Ammo For Sale

« « WECSOG | Home | Gun Porn » »


So, by now, everyone has read the various comments on the 20/20 hit piece on guns. But the more interesting bit is that the game is rigged. The did a scenario to prove that a gun wouldn’t help in a mass shooting. Despite evidence to the contrary. The scenario is that they put a bunch of non-CCW holders in a room, the had less than adequate training, and it’s clear that the shooter knew who was strapped. The game was rigged. Watch it here. As Sebastian notes:

Raise you hand if you carry a retention holster concealed at 1:00?

Now, let’s replay the scenario with real equipment. The mass shooter doesn’t know who is strapped. Or, hell, we’ll let him know who is strapped only the armed citizen is played by Todd Jarrett. We can rig the game too.

More realistically, any CCW holder would have a better advantage if the mass muderer didn’t know who was packing. In a mass shooting, some one is going to die. It’s just a question of how quickly they are stopped.

Update: more here: Active Shooters don’t tend to be trained firearms instructors.

True and they don’t usually do dynamic entries.

8 Responses to “Rigged”

  1. NJSoldier Says:

    Most mass shooters aren’t fast moving SWAT trained cops doing a dynamic entry.

  2. Sailorcurt Says:

    I think their intent was to build upon the false premise that the “Carry on Campus” movement is advocating “arming students” rather than the actual goal of allowing those who hold concealed carry permits to carry on campus as they do everywhere else.

    Their entire scenario was built around demonstrating the futility of “giving” a gun to a young college student with minimal training…which is exactly how the campus carry bills are portrayed by opponents.

    It was nothing more than a very elaborate straw man argument.

  3. JKB Says:

    So what have we learned? That trained police and firearm instructors would be very effective killers if they go over the edge. They would not expose their intentions prior to killing their intended target, not hesitate in firing and would be alert for possible adversaries in the room. So we need to ban dynamic entry training for police?

    How about control group tests. Same scenario with one armed 3yr veteran police officer in the class. Same scenario with one armed veteran SWAT officer in the class.

    Fact of the matter is, surprise dynamic entry shooters have a distinct advantage when attacking an adversary who is going about his routine, which is why SWAT uses the tactic. But had the shooter discharged his weapon, had someone in the hall yelled before the shooter entered that classroom, the shooter’s advantage would have been turned into a deficit. So while the shooter could be very effective in his initial attack, his entry into a second classroom or back into the hallway would be difficult. His ability to stroll calmly and execute everyone in the room would be interfered with by defenders from other classrooms. And what to active shooters do? They go from room to room seeking out more victims then calmly shoot them as they beg for their life.

  4. Matt Groom Says:

    It seems the only thing 20/2000 (legally blind) is comfortable with seeing slaughtered is journalistic integrity.

    Here’s what I saw:
    1. Inappropriate attire for concealed carry. Those shirts hung down to their thighs, who wears stuff like that? I’ve seen mini-skirts that came up higher than the bottom of those shirts.
    2. Improper equipment. Cheap “dress” belts instead of proper gunbelts. RETENTION HOLSTERS for concealed carry? I saw at least one student had a thumb snap holster, and possibly a police retention holster, which are difficult to draw from BY DESIGN.
    3. Rigged test. The shooter KNEW there was an armed student. The shooter KNEW where that student was sitting. The shooter KNEW there was only one armed student. The shooter gave no indication of attack before the test I.E. shooting helpless victims in another class room first. The shooter DID NOT try to kill anyone who was escaping, only the armed student he knew was present. The shooter DID NOT waste ammo, since his only real target was the mark… uhh, I mean, the armed student.

    I would say that even an experienced gun owner would fail this “test”, and that if it was conducted again fairly, and the above observations did not apply, someone with less than 10 hours of training would have been successful in taking out the active shooter before they themselves would be killed. ANY amount of resistance offered by armed students WILL SAVE LIVES regardless of whether or not they kill the shooter, as 20/2000 implies. That shooter would not be walking around with a bullet in his thigh. Massacre over.

  5. Rabbit Says:

    ABC should try this little test at a university setting in Tel Aviv or Haifa and see how well that works out for them.

    Rigging tests- I guess ABC is using Dateline NBC’s style guide.


  6. Chas Says:

    We need a video refutation of the ABC hit piece. This isn’t the 1960’s or ‘70‘s, so ABC isn’t the only one with a TV camera and a network. We have video cameras and the Internet – these days we have the means to counter their anti-gun propaganda. These aren’t the dark days of the past when information only flowed one way – down from on high. ABC’s high-handed, Pravdaesque style needs a good fisking.
    I hope to see a video response soon. It is no minor thing to be part of the new media revolution. Let’s make it work for us.

  7. Gregory Markle Says:

    Don’t overlook that all of his “training” (or at least what little we saw of it) was with the holster mounted on his hip and not covered by anything…then they moved it to the one o’clock position which placed the weapon canted in the wrong direction (if for some bizarre reason you wanted to carry there, you would NOT use a holster canted away from the direction of draw) and covered it with a clinging garment which would NEVER be suggested by any (reputable) instructor. Also don’t forget that the rest of the individuals in the room were also crisis trained LE individuals and ABC employees who reacted almost completely unlike real people would. The narration states that they are there to “simulate” the reaction of a crowd…their actual reaction suggests that they knew a shooter was going to show up at some point as they all crouched and moved away from the “defender” INSTANTLY (except for one person who made the BIZARRE choice of jumping the desk and running right in front of the shooter and one who took cover and didn’t move), which suggested prior knowledge of something happening as there should have been far more variety of reaction and they all seemed to react the same and, really, FAR to quickly for a surprise assualt. The only person who didn’t react the same was the “defender” who had no clue it was going to happen.

    Really…we’re spending FAR too much time analyzing this…it was a set-up…it was painfully obvious…they had no intention of making it a fair chance…it’s just amusing looking at how hard they had to try to make it unfair and in some cases the novices still got shots in. It’s almost pathetic when you think about it.

  8. Sailorcurt Says:

    it’s just amusing looking at how hard they had to try to make it unfair and in some cases the novices still got shots in. It’s almost pathetic when you think about it.

    That’s an excellent point. Set-up from the get-go and in more than one case, the patsies still got shots on target.