# "Proof that concealed carry permit holders live in a dream world"



## Gunners_Mate

Proof that Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world, Part One - YouTube

What say you?

also, part two





(VAMarine, where is your dish now?)

:watching:


----------



## Holly

Oh, my...


----------



## usmcj

There's no substitute for training. That being said, I would guess that very few criminals train with a firearm. I think it might be interesting to have everyone in the class armed, and a random student (not part of the class) enter. My guess is that a couple of folks would get shot, but the intruder would go down as well. This video also typifies the "gun free zone" mentality that exists on most college campuses, and the likely result of that premise. Situational awareness is virtually non-existent.


----------



## MLB

Unfortunately, a lot of that is true. If someone gets the jump on you, you're likely done (especially if he knows you're the one with the gun and exactly where you are :smt083 ). However, a small chance of defending yourself is dramatically better than zero chance.

I'd have liked to see how that would have turned out if the student was placed randomly in the classroom, and the shooter didn't know that there was an armed individual in the classroom (or where he was). I'd think it would turn out quite differently.


----------



## Holly

MLB said:


> I'd have liked to see how that would have turned out if the student was placed randomly in the classroom, and the shooter didn't know that there was an armed individual in the classroom (or where he was). I'd think it would turn out quite differently.


Agreed.


----------



## TedDeBearFrmHell

proof that ABC lives in a dream world where they can create the news..... its the disney background, entertaining infodramas vs real news.


----------



## Gunners_Mate

I also agree, in every scenario it was painfully obvious that the "attacker" was to shoot the teacher, saying something angry, and then go after the individual in the class room with a gun, whether or not they had even begun reaching for it yet. 

this couldn't be more apparent than in the one scenario where they feared the student might actually suceed and thus planted a second guy in the class room who without fail of course knows who the student is before he even react's to the situation, let alone reaches for anything. It's sad how biased this "study" is. Just because a state doesn't particularly require someone to be particularly trained before getting a permit doesn't mean that EVERYONE with a permit has maintained only that amount of training. 

I absolutely despise the media for thing's like this, pushing stupid beliefs onto the public, popularizing and increasing ignorance. The fact that leo's were involved/conducting the study and this is how they went about it just goes to show "holier than thou" the police officer has come.


----------



## TheReaper

That BS is exactly what I would expect from ABC.


----------



## HK Dan

Well, I suppose that we may live in a dream world; but it's no more dreamy than the people who believe that the police will be able to stop the guy, arrest him, pepper spray, taser, and lock him up before he can do any harm to them. I'll take my chances and my training.

I don't know about you guys but I have over 700 hours of training in with some of the biggest names in the industry, and Rob Pincus. (Sorry Pincus, I hadda do it) LOL. I'll take my chances on not getting my gun caught in my shirt when I need it.


----------



## crescentstar69

While Diane Sawyer is grabbing her cell phone to dial 911 and trying to play possum at the same time, I will be pulling my gun and shooting that bastard. Typical liberal media whiny crap. Roll up in a ball and play dead, just hoping nothing happens? Seriously??


----------



## Holly

crescentstar69 said:


> Roll up in a ball and play dead, just hoping nothing happens? Seriously??


It could work.


----------



## FNISHR

The film struck me as pretty biased, but it's also dependent on bias to assume that an armed student WOULD solve the problem. Too many variables, too much speculation. What we do know, and it's all we really know, is that if someone in the classroom is armed there is at least a chance of them being able to deal with the situation. It's not a happy thing to contemplate from any perspective.


----------



## crescentstar69

In a spree shooting, the shooter usually does have the element of surprise, and yes, you might get shot no matter what. But I would still rather have the option of someone being able to take the assailant out VS. just lying there waiting to die and trying to dial a phone. There is a reason why these losers usually pick a "gun free zone".

Remember, the police almost always arrive too late, and they are there to investigate and clean up the mess. They probably won't arrive in time to save anyone. I will take my chances with my gun any day over lying down like a sheep to be slaughtered while clutching a phone.


----------



## rgrundy

These senarios were set up so the student would fail miserably. They were given "training", probably told how big and bad they had become, put in a cenral location and had headgear on so vision was blocked. They were amped up but the perps were not. Total B.S. designed to intimidate us and make "normal" people thing we're nut jobs and that only "trained" government employees should have guns. I'm disguised as an old gray haired guy that always wears that lame "old guy vest" and sits in the corner. I'm old, gray and my hands and knee are swollen but I have to finish my coffee and go shoot USPSA this morning. There are many of us left who would rather die than live safely and have our rights taken away. Our founding fathers felt the same way I believe.


----------



## cclaxton

I want to make a few points on this one:

1) I work in the broadcast industry and Diane Sawyer is one of the most balanced journalists in the business with no agenda. Some producers and the law enforcement people she was working with may have an agenda, but she is always interested in facts and reason and watches for manipulation. ABC does not make editorial decisions for news shows. If there is a slant, it is because of who they used for information and the study and it would be unintentional. I work in the technical end of the business and I do not work for ABC. I have worked for MSNBC in the technical role. 

2) People are going to want to believe what they want to believe and ignore facts and reason, especially when it concerns something they are passionate about. But I think it is dangerous to let belief control our judgement and ignore facts and reason and analysis in any area of knowlege whether it be medicine or guns with the exception of religion. The whole purpose of concealed carry is to be prepared to defend oneself against a deadly attack, and if that can't be done without sufficient training and sufficient clothing then that is critical information to save ourselves in a gunfight. We should embrace that warning.

3) I think the show highlighted what I think is a critial issue to concealed carry: adequate training and proficiency. If this show causes more people with concealed carry to get adequately trained or get involved with groups like IDPA to get more practice and training, then the show has done a great service to the gun community. 

4) I do have some criticisms of the show: The fact that they restricted their clothing was a problem and they should have trained them to use proper concealed clothing and practiced their draw. I think that slanted the test slightly. Also, the gunmen were likely highly trained and they should have used similarly trained students to make the test better. They also should have promoted organizations such as IDPA who are helping to bridge the training and proficiency gap.

As a concealed carry holder, this show helped to provide even more motivation for me to get adequately trained and practice regularly, and that is fine with me. 

I would encourage everyone to observe your own beliefs and put them aside to find whatever truth there is in this matter to learn how we can be better handgun owners and advocates.


----------



## TedDeBearFrmHell

cclaxton said:


> ......
> 1) I work in the broadcast industry and Diane Sawyer is one of the most balanced journalists in the business with no agenda.......


the best thing about people is that they often will tell you exactly who and what they are, IF you listen closely......

diane sawyer IS a liberal apologist and has been every since she got into the entertainment business. she makes no effort to conceal her embrace of the liberals in our government and show biz..... she is biased and if the forum members do a little research , they will be able to see for themselves rather than take the word of a liberal apologist .


----------



## Gunners_Mate

cclaxton said:


> I want to make a few points on this one:
> 
> 1) I work in the broadcast industry and Diane Sawyer is one of the most balanced journalists in the business with no agenda. Some producers and the law enforcement people she was working with may have an agenda, but she is always interested in facts and reason and watches for manipulation. ABC does not make editorial decisions for news shows. If there is a slant, it is because of who they used for information and the study and it would be unintentional. I work in the technical end of the business and I do not work for ABC. I have worked for MSNBC in the technical role.
> 
> 2) People are going to want to believe what they want to believe and ignore facts and reason, especially when it concerns something they are passionate about. But I think it is dangerous to let belief control our judgement and ignore facts and reason and analysis in any area of knowlege whether it be medicine or guns with the exception of religion. The whole purpose of concealed carry is to be prepared to defend oneself against a deadly attack, and if that can't be done without sufficient training and sufficient clothing then that is critical information to save ourselves in a gunfight. We should embrace that warning.
> 
> 3) I think the show highlighted what I think is a critial issue to concealed carry: adequate training and proficiency. If this show causes more people with concealed carry to get adequately trained or get involved with groups like IDPA to get more practice and training, then the show has done a great service to the gun community.
> 
> 4) I do have some criticisms of the show: The fact that they restricted their clothing was a problem and they should have trained them to use proper concealed clothing and practiced their draw. I think that slanted the test slightly. Also, the gunmen were likely highly trained and they should have used similarly trained students to make the test better. They also should have promoted organizations such as IDPA who are helping to bridge the training and proficiency gap.
> 
> As a concealed carry holder, this show helped to provide even more motivation for me to get adequately trained and practice regularly, and that is fine with me.
> 
> I would encourage everyone to observe your own beliefs and put them aside to find whatever truth there is in this matter to learn how we can be better handgun owners and advocates.


while the people who watched that who do conceal carry are feeling insulted at the hours of practice they put into the very serious decision they've made to conceal carry, or maybe, just maybe, saw it and thought to themselves I should probably practice more. However, far more people, who don't conceal carry, have now become jaded of those people who do carry and have now likely lost most of their belief that those who carry are responsible about it, if they had any to begin with.

regardless of Ms. Sawyer, the students were ill equipped, the shooters were highly trained professionals who already knew who and where their targets were, and when it's all said and done they generalize and blanket all who conceal carry as inept fools who couldn't possibly ever actually protect themselves or anyone else in a real situation, also making a point to make them seem like they could be a danger to you at a certain point.

this is media fear mongering and ignorance amplification at it's finest, and it's entirely geared towards making the general public either indifferent or adamantly negative towards firearms and using them defensively in the public so that nobody will say a damn thing when the Brady Lobbyist's and those like him and his ilk come trying to destroy our rights the sheep either don't care or support the fact.

I don't care how "unbiased" anyone may or may not be, the facts stand and there are agenda's plainly apparent throughout this whole news report. That's what's important.


----------



## denner

Holly said:


> It could work.


Yes it could work, they say the same about grizzly attacks. However, I'm not the victim type and would prefer being able to defend myself if the situation arose and at least if your armed you should be on a somewhat level playing field. I don't prefer leaving my destiny in the hands of an assailant if at all possible, but some don't seem to mind. If I go out I'd prefer going out blazing or attempting to blaze rather than being rolled up on the floor playing dead at the mercy of an armed assailant. To each their own.


----------



## usmcj

I spend a fair amount of time in a dream world. It's part of situational awareness. Visualize scenarios that could easily occur a normal day for me, and create a range drill to cope with that scenario. Having my own range, is a great asset in this regard. The vast majority (my opinion) of attacks are not well planned, rather the result of opportunity. If I have planned, and the attacker has not, then I'm a few steps and rounds ahead of the game.... and the attacker. This premise has worked for me and my wife twice in past years, and we both are still here, and despite the attempts, were not victims. Works for me... but to each his/her own.


----------



## rgrundy

They set this utterly biased news report up to scare people off who are thinking about CCW (if you noticed in the last few years since Obama became president everybody went out and bought a gun) and to let everyone else know just what nuts people like us are to even think of carrying when obviously the police are better protection. This "news report" is total horseshit, period. I live in a dream world too. Over the years just having a fighting mindset and situational awareness has saved the lives of several would be attackers because they just broke off before making contact. I never felt that I was ever in danger. I am an expert with many weapons including handguns (was good at trickshooting too) but my totally nasty attitude towards goblins has always been the decideing factor. When you make eye contact as someone comes at you and they see the humanity drain from your eyes it stops them or they will hesitate unless it's a setup like these kids were put into to D.I.P. (die in place)


----------



## cclaxton

TedDeBearFrmHell said:


> the best thing about people is that they often will tell you exactly who and what they are, IF you listen closely......
> 
> diane sawyer IS a liberal apologist and has been every since she got into the entertainment business. she makes no effort to conceal her embrace of the liberals in our government and show biz..... she is biased and if the forum members do a little research , they will be able to see for themselves rather than take the word of a liberal apologist .


Ted, 
Labelling doesn't help anyone. Labelling anyone a "liberal apologist" just glosses over the issue and the detailed discussion of facts, history and reason. It is entirely possible that a balanced journalistic report could actually make concealed carry look tenuous without proper training.....you may label it as being liberal but that is just your label coming from your position. I don't know of a single gun range operator who thinks the average concealed carrier is sufficiently prepared. In fact, every time I ask, I hear something like: "Most of the people I see who have CCP scare the sh*t out of me."

Also, I would appreciate it if you would not insinuate I am a liberal apologist. I support our 2nd Amendment right to self defense on private and public property. I advocate to liberalize gun laws so that it makes it easier and legal to carry most anywhere (a few exceptions make sense). I also support our right to own assault weapons. I am no liberal apologist. I just try to get the facts right, use reason rather than belief, and want to see the gun community do a much better job of training, safety and public message. That is what will generate more good will which can be leveraged into liberalization of gun laws.

We have to be willing to respond in a reasoned manner and have a message that people respond to...including the media. In many jurisdictions gun rights are mainstream and appeal to both sides of the aisle. All we have to do is to tap into that mainstream and we can make progress. But we can't ignore the media or the weaknesses in our gun communities. We have to work on those weaknesses and CCP without adequate training is one of them.

That is what I got out of the report. We have work to do. If we don't listen and take action, we will end up on the losing end.

With all due respect...just my opinion...not asking anyone else to agree. 
Thanks,


----------



## TedDeBearFrmHell

cclaxton said:


> Ted,
> Labelling doesn't help anyone......


like i said, people will tell you exactly who and what they are ..... no different here..... i dont have to insinuate if your words or actions confirm.


----------



## stickhauler

I can't speak for all concealed carry holders, but those I know likely do more firearms training than the majority of police officers. And regardless of the one poster's opinion about Ms. Sawyer's journalistic integrity, I've yet to see her or her employer do a fair representation of firearms, or gun owners other than John Stossel's reports. I also notice he is no longer in the ABC stable of journalists, whether his honest reporting style, or other issues, played a role in his leaving ABC.

There was no unbiased reporting to the story, plain and simple. It was scripted and staged from the get-go in an outcome based method, to PROVE that concealed carry is not effective. The "attacker" knew upon entering the room who the armed student was. You are entitled to your opinion of how unbiased Ms. Sawyer is, I'm also entitled to have the opinion she has NEVER saw the use of firearms for defense by citizens as any viable option.


----------



## LittlestoneAmmo

*Artificial "Evidence," Film at 11*

This report is the perfect vehicle for an anti-gun rights TV reporter/producer and not only demonstrates built-in political bias but also one of the glaring weaknesses of television "journalism." Not only does the staged situation falsely purport to "prove" that CCW is a bad idea, it provides lots of wonderful video for the viewing audience. Consider how boring would be a truly factual report, complete with statistics but without play acting gunfights. TV news has to have video. Facts? Not necessary at all. After all, they are in the entertainment and ratings business, not really the news business...


----------



## Gunners_Mate

denner said:


> Yes it could work, they say the same about grizzly attacks. However, I'm not the victim type and would prefer being able to defend myself if the situation arose and at least if your armed you should be on a somewhat level playing field. I don't prefer leaving my destiny in the hands of an assailant if at all possible, but some don't seem to mind. If I go out I'd prefer going out blazing or attempting to blaze rather than being rolled up on the floor playing dead at the mercy of an armed assailant. To each their own.


the thought "It's denner, not Dinner" came to mind, :thumbs up:



cclaxton said:


> Ted,
> Labelling doesn't help anyone. Labelling anyone a "liberal apologist" just glosses over the issue and the detailed discussion of facts, history and reason. It is entirely possible that a balanced journalistic report could actually make concealed carry look tenuous without proper training.....you may label it as being liberal but that is just your label coming from your position. I don't know of a single gun range operator who thinks the average concealed carrier is sufficiently prepared. In fact, every time I ask, I hear something like: "Most of the people I see who have CCP scare the sh*t out of me."
> 
> *best shooter I've ever had on a range in my time as a line coach was a guy who shot IDPA, the only shots that didn't go perfectly through the same ragged 3 inch hole in the center were about two inches low cause he wasn't used to the double action trigger pull of the m9 (92fs)*
> 
> Also, I would appreciate it if you would not insinuate I am a liberal apologist. I support our 2nd Amendment right to self defense on private and public property. I advocate to liberalize gun laws so that it makes it easier and legal to carry most anywhere (a few exceptions make sense). I also support our right to own *assault weapons*. I am no liberal apologist. I just try to get the facts right, use reason rather than belief, and want to see the gun community do a much better job of training, safety and public message. That is what will generate more good will which can be leveraged into liberalization of gun laws.
> 
> We have to be willing to respond in a reasoned manner and have a message that people respond to...including the media. In many jurisdictions gun rights are mainstream and appeal to both sides of the aisle. All we have to do is to tap into that mainstream and we can make progress. But we can't ignore the media or the weaknesses in our gun communities. We have to work on those weaknesses and CCP without adequate training is one of them.


assault weapons? whats that? I only know of magazine fed semi auto rifles, which could be used for a variety of purposes, assault weapons sounds like something only a crazy person who intends to walk into the public shooting all willy nilly, and whilst I agree we should always promote training in the firearm community, we should also promote proper use of term's. assault weapons is a phrase used by those like the brady campaign, anti-second amendment "folk" (to avoid profanities) and should never be used by those who believe in the second amendment.


----------



## MLB

I'm not sure we're ever going to get much progress on the "assault weapons" terminology problem. Seems to me that most Americans are led by emotions rather than sound reasoning. If you dress up a common Ruger 10/22 plinking rifle with a collapsible stock and a foregrip guard, and place it next to an AK-47, most folks would consider them both "assault rifles". 

Personally, I find the terms (including "hunting" rifles) useless from a legal standpoint. The firearm is both of course, depending on what the shooter is doing with it. Similar to a hammer or a bat. It's just a hammer or a bat until you beat someone with it, then it becomes a "deadly weapon".


----------



## Gunners_Mate

and I agree. the problem is the people who are trying to force a difference in terminology despite their being none.


----------



## usmcj

...anything can be an assault weapon... all ya gotta do is assault someone with it. It's really NOT rocket science. :smt1099


----------



## TedDeBearFrmHell

"Every tool is a weapon,* IF *you hold it right"

Ani DiFranco


----------



## denner

Under further review of their testing protocol I find it interesting that their final conclusion is that "all" school shootings will have this same scenario? Extremely untrained students vs. highly trained law enforcement personnel who know who is armed in a single classroom encounter? Both in the Va Tech massacre and Columbine the Perp's methodically roamed throughout the schools. The Va Tech nut actually had been barricaded out of one classroom while trying to enter and roaming the halls. Safe to say, at least one individual properly trained and armed would have had much more than ample time to draw his/her weapon to meet force with force.


----------



## JBarL

If the scenerio was not done by ABC then the outcome would have been different. Let me say this, 1. the B.G. isn't gonna know who is armed when he comes to the room. 2. just about all mass Shootings Happen in Gun Free Zones. This is ABC's way of getting the Propaganda
out that guns don't save lives. As I sated above Gun Free Zones Are the number one target for Lowlife Scum who want to produce a high body count. Now If the role was reversed and the Shooter had no clue of the person with gun Chances are high that the intruder would have been hit and chances are the gun holder would be hit too. But if you know the target before you enter the room then the stage was set to show that reaction time is slow. Now I will say this if I had been put in that situation Yea I would do my best to seek cover get a position on B.G. and do my best to take him\her out before they got me. but again if they already know I'm armed then there is no winning.
But ABC is just trying to prove a point on their Anti- Gun agenda In reality if a B.G. thinks your armed he will find another target.

JBarL


----------



## Cat

News is like this, For killing the bad guy in your home.Why did you do that.


----------



## slow2run

Well I like the BAR HOLSTER , I VEDIO DOWN FROM THE TOP.


----------



## bullet1234

Another attempt to stack the tables so the results will go the way you want them to go.
What's the deal with head gear,,,,, you know anyone who uses that????

Naturally, if you train the CWP person you are going to know who to shoot first ,,,,, my game would
be everyone in the class have a gun,,,,, see who dies then. Just my ideal world dream. 

Bunch of pin head liberals stacking the results again.


----------

