TexasCHLforum.com

I was Youtube trolling after watching another video someone posted on the forum - and came across this garbage.

Take a few deep breaths first:

[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]

So, I'm assuming epinephrin is a controlled substance (and the amount in EpiPens would be too much anyway). Is there any other way to artificially induce a fight-or-flight response in a controlled setting so one can practice drawing under duress?

Of course, one should also carry with a gun and holster they're very familiar with, and that doesn't seem to be the case in these situations.

I think another big culprit is that the students are wearing gloves in the simulation. Unless you've practiced with gloves (which they did not), the gloves will be a big hindrance.

Thomas wrote:So, I'm assuming epinephrin is a controlled substance (and the amount in EpiPens would be too much anyway). Is there any other way to artificially induce a fight-or-flight response in a controlled setting so one can practice drawing under duress?

Competition can be stressful.

In any event, I don't recall them letting him practice drawing from concealment even under ideal conditions, so he was set up to fail. The only question is whether it was intentional (the game was rigged) or negligent.

This is over three years old.

Don't have a link, but I'll hunt for it.

And Diane Sawyer is not on my Christmas-card list. Trust me.

I think the video is sadly accurate. If we took the avg CHL holder OR avg off duty cop and threw them into a similar scenario, truly surprised, the results would be similar.

Here it is, from 2009: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=23876" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Because this Topic has embedded videos, and because this was such a travesty by ABC, I think this new Topic should stand.

gigag04 wrote:I think the video is sadly accurate. If we took the avg CHL holder OR avg off duty cop and threw them into a similar scenario, truly surprised, the results would be similar.

To be fair to the average CHL holder and off-duty cops, ABC had their students take the Kobayashi Maru and then complained when none of them "won". My understanding is that real-life ambushes happen so fast that it's pretty much dumb luck as to whether you survive long enough to react rationally. Even if you're on-target in time to shoot the BG before he shoots you (and after making sure no fleeing students will be struck by your bullets), his accomplice will just shoot you in the back as soon as the BG opens fire. The only non-long shoot way to "win" that I can see is to have foreknowledge of what's going to happen and when (so you'll know that it's time to stop paying attention to what the prof is saying and start looking for the door to open), but then why not just call the cops and evacuate the room ahead of time?

Skiprr wrote:This is over three years old.

Don't have a link, but I'll hunt for it.

And Diane Sawyer is not on my Christmas-card list. Trust me.

Agree w Skiprr. This was a set up from the beginning & the only reason it was published is it did what they wanted. Will they let Skiprr play the armed guy in his choice of dress????
& your answer is??? BTW notice the BGs knew where the armed guy was in the "controlled test".

gigag04 wrote:I think the video is sadly accurate. If we took the avg CHL holder OR avg off duty cop and threw them into a similar scenario, truly surprised, the results would be similar.

I'm sure there is a great deal of truth to that. I also think this was set up this way to highlight a weakness, but it was still set up. All the shooters were in the front row and the police knew who the one shooter in the room was going to be. In real life, a BG won't know where his resistance will come from.

gigag04 wrote:I think the video is sadly accurate. If we took the avg CHL holder OR avg off duty cop and threw them into a similar scenario, truly surprised, the results would be similar.

Like many others, I believe 100% that the video was rigged to get the result it got. They set up the premise that the only "win" was to stop the BG from shooting anyone. Others have mentioned the negatives built in against the CC individual (position known, wearing gloves, zero practice from concealment, etc.). BUT, no one has mentioned the NON-RELATION to the real world and the fact that it would have been a MAJOR "win" IF someone had stopped the VA Tech shooter after one or two victims, for instance...would saving over two dozen others' lives been a "win"? What if a CC person could have saved ONE LIFE from that horrible massacre? Would that have been a "win"? Or only a perfect scenario counts and otherwise we just give up? THAT is why that video is a bunch of HORSE MANURE...because my CHL is NOT so I can play hero or usurp YOUR JOB as LEO...it is to protect myself, my family/friends, and my property, if possible...and to minimize loss of life AS MUCH AS I CAN as the situation warrants. It doesn't make me a superhero, it simply helps to even the very lopsided odds. I ain't mad at ya, it just boils my blood how these collectivist types so desperately want us to just lay down and die...well I ain't ready to go just yet and I will do what I can to delay that inevitable day.

The missing question is: Which real world scenario does this setup mimic? They would have had a lot more credibility if they could show the real life example that they were trying to replicate. I'm not saying that something like this cannot happen. The closest one that I can think of right now is the Ft. Hood shooting. There may be others that were similar. The VA Tech shooting was not very close at all.

This is definitely a worst case incident. The "worst case" title means that there are also "best case" events and probably some in between on a normal bell curve where the circumstances are not as heavily slanted against the defender.

I'm not trying to completely dismiss the sobering message in the videos. But I've never believed that having a gun produces an invincibility aura around me and recognize there may be a situation where it will do me no good. What this video does not do, as they are attempting to do, is to say that having a gun is NEVER an advantage. There are way too many "Armed Citizen" stories for that conclusion to have any credibility.

As others have stated, this "setup" handicapped the response and gave all of the advantages to the BG who knew where the threat was coming from. There is a lot to be learned here in terms of staying in practice, drawing your weapon and concealed cover but as a real life scenerio it was only a game with all of the advantages to the BG.

This video has several aspects of value...

1) The lesson about how the types of training most CHL's do at a square range only slightly prepare us.
a) most people don't practice their draw
b) Most don't practice "point and shoot" but focus on using their sights and trying to make small groups like you do with a hunting rifle
c) most don't practice shooting from cover/concealment or even considering cover/concealment before shooting
2) Our tunnel vision and our lack of fine motor skills disappearing.
This is fact and we tend to forget this. I know it will happen regardless of how much training I do unless I wanted to spend a lifetime and a fortune training like the military does. So, we should do our best to minimize how this will affect us by practicing our reload, "tap-rack-bang", and other drills that teach us to use gross motor skills more than fine motor skills. (i.e. don't use the slide catch to drop the slide on a new magazine). Also, I think there's value in visualizing being in theses scenarios often in your mind. Just thinking ahead of time what you'd do often. I can't say for sure, but I believe it could help affect your reaction when/if the time actually comes.
I do this even when at a restaurant or public place and consider the unlikely event of a robbery or mad-gunmen scenario.

3) TRAIN!! TRAIN! TRAIN!!

and lastly...
4) TRAIN TRAIN TRAIN

The over-all intent of the video is disgusting however. They try and paint the 'gun' and the person carrying a gun as worthless or even deadly. And as Hearty Patriot said, they make it way too black and white. I was thinking, "Yeah, that CHL-r may now be dead, but the bad guy is now wounded and using more rounds on one person vs. the whole room. He/She was also buying time for the others to leave. In a VA Tech scenario, that's a 'win'.
The video failed to show that same scenario where NOBODY in the room was armed. How many died then vs. the scenario where there's someone fighting back?
Obviously, in all cases, it's better to have someone in the room who can provide resistance. Of course someone is going to die. That's horrible, but it's the result of a mad man going on a spree, not someone being armed and trying to protect themselves and others. Showing these in a vacuum without other scenarios is typical of the 'journalists' trying to get their agenda across.

One thing through this video, I tried to envision how I would react... impossible to do perfectly I know, but just based on the limited amount of training I do with IDPA, and dry-firing at home, and also shooting at a square range practicing "point shooting". I would like to think that I would take concealment first. (That's definitely not cover because those little tables won't stop a round). But I could also see how it would be natural to react like the one lady and stand, draw, shoot.
If am honest with myself, I think that's what I would do just because that's how I practice. In every practice scenario I do, it's me making the first move. (i.e. IDPA - grab your gun (or draw), move here and engage x,y,z targets)
I also do my draw and dry firing while standing in front of a target. Maybe I should change that up to moving to cover and dry firing?
We as civilians don't get a lot of opportunity to practice reactionary training.

I think my next training course will be a 'force on force' class, so I can start thinking about how to react vs. just plain 'engaging'.

chasfm11 wrote:What this video does not do, as they are attempting to do, is to say that having a gun is NEVER an advantage. There are way too many "Armed Citizen" stories for that conclusion to have any credibility.

Scott in Houston wrote:T.....We as civilians don't get a lot of opportunity to practice reactionary training......

There is no question that the deck is stacked against us in terms of opportunities to practice in a "closer to real life" setting. Heck, most of the ranges won't even let you practice drawing and firing, let along moving and firing. I've thought about getting a paint ball gun and creating my own setup. I'm just not sure that it would be a lot more help.

I don't want to worry about things that I've seen on some of the training videos like clearing a room or a building because I hope that I'm not dumb enough to try that. What might be good is to set up a paint ball scenario with multiple assailants and take turns in the roles.

In the mean time, I try to keep practicing drawing during dry fire. That is about all that I can do at the moment.