If you mean I'd see things your way, I for my part doubt that, since there's nothing objective about your point of view. As I say, you made up your mind so long ago that you don't even need confirmation bias to tell yourself you're right.

[one-eyed fat man]

74. You are only half right.

There is a reason the military practices combat drills. You hammer a sequence until it is a Pavlovian response. Tank crew, infantry squad, fire team, or individual there is a drill to cover the tactical problem.

Despite relentless practice, it is not until you are personally engaged in direct, face-to-face combat with a live opponent who is actively trying to kill you do you know how you or anyone will react. With luck, the incessant practice pays off and you are left standing.

Heraclitus of Ephesus had this to say 2600 years ago.

"Of every 100 men, 10 shouldn't even be there, 80 are nothing but targets, nine are real fighters... We are lucky to have them...

They make the battle. Ah, but the One, One of them is a Warrior... and He will bring the others back."

There is nothing, in 26 centuries of warfare since, to substantially change that distribution. Equipment and weaponry may change, but soldiers do not. The observations of those who have never "seen the elephant" don't impress me much.

In a firefight, there are those who will be able to calmly return effective fire and those who will freeze. In between, there will be those who fire reflexively in the general direction of the enemy. No one knows where on that continuum they will be until it happens. But preparation and practice tip the scale, like playing the piano.

[oneshooter]

79. +100 n/t

[Hoyt]

82. Yep, but one-eyed this ain't the Army. The're consequences if u screwup that don't exist inmilitary.

Plus, usually it's you and a few others laying down a barrage of fire. If you mess your pants, maybe one of the other guys will fill the void. Plus, you just spray bullets everywhere. Hope to fruck you guys ain't planning on that, but it sure sounds like it sometimes. In any event, it ain't like that with anything you guys are likely to run into unless one is planning a revolution.

I do enjoy your historical narrative.

[Hoopla Phil]

86. Please see my post number 85. Thank you.

[Hoopla Phil]

85. You have an interesting post. One that I'd like to remark on in my real life experience.

Back in 95 when Texas got it's concealed carry law I took several "personal protection" classes. Some dealt with hand to hand and some dealt with using firearms. In one firearms class I came upon a very personal educational experience.

You see, I had been a competitor in USPSA/IPSC for a number of years when the Texas CHL law went into affect and I wanted to be prepared and educated for when/if I should ever have to use my tool of last resort. So, in this class we were faced with an array of opponents down rang (targets). When the instructor's buzzer went off we were supposed to draw and go to the "low ready" position. With all my IPSC (USPSA) participation I was unable to do this. EVERY time the buzzer went off I instinctively drew my .45, aimed at center mass, and pulled the trigger - I just couldn't help myself no matter. It actually became quite comical as every time the buzzer went off there was that unmistakable "click" of my "fireing" my .45 officers ACP.

In the end I learned much more from that class than what was advertised. I simply do not have the option of drawing my firearm in an effort to intimidate or scare my advisory, because if I should draw my firearm in a life or death situation it WILL go "bang".

I'm glad I took that class. If for no other reason, I learned that I MUST leave my firearm holstered until the last possible moment.

[Hoyt]

94. Suspect folks that carry have "last possible moment" much quicker than one not practicing that chit.

I swear, anyone that goes through that much "education" on being prepared to shoot someone, is likely to make the judge/jury/executioner's decision too soon.

[one-eyed fat man]

95. You sure seem

to want to have it both ways.

First, you whine concealed carry holders don't have enough training. Then you complain they have too much training and are too ready to shoot.

You can't even correctly frame the dilemma.

First, the 'easy part' is learning to shoot. It is a motor skill, like playing the piano. Good technique and practice and most folks can get passable. Some no better than to play Happy Birthday at a kid's party while an exceptional few are good enough for Carnegie Hall.

The tougher part is the decision to shoot or not. The rules of engagement. You absolutely have to know the law. For the most part, in a self defense situation, the situation is not rife with ambiguity. I suspect if you were accosted by some guy with a knife and he demanded your wallet you would not assume you were in a credit card commercial. Even you might assume a crime is being committed, and not only that you could figure out which one of you was the assailant and which one was the victim. Even you would be unlikely to shoot the wrong person.

Now what are your options, aside from shitting your pants?

You could acquiesce and hope he leaves. You can run and hope he can't catch you. You can resist. Is your decision to resist based on whether or not you have a weapon at hand? Or is your decision based on your judgment that regardless of what you do your assailant intends to cause you life-threatening bodily harm?

If you figure he is going to stab you anyway, what do you have to lose by going for your weapon? If and when you make the decision to shoot, the rest is reflexive.

The will to fight. You make much of the old lady who grabbed Loughner's gun. The old retired colonel who pinned him. Remember it was the 86 year old Holocaust survivor who, at the cost of his life, took ACTION to stop Cho at Va Tech. Many of the victims, in their 20's, young and fit meekly waited their turn to be shot. There's a good question. Why did they not resist when faced with certainty of getting shot?

As for your assessment of ground combat operations, it is apparent your first-hand experience has been limited to watching too many A-team reruns. Maybe you know, do draft dodgers hold reunions in Canada? Or, are you of post-draft age and simply believe military service is for the untermenschen?

The urban fight, in particular, is up-close, in physical contact with the enemy, amidst a population of non-combatants. You want to have a nice nerve-wracking exercise run a building clearing drill force on force with simunitions. Figuring out who is who and engaging all the insurgents while managing to avoid hitting the innocents or each other. Then know that are soldiers who have been doing that, on an almost daily basis, for REAL over three or four combat tours for the past 10 years.

That's the last part of the problem is dealing with the aftermath. Even if there is no question that it was clearly justifiable self-defense the repercussions will be life changing. Any blather from anyone who has not been in a life or death fight and survived is just that.

[Hoopla Phil]

97. And your ignorance is back on full display again. You know not

of what you speak, but for some reason wish everyone to know it.

[Hoyt]

41. I think video of Goddard should be additional requirement for purchasing a gun or getting a permit.

The most important point he makes is that the cowboys out there need to realize there ain't much you can do in these situations notwithstanding one's pipe/macho-dreams of being a hero.

[PavePusher]

46. "...there ain't much you can do...."

Absolute bullshit, as I'm sure you know.

[Hoyt]

62. That's right Pave, situations don't occur at 20 yards. In the unlikely event a situation occurs, a

gun is stuck in your stomach before you realize anything is going on. Or, do you draw when your stereotype of a criminal approaches a quarter mile down the road?

[Hoopla Phil]

70. Hum, the ignorance is strong with this one.

Have you ever heard of something called situational awareness?

[Hoyt]

76. What are you going to do, shoot a guy that looks like a robber at 25 paces?

What happens in the likely event you are wrong?

I'm very situationally aware -- that's one reason I don't feel the need to carry a gun. Another reason is that I am rational about the risks. If I'm in a potentially bad area/situation, I'll walk down the middle of the street with a brick if I have to -- which is not often.

[Hoopla Phil]

83. LOL, funny post.

You want to propose that a person can stick a gun in a persons stomach but also claim that a person that is "situationally aware" would not see this coming. Very funny post.

[Hoyt]

84. Yes, they will be on you before you know it. If you were "situationally aware" you'd know that.

Unless you are saying that if a certain type person is walking toward you or behind you (with out a weapon), you are going to pull your piece.

[Hoopla Phil]

87. LMFAO!!! "Yes, they will be on you before you know it."

Not if you were situationally aware. You really do crack me up sometimes.

[Hoyt]

93. Ah, everyone must be a suspect in your mind. No wonder you carry. No wonder why you shouldn't.

[Hoopla Phil]

96. Still classy there. When loosing the debate shift to personal insults.

[cleanhippie]

98. Thats his M.O. He knows know other way.

[oneshooter]

99. That is because he has no facts. n/t

[Euromutt]

64. Self-justification on Goddard's part

Seems to me that Goddard wants that to be true, because he doesn't want to accept that by following Virginia Tech's regulations, he allowed himself to be deprived of the means to do something. Much easier to say "well, even if I'd been armed, there wouldn't have been much I could do anyway."

[Katya Mullethov]

72. " Ah- Yep...... I had to lay her down "

" And thus skillfully avoided crashing " .

[Hoyt]

77. Bash the victim. Since you have no experience, how do you know? Shoot, you carry a gun.

Sounds like you are "self-justifying."

[rl6214]

75. Holy shit, Cho chained the doors shut and methodically

walked down the hall stepping into rooms and shooting people. It was like fish in a barrel. Had there been an armed student in just one of the rooms they could have barracaded the door and set up a defensive position so that when Cho walked into the room he could have been gunned down. Instead all they could do was hide under their desks and hope that he would not see them or that he would have mercy on them. That's not being a cowboy or some macho dream of being a hero, it's common sense.

[Hoyt]

78. A cowboy's pipe dream.

[rl6214]

80. Only someone that is sick would consider that a pipe dream

or even come up with the thought.

You have sick thoughts. Your type revells in the thought of all those victims while RKBAs advocate anguish in the thought that is didn't need to happen and could have been stopped.

[Hoyt]

81. You think most gunners could respond properly in situations like that -- Nope, but dream on.

Hence Pipe Dream. Plus, the last thing we need is a bunch of over-confident cowboys running around ready to "dodge and shoot" as one of you guys described it. Makes me think of a supposed fast-draw-artist I saw who shot himself in the leg while drawing. Be careful.

Leave your guns at home if you have such "sick thoughts" dreaming of being prepared for such a situation.

[Hoopla Phil]

90. I take it that you have not read Suzanna Hupp's book?

You might want to do that.

[rl6214]

91. Either you didn't read what I wrote, didn't understand

or don't care because nothing I wrote in any way gave any narrative like yours of the "r-confident cowboys running around ready to "dodge and shoot". A little reading comprehension on your part would be great, just don't add your ad-lib wannabe heros into it. Yours are the fantasies, you won't see anyone here posting them but you. Talk about sick thoughts, just as show about you in the other post.

[Euromutt]

59. I'll report what I said about the ABC piece a while back

ABC removed the YouTube videos of the classroom shooter "experiment" but my assessment follows below. I originally posted it here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=214463&mesg_id=231716


What an utter load of bilge from start to finish!

A number of the obvious points have already been addressed (please note I'm using masculine pronouns for general purpose throughout):
First, the armed student was always seated in the same place, and the shooter always went for the armed student immediately after shooting the instructor.
The student was also seated in just about the worst possible spot, right in the middle of the front row, with minimal room to maneuver. And how plausible do we think it is that an active shooter is going to know in advance who is going to be armed in a classroom? So that stacks the deck right there.
Second, the students were assigned sub-optimal clothing and equipment and inadequately instructed how to use it.
In spite of otohara's whinge above, this is far from trivial. Anyone who's actually tried to carry a large-caliber firearm on an unstiffened belt (and I have) soon discovers that the holstered gun flops all over the place, gets tangled up in clothing, and risks being exposed; at that point, said person decides to invest in a dedicated gun belt. And that's before he even tries to draw the weapon. Like spin, I wear a reinforced belt from The Wilderness, only I wear the metal-free "Frequent Flyer" model (http://store.thewilderness.com/product_info.php?cPath=43&products_id=196); and yes, I wear it almost all the time.
Positioning the holster for a comfortable draw is also something that the carrier has to decide for himself; you cannot have someone else put a holster on you and expect it work correctly for you. In this instance, the firearms instructors even appear to be deliberately placing the holsters badly, so far forward (at the two o'clock position) that it's guaranteed to make the draw more difficult than it needs to be.
The oversize white t-shirts given to the students are a pretty lousy choice for concealed carry as well; difficult to get out of the way, while being the perfect color and material for the gun to "print." No CCWer worth his salt would be likely to even wear such a shirt as a cover garment, but if he did, he'd at least practice sweeping it clear of the holster, which I don't see anyone doing in the video.
Next, gloves. As spin has pointed out, requiring gloves during the exercise made sense from a safety perspective, but if so, the test subjects should have been required to practice using the gun while wearing them. See anyone in the video wearing gloves during preliminary training? Me neither.
In combination, this stacks the deck even further.

Then I have some more criticisms:
Multiple shooters enter the room.
Very, very few school, mall or workplace mass shootings have involved more than one shooter; Columbine and Westside Middle School (in Jonesboro, AR) are the only two I can think of. It's not inconceivable, but it's highly unlikely; something Sawyer blithely glossed over.
Shooter has a accomplice pre-positioned in the room.
This has never happened in a school, mall or workplace shooting. It is a very real risk in armed robberies of stores or banks, but highly implausible in classrooms. And in robberies, they perpetrators typically don't start shooting people the moment they walk in the door (killing someone in the course of an armed robbery is an automatic first-degree murder charge for everyone involved). Whatever useful lesson about tunnel vision might be contained in this segment is drowned out by the overwhelming impression that the real reason this variable was introduced was to cause the one student who was most likely to perform effectively--in spite of the stacked deck--to also fail.

Like our other students, Jason makes mistakes, failing to take cover. Though he hits the intruder, it's not before he takes a hit in the chest.

Emphasis mine. <Explanatory note due to video being taken down: the shot that hit Jason came from the accomplice, not the intruder. In other words, in spite of the deck being stacked against him, Jason defeated the primary shooter. Sawyer blithely handwaves this fact away.>
Slanted debriefings
Note the students are debriefed immediately after they've been pwned, and in a condition of shock and embarrassment; and, crucially, before they've had a chance to realize that the game was fixed.

INTERVIEWER: Was it realistic?
DANIELLE: It was very realistic, yeah. My heart's still pounding.

How would she know? Given the frequency of incidents in which a professional police firearms instructor goes on a shooting spree and unerringly homes in on the one person in the room with a firearm (i.e. never), ignoring all the other potential victims, I wouldn't call this "realistic." A game of paintball gets my heart pounding, but that doesn't make it a realistic simulation of small unit combat.
Emphasizing the test subjects' "failure to take cover"
Cover is anything that will stop incoming fire, and the students don't have any available; that paneling at the front may stop a Simunition FX round, but it won't stop a 9mm. At best the students have concealment, but if you can't hide yourself completely, it's useless, and it would be a mistake to rely on it. It would be an even greater mistake to compromise your effectiveness trying to stay behind a piece of paneling that isn't going to protect you from real bullets.
(Somehow, I have a sneaking suspicion that if any of the test subjects had made effective use of concealment, the shooter would have emptied his mag at the paneling and the test subject would have been declared "dead" because real bullets would have penetrated it. Heads, I win; tails, you lose.)
Looking at the video, moreover, it looks to me like the tendency of the test subjects to stand is the effect of their ill-fitted holsters; they need to stand to even be able to "clear leather."
Biased statements about training.

SAWYER: And you should know that our basic course is already more hands-on training than almost half the states in the country require to carry a concealed weapon.

Implication: a large number--possibly a majority--of CCWers have next to no training in the use of the weapons they carry. However, in actual fact, the amount of training required to get a CCW permit is not a reflection of much training a permit holder chooses to get. There are firearms training instructors all over the U.S. from the big names like Massad Ayoob's Lethal Force Institute, Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, and the Firearms Academy of Seattle, to current and former LEOs running training courses at every gun shop with an indoor range. There are two within half an hour's drive from my house. The fact that they stay in business is a good indication that somebody is getting more training than the law requires.
Oh, the kicker? The big schools typically require you to have a CCW permit before they let you take a class (certainly their more advanced classes). Why? Because it shows you've undergone a federal background check, don't have any felony convictions, and the FBI has your fingerprints. In other words, it's as good a guarantee as they can get that they're not providing training to career criminals.

POLICE INSTRUCTOR: Even police officers, through extensive training--if you don't continue with your training, ongoing training, it's a perishable skill. You'll lose it.
SAWYER: How long before you're going to lose it, even at your level of training?
INSTRUCTOR: If you go for a month to two months without training, you'll lose it.

Given that the national norm for a patrol officer consists of the training necessary to pass semiannual requalification, this would imply that a large number of American patrol officers and detectives are going about their duties with, in effect, no firearm skills for at least eight months of every year.
And how much training do we think the shooter will have, huh? Almost every mass shooting in recent years took place in an environment where nobody was able to return fire. Why should the typical spree shooter (as opposed to a police firearms instructor) keep his shit together when someone starts shooting back?
Overplaying the shooter's performance; underplaying the students'.
A persistent feature is the evaluation of the test subjects' performance only in terms of averting harm to themselves by use of the firearm without looking at the benefit to others present. Time after time, when the shooter homes in on the test subject, he ignores the rest of the class, allowing the majority of them manage to escape unharmed. Even if (and that's a big "if") the only effect a CCWing student has is to make himself a target and draw the shooter's fire, if in doing so he facilitates his classmates' escape, that's a net benefit.
Also, the effect of students' hits is downplayed; for example, the leg wound inflicted by Danielle would at the very least slow the shooter down, hampering his ability to rack up a body count before police arrived. At best, the shot might sever his femoral artery, which would really slow him down.
Unlike with Danielle and Ashley, no attention is given the location of Jason's hits on the shooter. Given the tendentiousness of the segment, I'm guessing that means they were in a location likely to stop the shooter. Okay, armed student takes two shots in the torso with likely incapacitating results, but if he's stopped the shooter, he's just saved a lot of people's lives, even if it is at the cost of his own.
It's emphasized that four of five of Ashley's shots don't hit the shooter. Not pointed out is that of the ten rounds the professional police instructor fired, four also went wide.

And while Ashley was firing at the intruder, she took six shots to the center of her body, including one to her abdomen.

Actually, I make it two shots to the center of mass; two more hit her abdomen (not guaranteed to incapacitate immediately), and the other two, well... they were grazes at worst, and one of them looked suspiciously like the Simunition bullet had snagged her oversize t-shirt and not impacted on her body.

I've belabored the point long enough, so I'll summarize: this piece was biased and tendentious, and was clearly made with the object to "show" that handguns are not an effective means of self-defense in spree shootings, even if the producers had to thoroughly stack the deck in the shooter's favor to achieve footage to illustrate that point. There were some useful bits of information hidden in the dross, but nothing you wouldn't get from a decent firearms training DVD, like the ones I have by Rob Pincus.

Parting shot: in part 1, check out Diane Sawyer at 6:13. She's waving the training weapon about with her finger on the trigger; I'd say she's violating at least three of Jeff Cooper's safety rules there, possibly four. Call me strange, but when somebody that incompetent with firearms tells me they're of no real use, I'm inclined to be skeptical, to put it mildly.

[Hoopla Phil]

71. Thank you for reposting this. It is an excellent critique of the original

"simulation". I find it very telling that the original youtube posts have been removed.

Again, thanks!


On edit: Why was the DU thread locked?

[Hoopla Phil]

88. This update needs another bump. n/t

[Logical]

92. How about we put Massad Ayoub as one of the students??? n-t