This just goes to show the mentality that the anti's have. Of course Diane, not everyone is up to the task to train enough to be efficient in handling an active shooter situation, that's why it's not open to just anyone. Those who commit to the entire process of obtaining a chl are very serious about training to be able to handle their gun to the best of their abilities.
The classroom shooting demonstration they had set up, was exactly that, A SET UP!!! A set up to make their sheeple followers gather in ranks right behind their irrational thinking and ideals. On top of that, the person they chose to give a gun to was a COMPLETE NOVICE! I don't know if he had ever fired a weapon in his life! And they expect someone like this to be able to defend themselves in a high stress situation with a gun? Preposterous! "Even with his endless hours of shooting airsoft guns he couldn't even get his gun out..." WELL NO JOKE WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? Why not put a seasoned chl holder in that demonstration and see what they can do! These people are just plain ignorant.... Rant off. Enjoy the vid and add your rants.
Although I disagree with her intent, the video is not that bad. It demonstrates a couple of things; children need to be educated about firearms and if you choose to carry one for self-defense, you need to train and know how to use it. I'm sure if somebody threw me into the cockpit of a Cessna and told me to takeoff that I'd probably not be successful. That only demonstrates that I've never trained in a fixed-wing aircraft, not that people should not be allowed to fly.
And...it drives me nuts when people assume only police and military can safely use firearms. The level of training I have participated in since leaving active duty is light years beyond anything I ever received while on active duty.
A little over 21 years ago my son was born. As soon as he was old enough, about three, we introduced the Eddie Eagle program. He was told if he was to find a gun, don't touch it, leave the area and tell an adult. Then we tested him with unloaded guns, several times a year. Now he is waiting for his CHL to arrive. We also had another rule in the house: No gun, toy or otherwise, was to be pointed at any living thing. These rules were firm. The only exception was water pistols and super soakers while in the pool. When his cousin came over to play he was also told the rule, he really didn't understand it, but knew that it was not acceptable to "play" with guns.
Like any training it has to be tested. You can not just tell a kid not to touch a gun, you have to test him/her. We also instructed him on the difference between real life and "Movie Magic." Kids can be trained firearms safety, but the PC schools are so afraid of guns they prefer to play see no evil, speak no evil and hear no evil. They have drivers education because they will let a 15 year old drive a 2000 pound car at 70 miles per hour, but don't tell them how safely handle firearms.
I worked as a police officer at a university for over 10 years. Our response time was less than 2 to 4 minutes on emergency calls. Two minutes is a long time in any fight, in a gun battle it is an eternity. Not giving CHLs a fighting chance should be criminal. Many officers are not that good of a shot. In the ABC news tonight there are cops that are talking about how well trained they are. That is a laugh. In Texas officers only have to qualify once a year. This is done at known ranges and no surprises. It is to "Qualify," a minimal standard. It is not training. Most departments will not spend the money to "train" officers to shoot. On duty ammunition is normally paid for by the officer. I know that in the departments that I have worked at there was no money to even pay for ammunition for practice. Active Shooter training has only become a little more common in the past few years.
So speaking from the inside, in school shootings, and most other dynamic situations, you are on your own for at least 2 to 5 minutes and most likely longer, and hopefully qualifications were last week and not 51 weeks ago.
The need to train your children part of the video I have no problem with, that's why it was not included in my post ^^.
I do have a problem with abc news trying to impose a totally irrational misconception by choosing this guy that supposedly has endless hours of airsoft training to portray how the people that would actually be carrying guns on campus would respond to such an attack (chl's). It is a totally incorrect portrayal and I guess since Diane can't even do it with her super awesome skills she assumes that no one else can, besides the highly trained police. It just really grinds my gears so to speak.
DDurkof the campus police are not to blame. They can't be expected to make it there any faster than physically possible, after all they are humans too. It's all of the liberal bleeding hearts that are opposed to the people's right to a means of effective self defense.
I am not blaming university officers, I was one for over 10 years. I know the limitations of the situation. I also know how dedicated the officers are that work in that environment.
We had hallways that were over 100 yards long, but the chief didn't want us to have rifles. A 50 yard shot with a pistol is not practical. Few police officers really train for violent encounters. Most would love to do it, but if they are spending their own money for the training and the ammo, pretty soon the wife and other financial restraints come into play. Most college administrations are a liberal bunch, nice, but liberal, that think "it can't happen here."
Violence can happen anywhere. Schools are free fire zones for the bad guy. It is a complex situation with money being a driving force. Budgets in academia are tight and a police department is a large overhead expenditure. Training takes a backseat to other expenses. All of these things come into play, and I don't blame the officer on the street. I fault the myopic view of administrations. CHLs on campuses are not an issue. All of the CHLs I have seen are not "gun happy" but don't want to go into a situation where they have no options.
ABC is into ratings and that relates to money. That is the only reason to run this story and give a one sided view.
This just goes to show the mentality that the anti's have. Of course Diane, not everyone is up to the task to train enough to be efficient in handling an active shooter situation, that's why it's not open to just anyone. Those who commit to the entire process of obtaining a chl are very serious about training to be able to handle their gun to the best of their abilities.
The classroom shooting demonstration they had set up, was exactly that, A SET UP!!! A set up to make their sheeple followers gather in ranks right behind their irrational thinking and ideals. On top of that, the person they chose to give a gun to was a COMPLETE NOVICE! I don't know if he had ever fired a weapon in his life! And they expect someone like this to be able to defend themselves in a high stress situation with a gun? Preposterous! "Even with his endless hours of shooting airsoft guns he couldn't even get his gun out..." WELL NO JOKE WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? Why not put a seasoned chl holder in that demonstration and see what they can do! These people are just plain ignorant.... Rant off. Enjoy the vid and add your rants.
Surely you recognize that if you have attended any training beyond what's required to get a CHL, then you are a rare duck. And what exactly is a "seasoned chl holder?" I ask because, as a CHL instructor, I often ask my students what, if any, instruction and training they've had prior to the class. The answers are rarely encouraging and the results when we get on the range don't inspire any confidence that these people are prepared for an active shooter scenario, let alone an ambush like the one put on by ABCNews.
The reality is most CHL holders are complete novices. It's not hard to pass the CHL proficiency. I can teach someone all they need to know to pass the shooting exam in thirty minutes or less. A blind man can and has passed the basic proficiency with a score well above passing and good enough to be an instructor. And if the only training one gets is attended a CHL class once every 5-years (as is the case for most CHL holders), then they are no more prepared for an active shooter than the people in the ABCNews video.
You are ahead of the curve if you regularly compete in IDPA or USPSA matches. However, even those environments are very different from engaging an active shooter. IDPA and USPSA give you the opportunity to practice the fundamental of running the gun, marksmanship, moving and using cover or concealment. Those are certainly essential skills to practice but, it still falls short of engaging an active opponent who is shooting back at you. In fact, many of the things we do to "win" the games of IDPA and USPSA will get you killed in an active shooter scenario. So what's usually lacking in IDPA and USPSA is the opportunity to test your tactics, planning, or forcing yourself to evaluate what really is the best action based on all relevant factors. Sometimes, beating feet is a much better plan than engaging the threat.
Call me cold and cowardly if you want but, had I been in ABC’s scenario, I would have been sitting closer to an exit if I had a choice. The only person I’d have had an interest in saving would be me and I’m a lot less likely to get shot if I’m not there. So, my priority would have been getting out of the room and home to my family rather than staying to engage the shooter. Now if my family or friends are in the room, my priority is to get them out as quickly and safely as possible. If I have to engage the shooter to make those things happen, so be it. Otherwise, I’m leaving to room, right now! YMMV.
When you take the time out of your day to beat someone, it has a much longer lasting effect on their demeanor than simply shooting or tazing them.
This just goes to show the mentality that the anti's have. Of course Diane, not everyone is up to the task to train enough to be efficient in handling an active shooter situation, that's why it's not open to just anyone. Those who commit to the entire process of obtaining a chl are very serious about training to be able to handle their gun to the best of their abilities.
The classroom shooting demonstration they had set up, was exactly that, A SET UP!!! A set up to make their sheeple followers gather in ranks right behind their irrational thinking and ideals. On top of that, the person they chose to give a gun to was a COMPLETE NOVICE! I don't know if he had ever fired a weapon in his life! And they expect someone like this to be able to defend themselves in a high stress situation with a gun? Preposterous! "Even with his endless hours of shooting airsoft guns he couldn't even get his gun out..." WELL NO JOKE WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? Why not put a seasoned chl holder in that demonstration and see what they can do! These people are just plain ignorant.... Rant off. Enjoy the vid and add your rants.
Surely you recognize that if you have attended any training beyond what's required to get a CHL, then you are a rare duck. And what exactly is a "seasoned chl holder?" I ask because, as a CHL instructor, I often ask my students what, if any, instruction and training they've had prior to the class. The answers are rarely encouraging and the results when we get on the range don't inspire any confidence that these people are prepared for an active shooter scenario, let alone an ambush like the one put on by ABCNews.
The reality is most CHL holders are complete novices. It's not hard to pass the CHL proficiency. I can teach someone all they need to know to pass the shooting exam in thirty minutes or less. A blind man can and has passed the basic proficiency with a score well above passing and good enough to be an instructor. And if the only training one gets is attended a CHL class once every 5-years (as is the case for most CHL holders), then they are no more prepared for an active shooter than the people in the ABCNews video.
You are ahead of the curve if you regularly compete in IDPA or USPSA matches. However, even those environments are very different from engaging an active shooter. IDPA and USPSA give you the opportunity to practice the fundamental of running the gun, marksmanship, moving and using cover or concealment. Those are certainly essential skills to practice but, it still falls short of engaging an active opponent who is shooting back at you. In fact, many of the things we do to "win" the games of IDPA and USPSA will get you killed in an active shooter scenario. So what's usually lacking in IDPA and USPSA is the opportunity to test your tactics, planning, or forcing yourself to evaluate what really is the best action based on all relevant factors. Sometimes, beating feet is a much better plan than engaging the threat.
Call me cold and cowardly if you want but, had I been in ABC’s scenario, I would have been sitting closer to an exit if I had a choice. The only person I’d have had an interest in saving would be me and I’m a lot less likely to get shot if I’m not there. So, my priority would have been getting out of the room and home to my family rather than staying to engage the shooter. Now if my family or friends are in the room, my priority is to get them out as quickly and safely as possible. If I have to engage the shooter to make those things happen, so be it. Otherwise, I’m leaving to room, right now! YMMV.
My ChL class was at least half military veterans was at least half renewalls. 1 one guy had LEO experiance. I wouldn't expect many people to have a lot of training before getting their CHL that might come afterwards though. I also believe that a reasonably intelligent persons odds are much better armed than an unarmed combat veteran. If I get to choose where I sit in a class it would be where I can see and hear the instructor best, defensive positioning would be secondary.
The Lubys shooting, Columbine and the Virginia tech shooting were examples where a level head, common sense and being well armed could have made a big difference. I believe these guys could have been stopped by most CHL holders.
Liberty''s Blog
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy
Liberty wrote:
My ChL class was at least half military veterans was at least half renewalls. 1 one guy had LEO experiance. I wouldn't expect many people to have a lot of training before getting their CHL that might come afterwards though. I also believe that a reasonably intelligent persons odds are much better armed than an unarmed combat veteran. If I get to choose where I sit in a class it would be where I can see and hear the instructor best, defensive positioning would be secondary.
The Lubys shooting, Columbine and the Virginia tech shooting were examples where a level head, common sense and being well armed could have made a big difference. I believe these guys could have been stopped by most CHL holders.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on some points.
First, your CHL class is not representative of the make up of students I’ve taught over the last four years. FWIW, military vets represent no more than 10% of all the people I’ve had in my classes. While I thank every veteran for his/her service, not all are combat vets and being a combat vet is not an automatic competence badge when it comes to firearms. For instance, tankers and artillery guys don’t spend a lot of time training to fight with small arms. Like wise, LEO status also makes little difference to me unless you are one of those special guys who spend a great deal of time behind a gun on the job or training on your own dime. I’m not knocking military or LEO but; neither my dad, my uncles or any of my cousins (all military and police vets) are on the list of guys I want engaging an active shooter if anyone I care about is in the room. I simply don’t trust the level of competence I’ve seen demonstrated by the average person, the average cop and the average CHL candidate (first time or renewal).
A level head, “common sense” and being well armed might have made a big difference in Killeen, Columbine or Virginia. I can’t go back in time to test that theory but I do know that I have seen reasonably intelligent people do odd things when put into stressful and unfamiliar situations. Reasonably intelligent people still manage to turn the wrong way down one way streets when overwhelmed with navigation and managing traffic. Reasonably intelligent people still manage to apply “common sense” and put water on grease fires in their kitchens with disastrous results. And reasonably intelligent people can still freeze when facing a threat that is so far outside the box that they are stuck asking themselves if it’s really happening. I think an active shooter scenario probably qualifies as a highly stressful and unfamiliar situation for a great many people.
Nearly all of the people I’ve seen keep a level head in emergencies had prior experience/training in stressful situations. It may not be a requirement but sure seems to help a lot. Common sense usually directs us to move away from, rather than toward, threats like an active shooter and bullets so I don’t know if that will necessarily help us stop the shooter. And being well armed might make a difference but, it’s also possible that before you ever engage the shooter, a cop or another CHL holder may see you first and prematurely end your engagement. As often as cops shoot each other, I’m not in a big hurry to get into an engagement with them around. We could both be proven right if we ran these scenarios often enough. But my limited experience with F.A.S.T. and Force on Force training tells me that more often than not, solid tactics and the knowledge required to develop a good plan will let an unarmed but well trained/practiced fighter succeed where a well armed but minimally trained/practiced CHL holder fails.
On my seating choices; life experience impacts the choices we make and shapes our priorities. I grew up being harassed by the juvenile gang-bangers my father arrested, witnessing or dodging drive-by shootings, and I saw two kids bring guns to school with the intent of committing suicide because their parents never taught them to learn and move forward from failure. By the time I got to college, getting shot at school seemed like a very real possibility. Preferring to be near an exit may be called paranoia, avoidance or any number of disorders according to most psychiatrists. I call it being reasonably cautious based on prior experience. Your experiences and priorities may be different.
When you take the time out of your day to beat someone, it has a much longer lasting effect on their demeanor than simply shooting or tazing them.
My perspective is that of someone who has a CHL, is a decent shot in the unpressured environment of a shooting range, is overweight, out of shape, getting on in years, has a bad back and a bad knee, has neither military nor LEO experience, and at this juncture of his life, cannot currently afford any "post-CHL" tactical training. . . .
1. I carry my weapon as a last resort. Unless the incident involves someone I love (which includes my church family), I have no plans to run toward the sound of gunfire. It would be foolish of me to try, and I might become an added burden (or worse, a target) to those who are better qualified than I am to do that.
2. I practice caution. I don't go places where there is an increased likelihood of trouble, and if circumstances place me unexpectedly in such an area, then I make the conscious decision to practice more hightened situational awareness until I can get out of there.
3. I never sit with my back immediately to the door, and with one exception, I try whenever possible to sit where I can see all entrances to whatever room I happen to find myself in.
4. The exception to (3) is in church. If I am not on stage that day, then I sit in the back row, not immediately in front of one of the doors into the worship center. I, like other friends I know at church, consider myself to be a sheepdog. I want to be where I can see what is happening in the room from a point of view of best visibility.
5. I try, at all times, to be aware of anything that seems "hinkey" or out of the ordinary, such as: peculiar behavior in someone who normally belongs in the room; strangers who don't look like they belong there, particularly if they are acting hinkey; sudden increases, decreases, or cessations in normal background noises; etc.
None of these things makes me a more effective gunfighter, but they will all make some small contribution toward my own survival if faced with a gunfight; and with regard to the topic of this thread, they are all things available to a 21 year old college student with a CHL sitting in a classroom, without his or her having to be trained as the next Gabe Suarez. I certainly accept the legitimacy of such training, and if you have the time and budget to afford it, then I say "go 'head on, brother!" I would too, in your shoes. But I try to remember that CHL law doesn't exist to give average slobs like me either the tools or the training to be a ninja with a gun. Rather, CHL law exists in Texas to give average slobs like me the legal recourse to self-defense when other alternatives are not available to me - and that's all it does.
Diane Sawyer, trapped in a classroom when an active shooter situation is ongoing, would kiss the feet of a student with a CHL who was able to put down a mass murderer before she herself was killed. Other than the damage she does to our cause, who gives a rip what she thngs says? She is able to say them from the safety of her guarded TV studio, penthouse suite, and armored limousine. She can go pound sand.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
There is another thread here that is talking about a student "walkout" that is opposing the Campus Carry bill that is in work now...
I proposed a counter to that in the same manner the "Students for Campus Carry" did at some of the campuses around the country...
"Empty holsters"...
This is only a preliminary suggestion I made in that thread...And it could be coordinated to match the time the students are walking out of class to protest this bill...
I figured it should be a silent counter protest...No need to engage anyone on the merits of the bill, just show up, empty holster on display, and we might possibly meetup under the clock tower there at the university, that in my opinion says a lot about the issue at hand...
This coming right on the heels of all of the Tea Party protests, in my opinion this is a one-two punch against the liberal mush minds in this country and our state...
Again, just my opinion and suggestion...I know it is short notice, but I believe it is important...We need to support this bill and the folks who will be most effected by it...Those both for and against it...
Those against it do not know, nor do they understand the issue...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
That scenario was rigged so that the the armed student will always loose. Here is the way it would of been more fair.
Instead of a trained police officer (who knew where the armed student was seated) they should have had another set of students to play the bad guy, with instructions to go into the room shoot the instructor first, then as many students as possible. Without knowing if there was a armed student in the class.
The student that was to be in the classroom armed should have had the choice of sitting where he wanted and maybe use a crossdraw holster (better option for a sitting draw) and try to stop the assailant.
As for the small children you can't expect them to know what to do if they find a gun in a toy box. same if you would substitue the gun with a knife or any poison liquid in a bottle. They make it look like most gun owners are reckless as to how we store our firearms. When was the last time you left your gun in a toy box?
Last edited by gumaro on Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
These people are just plain ignorant.... 
Rant off. Enjoy the vid and add your rants.
