I saw the whole thing. The active shooter scenario pretty much summed up an ambush type scenario, except the class was expecting it because the all suited up with protective gear. My experience in a real world ambush there is no warning at all. Some people flee, some duck for cover, and some screw up making themselves a target. Running away or taking cover, armed or not is the best thing in my experience. It gave me time to draw and very quickly plan my move, if any. Standing up and trying to draw, like "High Noon" is unrealistic Hollywood bull.flynbenny wrote:I watched the whole thing, and have some questions. Did anyone else pick up on this too? That active shooter scenario they ran, each time the badguy(s) was/were trained police firearm instructors! Talk about unfair. Somehow i think that most of us on this board have much better training and skills than the Eric Klebold's, Seung-Hui Cho's and Robert Hawkins' of the world. Not one single positive gun story. A lady in Colorado Springs name Jeanne Assam stopped the rampage of one of these cowards. Why couldn't they have interviewed her? Or any one of the THOUSANDS of Americans who have protected themselves and the public with their lawfully owned weapons?If this doesn't prove the bias in the media, I don't know what does. Gives yet another layer of credence to Maha Rushie's term for the liberal media: the drive bys
It is much harder to hit a moving target. I guess the carrying participants watch too much TV or play too many video games.Rule #1, self preservation.
The part about the young boy in Florida, the pistols in the furniture in the garage, and the children accidentally shooting each other was made to scare people. It worked on most viewers.
The part about buying face to face at the gun show was designed to give gun shows a bad name. Buying face to face has nothing to do with gun shows. The ex-ATF agent did state that no laws were violated. Neither seller nor buyer did anything illegal.
I did not expect it to be pro gun. I was not disappointed.