http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/defend-gun-7312540

"more serious"?

Not by much.

How often do people have time to prepare for mass shootings? Do you personally train every week for such situations? Or are you just fantasizing about your amazing reflexes and accuracy under extreme stress?

I am curious.

I think citing a test in which the participants were set up to fail, one in which the 'shooter' knows all who are 'armed', is well, meaningless.

But lets just cut to the chase shall we?

You're out and about, and a mass shooting unfolds before you, two floors below you in the building you're in.

Would you rather have a gun, or be unarmed?

I'd take 'armed' for 500 alex, how about you.

in fact, you're more likely to get struck by lightning. You are much more likely to shoot yourself with your own weapon.

Lets try this again:

You're out and about, and a mass shooting unfolds before you, two floors below you in the building you're in.

Would you rather have a gun, or be unarmed?

Its a simple hypothetical question, relevant to this discussion.

Care to actually answer it?

It's a hypothetical that is silly because it will never happen. Rather than shoot it out I would run or hide.

By the way, I actually own a 9mm Ruger. I may be good at perforating paper targets but I wouldn't want to get into a firefight with a loony. Unlike the movies, he or she might actually score a hit.

You anti-gun folks. Your behavior reminds me a lot of the behavior of professional athletes, and professional sports coaches, and 2 bit politicians.

For example:

Reporter to coach: "Coach, you lost one of your starting defensive tackles, and a starting defensive back, how difficult is it going to be with them out of the lineup?"

Coach answering reporter : "We have a system that works, like always were going to play hard and give it our best, I'm proud of my guys, but when two teams go out on the field only one can win."


It would be so refreshing, if one of you would give a direct answer to a direct question for a change.

You're out and about, and a mass shooting unfolds before you, two floors below you in the building you're in.

Would you rather have a gun, or be unarmed?

It is not ever going to happen.

I am a gun owner.

I compete regularly in IDPA matches.

Yes, I train every week or so - drawing smoothly, making sure my sights are on-target, and only then pulling the trigger. With practice, much practice, the speed comes from doing the same thing - correctly - over and over and over. As it's a competition both against a clock and other shooters, I have some confidence at being able to do so under stress.

Now as a matter of truthiness, I have to admit that my wife, who also competes in IDPA is faster on the draw to first-shot than I am...I'm quite alright with that.

in real life. Do you open carry at all times?

Last edited Fri Dec 25, 2015, 05:23 AM - Edit history (1)

Personally, I'm not a fan of open carry...though I've done so on occasion when travelling and that was the prescribed method for carry in the state I was in.

I pretty much do concealed carry at all times, unless prohibited by statute or ordinance - as does my wife.

The reviews back then shredded it for its inaccuracies and its design to fail the students.

liked the rigged scenario in post one, how is was this representative? The DS wasn't even remotely serious and set out to fail to make a partisan point.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/12/robert-farago/question-of-the-day-would-you-have-thrown-this-daily-show-reporter-off-the-gun-range/

I agree with Robert Farago, I would have thrown the jackass out.

See the link I posted. Despite the criticism, I think that is a very realistic test.

You think that a test in which the participants were dressed in overly baggy clothes rather than their own choice of attire, and where the participants were made to wear mechanix gloves by the 'test givers', and where the 'shooter' knew of each person who was armed and where they were sitting beforehand...

You think that's 'very realistic'?

Wow. Just wow.

John Fund has criticized the "magical thinking" of those who want gun free zones. The same appplies to people who think they will whip out their weapon and kill shooter who has the element of surprise.

Tell me more about "my fantasy", starting with a cite to where I expressed a desire of "saving the day".

While you're searching for something I've said in the past that you can kram within those parameters like a pile of unfolded clothes into a suitcase, pay no attention to any of the multiple posts by me that you might find in which I explain that I do not carry and have no desire to.

Your indignation is amusing.

You have my pity.

I will never recover from that one!

Keep on dreaming of glory.

... you would know that beevul doesn't carry. "Dreaming of glory"? Add another to your growing list of misconceptions.

as others have already explained. I know it is a humor show. I also know that there are people who think Jon Stewart was the second coming of Walter Cronkite.

The one where the "good guy" had to wear blinders and oven mitts, and the "bad guy" knew exactly who had the gun? Yeah, that's convincing ...

It seems the SWAT guys in that video (both in the exercise and elsewhere) were wearing the same oven mitts. I guess they don't find it too restrictive. Oh yeah, the SWAT teams also wear helmets and googles, balaclavas that are similar to the protective helmets worn by the people in the exercise.

The guy who bursts into the room is wearing tight-fitting gloves that appear to be leather. The "trainees" are wearing some kind of stiff, oversized gloves that were probably just given to them, since they are all wearing the same type. Watch them fumbling with their bag zippers, etc. Also, the "attacker" already has his gun drawn and his finger on the trigger; any awkwardness caused by gloves would be encountered in drawing the gun and getting one's finger in the trigger guard, something he has already done before entering the room.

Yes, SWAT teams wear helmets, goggles, and balaclavas. They also train with them extensively. The people in this "experiment" were wearing them for the first time. In a real classroom, an armed student would not be wearing any of that gear. No gloves, no helmet, no goggles, and none of the concomitant difficulty in gun handling.

The "armed students" have been placed front and center in the classroom, and the shooter has been prepped and knows exactly who they are. The shooters go for them immediately after shooting the instructor, despite there being no indication at this point that any of them are armed.

The assailant's gun is blue. "Blue guns" are plastic replicas that are used as training aids. The first thought that anyone in a firearms training classroom would have is that this was simply a vivid demonstration. This would inhibit a fast response. I'm betting that the armed students were never quite sure that an actual attack was in progress -- and in fact, it wasn't. Their first impulse on seeing the blue gun would have been correct: no threat here.

And despite all this, in the last one, Danielle lands what would have been a disabling shot -- a hit near the femoral artery that, with a hollowpoint bullet, would have caused massive bleeding and possibly have been fatal. She was hit multiple times, of course, and would have died too, but how many lives would she have saved?

This ABC video is nothing but hack propaganda. They don't deserve to be called journalists.

I could shoot down that guy who burst into the room...really I could!

Too many variables to predict anything like that. I hope to never be in a position to find out. I know that it can be done and it has been done.

I also know that the scenario presented by ABC TV is wholly unrealistic. I hope you're not basing your opinion on that poorly crafted exercise in manipulation.

I notice you didn't address any of the points I raised above. Why is that?

Beyond these obvious "set up to fail" examples they desperately need to feel good about their choices, they tend to hang on the idea that every gun owner is a "wannabe hero", that will piss their pants if anyone ever actually points a gun at them.

It never occurs to what passes for their brains, that a lot of the people that choose to carry have been shot at before ... and shot back in the military. They aren't all the classic "Bubbas" or "Bubbettes" our friends like to show when they post their "family album pictures in GD. They know what a bullet can do to them or to others and would prefer not to go through it all again, but they like the idea of at least having that choice.

Yes, they may piss their pants, they may get shot before they can get a shot off, or they may distract a "bad guy" just long enough for a few more people to escape. What they probably wont have to do is kneel or lie there while they put the gun to the back of their head and execute you, while you whimper for mercy when there is none.

Please, please don 't let me be whimpering for mercy!

On this thread alone you've told several people what they think, how they'll act and what they'll do.

Must be nice to be able to read minds over the interwebz. I've noticed all gun control fans think they are are capable of online mind reading.

Too bad they're all just too lazy to ever get off the couch and do anything in the real world. But maybe they can foresee that they wont ever get around to achieving any of their goals in the real world.

That must be why none of them even bother to try.

> First, Comedy Central isn't showing this as a PSA, the idea is to make money.
> Second, Comedy Central produces and distributes material that's funny.
> Third, humor that regular folks can relate to by common knowledge and/or everyday familiar topics holds the attention of the audience.

But, of course, any thing presented as facts there should be taken 100% seriously and adds to the wealth of knowledge and experience from which pro-control folks draw upon to form conclusions regarding gun-control and the RKBA.


I will say that because there are some actual facts conveyed, this is an improvement over a simple cartoon, not much but some. I say not much because certain facts are misrepresented. One fact that was conveyed is that mass shootings are only ended by a "good guy with a gun 3% of the time". I don't know the actual percentage but it seems that I could correctly say that mass shootings are ended by a "civilian good guy with a gun 3% of the time". Generally it is law enforcement that ends mass shootings (I'm one of those that considers law enforcement the good guys... most of the time) which I infer is often because the venue chosen by the shooter is a gun-free zone. I infer that the "good guy with a gun 3% of the time" opinion omits incidents where the police end the shooting. I therefore assert that the 3% number is crap.