Would love that…if you have an account put it up on their web site as a suggestion!
-XT
(Account?) I do not have an account. And have only seen the show a few times.
It would have to be better than the stacked deck from 20/20.
Just looking for a bit of honesty.
They have a message board like this one…I think you need a user name to post suggestions for the show.
-XT
I agree that if one is speaking of pistols or rifles one must practice regularly.
However, should someone come in my house at night they aren’t apt to hear anything but a 12 guage pump.
If that sound alone does not send them running I don’t need to aim accurately.
Once I establish that they are an invader in my home that does not belong, all
I gotta do is point and shoot.
Whether I do a good job or not is my business. The issue is that I and I alone will
protect what is mine.
Law enforcement can not and will not protect. Ask someone in fear that another is going to harm them. All law enforcement will say is call if something actually happens. There are too many stories of people being dead and police showing up too late.
Columbine is a good example. There were students who had complained of being harassed by the assassins up to a year earlier. The police had no authority because no law had been broken. Please don’t say we need more laws. We do not need to have people being locked up because they do something suspicious. That is what Gitmo is about. God forbid we add more laws, we have too many as it is.
Had teachers been allowed to carry, the number of deaths may have been mitigated. We need to be able to defend ourselves.
In states where people are allowed to carry weapons openly there are less violent crimes. Why? One does not know if the person standing next to one is carrying. If one is a criminal it isn’t too smart to take the chance. Of course there are always idiots who will try. They usually end up dead.
**Self defense is a right not a privilege!
:smack:
**
Here’s the scenario. The state has right to carry laws. The shooter knows this. Any or all of the students may be carrying a firearm. Can the shooter take them all out before one or two or half a dozen take him out?
Crime is reduced when the people have the right to carry firearms to defend themselves. If the criminal has no idea whether any or all individuals are carrying it becomes a disincentive for him. If he’s a nut case he’ll end up dead. Sounds simple enough to me.
Founding Fathers thought so too!! :smack:
So, what do you think Jefferson was packing? Adams? We know that Hamilton wasn’t much of a shot, and some have suggested he was a man of lesser calibre…
The Founding Fathers thought slavery was a good idea as well. Fortunately they were smart enough to know that we need a living Constitution that can be modified and change with changing times…not granite rules handed down from on high.
I don’t believe this has been proved by any stretch of the imagination. I don’t believe that many or even most citizens either can or want to personally defend themselves…nor do I believe that the majority of them would be particularly good at it if they were thrown on their own resources.
I don’t believe this is true. Let’s look at history…when many or even most citizens carried guns during the frontier times in the old west did crime go away? Was it even reduced on a per capita basis? My guess is…no, not appreciably.
I don’t think that every citizen should arm to protect themselves…we are beyond those days. My take is that citizens should have the choice and opportunity if they so choose…but again, I don’t believe that the general population either could or would choose to defend themselves…and I don’t believe they have too, or that by arming this would appreciably lower crime in this country.
Perhaps…and perhaps the unintended consequence will be that criminals will simply resort to automatic violence because of the uncertainty, choosing to shoot first. Perhaps this would lead to a sort of blind leading the blind situation, where both criminals and citizens, poorly trained would end up doing more harm than good in public shootouts involving other citizens.
And right there you should be hearing warning bells…life is never as simple as that.
-XT
The Constitution is amendable yes. Unfortunately “living Constitution” has been used by some to mean that the meaning and intent of provisions of the Constitution can be interpreted out of existence. See “Interstate Commerce Clause” and “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.
Preaching to the choir…I’m not a big fan of reinterpretation using torturous mental gymnastics. I find what has been done to attempt to reinterpret the 2nd to be a travesty, and I can totally understand why gun owners are wary of the banning crowd at this point.
The reason we have an amendment process is so that corrections can be made to the Constitution with changing times. This is the proper way to do things and make changes…not to simply reinterpret rights out of existence.
-XT
Of course I do. Not being biased means agreeing with you.
Look, since you don’t get the point of everyone here saying the test was clearly biased in favor of the shooter, let me break it down for you as simply as possible.
They put minimally-trained college students in a classroom with a firearm in a retention-holster under a tight shirt (nobody uses retention holsters for concealed carry). They had an expert firearm instructor come in, shoot the teacher, and immediately turn to the armed student and open fire on them. The shooter knew where the student was seated EACH TIME and immediately went after them (and no one else) after shooting the teacher. No one could win from that situation. They stacked the deck in favor so much in favor of the firearm instructor, the student had no chance. It wasn’t a realistic situation in the least. If you don’t see the clear bias in the situation, it’s pretty clear you’re dealing with some personal biases yourself.
These minimally trained students were trained. The point is ,is that most gun owners are minimally trained. They do enough to get a gun, but do not continually train. The cops found the training to be inadequate to expect a good response under pressure. They could have just skipped the demo and had experts tell you guys that. But it is a visual medium. People who are defending with guns are responsible for the stray bullets and innocents they shoot. The cops say they have to keep current and train monthly. Almost no home gun lover can and do. That is all. But note, it was the police admonishing the home gunners. It was not a liberal ,totally biased, hateful liberal press.
This is manufactured outrage.
Of course if you were trained, armed and told a guy was coming in ,would that make you less prepared for an incident or more? They knew they were coming which actually made them more prepared. So it balances a bit don’t you think? Welcome to list of those showing bias.
Forget the issue of their level of training altogether. The situation was still clearly biased in that the shooter immediately went after the student every time – no one else. That is not realistic! In real life, a wild shooter doesn’t automatically go after the person who has a concealed weapon; after all, they don’t know if it’s concealed. They could have put an equally trained officer in the position of the student and I’d be surprised if they performed any better. The point is that the situation was completely unrealistic regardless of the level of the student’s experience or training, especially given they had a retention holster.
And besides, just because someone is a LEO doesn’t automatically mean they’re leaps and bounds above every gun owner in terms of training. I know there are many civilians who train more frequently and regularly than police officers. There are variances in every population.
Just because I “know” Mike Tyson is coming for my ass doesnt mean he still isnt going to be able to beat the crap out me.
No, it doesn’t. In a real situation, the odds are going to be against a shooter attacking your classroom first (as opposed to another within hearing distance), and even further against him shooting you immediately.
Doesn’t it stand to reason that the first or second people shot, out of the entire school (the teacher and student, in this case) are going to have far less time to react than the hundreds of other students and teachers at the school? Yes, if you luck out and happen to be #1 or #2 on the shooter’s “to kill” list you’re probably fucked, but the vast majority of the school’s population are going to have far more time between the first shot being fired and getting shot themselves.
Most people who bother to get CCWs in my experience are not minimally trained. If they carry, they generally take it more seriously than a guy who keeps a shotgun in his closet and only takes it out once or twice a year.
They usually go to the range regularly, train with the holster they intend to use, wear clothing appropriate, pick a holster appropriate to a situation, etc.
In this scenario, they apparently gave the barest minimum of training. They saddled the people with impractical clothing (clothing choice is important to someone who carries concealed, you wouldn’t wear something that hintered access to your gun significantly), the worst holster possible (if you’re sitting most of the time, it’s less practical to use a hip holster - and you wouldn’t use a retention holster with the amount of training these guys had - you’d train with it over and over to get it right).
They made the other shooter an expert in small arms combat and gave him the location of the student who was carrying a gun. What’s the point of that? If you’re going to have that as a scenario you may as well test open carry - but that wouldn’t allow them to give the students clothing that prevented them from reacting quickly that way.
The test was a joke. The fact that you’re trying to present it as fair when it’s so obviously, not even debatable unfair, shows your bias is so extreme you’re unwilling to be rational or objective on this issue.
How could they have made the test even more unfair? Handcuffed the students? Maybe had a trained marksman shoot them through the window at 400 yards? SEE, IF YOU GET SHOT BY A SNIPER AT 400 YARDS YOUR CONCEALED GUN DIDN’T SAVE YOU, THEREFORE GUNS ARE USELESS!!!1111
So…I wrote all that stuff up and as with 'luci it was in Japanese to you, right? It’s fairly clear you didn’t comprehend any of it. Hopefully someone else out there who is on the fence about this issue or at least not completely biased got something out of it.
They knew how to shoot (in theory)…that’s not the same thing as being trained in combat tactics. I know you won’t get this (you can pick your own reason for why it’s incomprehensible to you…I know my own opinion on that score), but for the possible benefit of someone else out there following along:
The shooter was a trained professional. The armed students knew how to shoot. This sort of match up is the equivalent of putting a guy who knows how to hit a golf ball up against a club pro…and playing the match on the club pros favorite golf course.
Even if this were the case (and I’m doubtful if we are talking about folks who go out and get a carry conceal license), it merely underscores how biased the test is. The shooter was NOT a ‘minimally trained’ person…he was a highly trained specialist who not only was an expert marksman but also trained in combat tactics. Again, I’m not expecting you to understand this point…this is for the benefit of anyone else following along who hasn’t already managed to grasp this key point. The armed students were people who had some level of expertise (again, in theory…it was never actually demonstrated) in TARGET SHOOTING. None of them, afaik, regularly carried concealed (so didn’t practice even drawing their weapons from concealment), none of them had even minimal combat training or experience…and they were put up against someone who was a specialist in these things, and someone who KNEW THEY WOULD BE THERE AND THAT THEY WOULD BE ARMED!
It was pretty obvious watching the show that the armed students didn’t have a clue what to do. Watch them. When the gun man entered the room the first thing they did was stand up and then attempt to draw their weapon (two pretty basic mistakes right there). Then they stood still in a full body open posture (like shooting on a range) and attempted to blaze away, despite return fire (something that I seriously doubt even an idiot would do if the bullets were real). The specialist on the other hand smoothly shot the ‘teacher’ and then tracked directly on the student (that, conveniently he knew would be there and be armed), turning into a side (combat) stance and maneuvering to the left while firing on the student (and also not paying much attention to return fire, which I seriously doubt he would have been doing had the bullets been real).
This is like putting a guy who shoots in the 80’s up against Tiger Woods…and giving Tiger choice of course.
Sure…in essence that’s exactly what they DID in fact. They set up a rigged demo to illustrate the point they were trying to make. Did it never occur to you that if they had a really valid point they wouldn’t have needed to rig the demo?
Yeah…and cops hit innocent bystanders sometimes too. Certainly if there was a shootout in a classroom then there is a very distinct possibility that some bystander would be hit and killed. Maybe several. The point though is that the shooter is TRYING to hit and kill as many people as he can…and if unopposed will simply reload and move on to other classrooms to shoot more people.
In theory, sure…in practice…
Even assuming that’s 100% accurate though, you’d only have a point if there was a cop always available.
And of course this has nothing to do with the show and the demo.
Um…horseshit. Every single person I know with a carry conceal license goes to the range weekly at a minimum. One of the techs here with a CCW goes to the range daily.
Even if this is a representative sampling of the polices opinions…so what?
No, it’s a strawman you have manufactured.
If they said you could practice on the golf course Tiger choose all week and play him on Saturday, do you think you’d stand a better chance then?
As for bias…I think we all know who is biased in this thread…
-XT
When I watched the show I knew the gun nuts on the dope would begin their usual ululations . It was and is as figured. They are on a hair trigger and shoot whenever anything does not praise guns. I knew that they could concede nothing about the real point. People who are involved in emergency situations and have guns are not trained to be of much help. Police, those horrible gun haters, explained clearly what kind of training they have to do to react legally and properly. They raised concern that gun lubbers could make mistakes in the heat of a situation. That, heaven forbid ,they could hurt an innocent bystander of even the police who would come. I guess they were ignorant of how well trained and expert gun carriers are. They did not know the true dedication and time spent on training the average gun owner gets.