TexasCHLforum.com

Doug.38PR wrote:And just for the sake of argument...a person is STILL has a better chance with a gun even if they haven't been through any combat training than they would without a gun. Combat trainng is just another edge up from the gun.

Agree with Part 1: You always have a better chance in a life-and-death conflict if armed.

Disagree with Part 2: The gun is merely one tool you use in the application of your training. Proper training is more important than the gun. In a street scenario, I'll take G.C. with a knife every time over my next-door neighbor with a gun.

But I hear what you're sayin'. And you're correct that, for many who choose to get a CHL, the gun does come first. Unfortunately, most stop there. But many of those who choose to make professional training a part of their lives are equally as prepared--if not more so--as most patrol officers to confront something like the staged active-shooter scenario.

atxgun wrote:

Skiprr wrote:All of the other "students" in the classroom were plants, and were playing out a role. You cannot simulate "active shooter" chaos with roll-playing.

What would you suggest to make a more realistic active shooter scenario?

I wasn't completely clear on that one. (And I also missed the fact that the "student CHL" was always seated front-row and center in each running of the scenario. Geez.)

Here is exactly how Diane Sawyer described everyone in the classroom simulation, save the "student CHL" himself:

Diane Sawyer wrote:He also doesn't know that these other "students" around him are in fact cops, or people working for ABC who will replicate the chaos of real people in real crises.

That's what I was referring to. There were no other students in the scenario, only police officers and ABC personnel. As you watched each scenario unfold, it was obvious it was scripted going in.

For example, even though the front of the classroom "horseshoe," where the "teacher" was lecturing, was narrow--less than 10 feet wide--and the active shooter was less than 15 feet from the most-distant "student" sitting in the front row, one "student's" task was to climb over the furniture and run between the active shooter and the "student CHL"...in effect running toward the shooter. Not out of the realm of possibility, but I'd think not a very probable reaction. And the "active shooter" knew exactly what the "running student" was going to do; the "student CHL" did not.

To make it more realistic (the PD "active shooter" aside), I think they should have recruited other, actual students from the campus and given them the same information they gave the "student CHL," essentially that at some unknown time, one or more attackers will storm into the lecture room and start firing; if you're shot it might sting a bit but will be safe; pretend it's a real assault situation and react accordingly. Any more instructional detail would impact the spontaneity. And having different volunteer students for each scenario would be best.

You can never create a truly realistic force-on-force training scenario...at least not within the realm of safety. But there were so many unrealistic things about the one 20/20 staged that theirs could serve as an example of what not to do.

CHL/LEO: GMTA.

I DVRed it also, but couldn't bring myself to watch any of it a second time. Maybe for those who are trying to lose weight, like me, I could bring a DVD to TexasCHLforum Day and play it just before lunch. That'd quell the appetite.

As for non-LEO courses, Gabe Suarez is big on force-on-force training, as is Shivworks. Hoffner in Houston conducts FOF classes a few times per year. I think it's an experience every CHL should have at least once.

sss wrote:

flynbenny wrote:That active shooter scenario they ran, each time the badguy(s) was/were trained police firearm instructors! Talk about unfair.

I noticed that. I also noticed that, in the active shooter scenario, the attacker entered the room, shot the "teacher", and then immediately opened fire on the student with a concealed pistol. Why would a gunman come right out and target one person after shooting the teacher?

They did spend a lot of time on the active shooter scenario, didn't they? And of course nothing that made it "unrealistic" got any air time.

• None of the students "tested" had a CHL.
• ABC kept citing the "experience" of the AirSoft gamer and the guy who'd spent 100 hours "at the range."
• There was no evidence any of these people had ever attempted to draw from holster before that day.
• There was no evidence any of these people had ever attempted to draw from concealment before that day.
• There was no evidence any of these people had ever attempted, or even knew, to "get off the X," a precept 101 in defensive handgunning.
• There was no evidence any of these people had ever previously taken any handgun course from a professional instructor, even an NRA basic pistol course.
• The LEO instructor who briefed the students was the same man who played the active shooter. He not only knew which student to turn on after he'd "shot" the teacher, he'd just provided 'em with what instruction they had.
• The LEO instructor moved from first target to the next in practiced fashion; no school shooter in history has had that kind of efficiency.
• We have no idea what information was actually conveyed in that instruction, or how much practice was allowed.
• A huge deal was made of the "attacker's" hits versus the novice students' hits. Partially valid, but I don't believe the local PD small-arms instructor has ever attacked a school.
• "Co-conspirator students" were placed in the in classroom with concealed handguns as accomplice, "sleeper" shooters. Show me one time this scenario has played out in a school shooting.
• The student shooters were given retention holsters that had a thumb strap.
• The student shooters were made to wear gloves of probably dubious fit (the "attacker" did as well--most likely his own shooting gloves--but he didn't have to draw from concealment; he just burst into the classroom with the gun at ready).
• The student shooters were made to wear full-coverage helmets.
• All of the other "students" in the classroom were plants, and were playing out a role. You cannot simulate "active shooter" chaos with roll-playing.

All I can think of at the moment. And I'm still steamin'.

Of course ABC couldn't have the objectivity to say, "Hey, maybe we should seek out at least one student who really is trained. And let him use his own carry gear. And don't let the 'attacker' know who he is in advance." But no. Why would they, because they might end up with a Jeanne Assam result that they'd just have to cut it out of the final production, anyway, because it didn't fit their agenda.

ABC needs to let John Stossel do a follow-up piece to this leftist tragedy.

Well, that pretty much ruined my Good Friday.

I found particularly distasteful that Sawyer opened the hour by essentially stating how objective the report would be, and how they were in no way saying they supported anything contrary to the Second Amendment. Then, of course, the subsequent 59 minutes were blatantly biased, totally subjective, and a Brady Bunch dream.