ABC news staged an active shooting scenario with random individuals and it went as expected:

[joshcryer]

[hlthe2b]

1. I wish I could make every person I know with a gun (or who I suspect has guns), watch this.

[Straw Man]

4. I've seen it many times.

It's more rigged than a North Korean election. First, they're wearing those ridiculous gloves, which have no other function than to reduce their manual dexterity. Second, the helmets restrict their vision and movement. Third, the long, baggy shirts inhibit their ability to draw the weapon. Finally, the assailant knows exactly who has the gun: it's the person front-and-center. That's who he goes for immediately after shooting the "instructor."

And despite all this, Danielle manages to land a disabling shot on the assailant, hitting him in the inner thigh. Although she would have died in the attempt, she inflicted a wound that would have severely limited his movement and possibly (think femoral artery) eventually caused him to bleed out and die.

[hlthe2b]

8. Your screen name seems...

VERY apropos

[Straw Man]

21. Really?

Your screen name seems...

VERY apropos

You're apparently referring to the "Straw Man Fallacy" in rhetoric. Please explain why you think that I have committed that particular fallacy in the post to which you are responding.

[joshcryer]

11. I think the baggy shirts are OK.

The gun has to be concealed, after all. I do think in the training though they didn't allow them to practice pulling a concealed weapon. Same with the gloves, they're necessary to prevent injury (and to make the participants think that they're being educated on protective gear to further distract them), but they should've practiced with them.

I think the video shows more than that though, I mean, the people didn't say it, but it's obvious that they knew that they were going to be ambushed, it's just common sense. Everyone is geared up? You're the only one with a gun? Everyone went for their guns immediately, even the guy who froze. They had just spent the day being trained on shooting guns.

But I'll give it to you that they should've been allowed to practice with the gloves and the baggy shirt.

I don't think the outcome would've been much different.

As far as the shooter knowing who he was, that's not fair, the shooter goes in an arc motion, shooting first the instructor then the students as they run. That is more of a placement issue. He could've easily been placed to the furthest left in the room or he could've been the second person shot as he comes in the room. It makes the entire thing a roll of dice.

Which it would be in a real world attack. A roll of the dice.

BTW, I'm of mixed opinion on this sort of thing. Prevention does happen but it's exceedingly rare. Jeanne Assam stopped the New Life Shooter (who was by all accounts going to massacre a lot of people and do so with ease). The guy in that case was a classic spree killer, posted shit online, had a manifesto, was certifiable. The problem is that if someone wants to do something like this, they can plan it, and they can inflict a shitload of damage before anyone can do anything. Jeanne was kicked from New Life, btw, for being gay.

[hlthe2b]

12. Given the revealing video of the "safety officer" who shot himself in the foot just re-holstering...

I think the point ought to be made to anyone who is honest enough to consider the challenges.

[joshcryer]

15. Yeah, I don't see the need to nitpick.

But I don't think anyone here seriously considers arming teachers. It's so asinine of an idea that it's a non-starter, just another Trumpism to fuck with people and distract from his impending indictments.

[treestar]

26. That is the situation they were in

There are many situations people could be in. No limit to those situations.

[7962]

29. Not to mention the fact that the "shooter" is a trained officer.

He's much more likely to land accurate shots from the beginning.
Most of these mass killers aren't trained, they just shoot.

[LoveMyCali]

34. Which is why so many of them

are using weapons that can fire up to 400 rounds per minute.

[meadowlander]

55. +1.

The point is that any yahoo off the street can now purchase a weapon that allows them to massacre large numbers of people regardless of any level of skill or training.

[femmocrat]

2. Very informative.

And teachers are supposed to do this??? Insane.

[Freethinker65]

3. +1000

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. Thank you for posting this. most timely, indeed. n/t

[appal_jack]

6. This is well-done. k&r, nt.

[highplainsdem]

7. I remembered seeing that years ago, but couldn't recall which network. Glad you found the video.

[Lee-Lee]

9. As said above, a totally ridiculously set up scenario

In every way the people were set up to fail,

[azureblue]

16. yep - I agree

the fact that the gun carrier thinks they can defend themselves in a real world situation with a firearm is a fail from the start.

[VMA131Marine]

30. Just like in real life ....

there are no-win scenarios and you don't get to choose whether the one you're in is one of those.

[Lee-Lee]

31. Nope

The one time I had to draw my gun to ward off an attacker, however, it worked in my favor.

Never had to fire a shot.

[VMA131Marine]

32. You got lucky

[Lee-Lee]

33. No I was prepared

Lucky is every day I don’t get chosen to be a target of an assault.

If you look up the facts on defensive uses of guns there are millions of cases a year of good people “getting lucky” as you wish to call it by having the means to defend themselves available.

[NoMoreRepugs]

35. Millions of cases a year?

Assuming millions is even 2 million in your statement that breaks down to almost 5500 instances a day. I read a lot every day... online subscriptions to NY Times, WP, the Atlantic, get Time and Newsweek and Vanity Fair delivered.... never ever have I come across any mention of the tens of thousands a week of these occurrences.

I CALL BULLSHIT

[Mariana]

36. Provide some evidence for your claim of "millions of cases a year" please. nt.

[Lee-Lee]

39. Here is an article discussing a CDC report

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html


See #7, the CDC found that studies out the number of defensive uses of guns from 500,000 on the law side to almost 3,000,000 on the high side.

If we split down the middle that leaves it 1,750,000.

Even if we take the lowest number 500,000 is still a significant number.

Now, you don’t see or hear about this at all in the news because it doesn’t bring ratings. But that average in the middle seems about right based on my experience as a deputy where we responded to this kinds of things and made the reports after.

[Mariana]

44. I'd like to read the actual report, rather than a summary

but the link in the article doesn't work. I'm somewhat skeptical about "estimates" derived from "surveys". Maybe I can find the report itself somewhere. Thank you for the information.

It doesn't really matter anyway. The mass shootings are going to drive the demand for gun control. It's similar to all the freaking out over the opioid problem, while completely ignoring the fact that alcohol kills more people.

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. Here you go:

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence (2013)

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

[Mariana]

49. Thanks! nt.

[Fred Sanders]

48. Well, it is down to half a million from millions. "Use" of gun is not defined, and no link to report

Bet the report says the estimate from surveys is unreliable methodology.

[friendly_iconoclast]

51. Here's the link at the National Academies Press, with "use of gun" defined:

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence

Pages 15 and 16:

Defensive Use of Guns

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual
defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

[Fred Sanders]

42. Link? Not NRA...millions..lol.

if a gun is pulled on junior coming home late at night, is that a "use"?

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. "Not NRA" The Centers for Disease Control, actually:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

The gun control debate is certainly worth reopening. But if we’re going to reopen it, let’s not just rethink the politics. Let’s take another look at the facts. Earlier this year, President Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assess the existing research on gun violence and recommend future studies. That report, prepared by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, is now complete. Its findings won’t entirely please the Obama administration or the NRA, but all of us should consider them. Here’s a list of the 10 most salient or surprising takeaways...

...7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

The full report can be found here:

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

[meadowlander]

57. And for each person who "gets lucky"

how many people:

- have their own gun turned against them
- have their gun stolen and used against someone else
- accidentally shoot an innocent bystander
- get depressed and kill themselves or have a depressed family member kill themselves
- use the gun in a domestic dispute in the heat of the moment
- have one of their young kids find the gun and injure themselves or someone else

[Lee-Lee]

60. Based on the stats posted earlier a lot less

[ProudLib72]

10. Unfortunately, gun humpers will watch this and say

"I would do much better than that!"

[azureblue]

18. and the gun humpers are out in full force

trying desperately to distract, excuse, and rationalize. Easy to tell then by their comments, too - standard NRA crap regurgitated

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. Kindly point out these purported 'gun humpers' to us

[sarisataka]

14. Staged

Is the key word

[LanternWaste]

17. No more and no less than the creative fiction of movies and heroes that is referenced

No more and no less than the creative fiction of movies and heroes that is referenced in every thread as the basis for what the sheriff assigned to the school should have done.

But I get it... it doesn't validate your narrative and hence, should immediately be dismissed.

[sarisataka]

19. I don't really understand

What you are getting at? What movie are we talking about? As to what the sheriff should have done-he did nothing legally wrong, courts have said police have no duty to protect individuals. Morally... well if you take a job that has known dangerous risks, you should be prepared to face those risks. I wasn't there so I withhold judgement

As for my narrative, I don't have one. However I can recognize a scenario set up to reach a pre-determined outcome.

[treestar]

25. It is actually possible

that the person could fail to get the gun out in time, could miss, etc.

[sarisataka]

40. It is very possible

Or they could freeze and do nothing or they could hit a bystander or...

But I never claimed any of those things wouldn't happen.

The only thing I am claiming is the situation is set up so the person with the gun in the room is guaranteed to fail to stop the instructor from being shot and will be the second person shot.

[treestar]

41. How set up?

The guy who could not get it out of his shirt - the shirt was a set up?

The girl who thought she hit his head when she hit his leg - how was she set up to do that?

[sarisataka]

43. As others have pointed out

The shooter knowing who is armed and exactly where they are sitting is a huge advantage

That the young lady was able to get off a shot and hit a trained shooter that was targeting her specifically is a shocking success

[treestar]

52. She was going to have died in the scenario

What would be the point of letting the paint-shooting participant know who was armed? (Though in the classroom scenario, a real shooter would know it was the teacher under the Dotard's idiotic plan).

[sarisataka]

53. Only a moron

Would guarantee you live through an armed encounter; a gun is not a protective talisman.

The point? The simulated aggressor goes in knowing there is one armed person to stop them and that person is sitting front and center. You don't believe that is an advantage?

Yes that is one (of many) flaws in the plan to arm teachers; any shooter will know, 'shoot the adults first'

[treestar]

58. Why would they tell them that in the scenario?

That would undermine the experiment.

[sarisataka]

59. .

[sinkingfeeling]

20. For those saying this was rigged to fail, why don't you get

with your local police and college and provide your own documentary. I'd be interested in seeing it.

[7962]

28. Surprise is the biggest factor in ANY situation.

Surprise is the biggest factor in ANY situation. Any criminal will usually assume an unarmed victim. The element of surprise is taken away with ANY video like we see here. The "shooter" knows people are armed when he goes in. Training for anyone carrying a weapon brings reaction to instinct, which elevates the "surprise" factor in the favor of the victim.
Sadly, most carrying have probably not been through ANY training.

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. How many lectures have audience members wearing work gloves?

[Blue_true]

23. Gunhumpers. The imagery is LOL. nt

[treestar]

24. It is real life and not like the movies

Too many John Wayne movies makes people think it is simple.

[7962]

27. Old video, and staged for failure from start to finish. They got the result they wanted.

the extra large clothing, the "gunman" knowing who was armed, its really ridiculous.
I can post a legion of security videos showing gunmen instantly fleeing when the meet armed resistance. If they haven't been shot. No 2 situations are exactly the same

[PatentlyDemocratic]

38. I agree

The message has some accuracy, but the scenario is rigged. Baggy clothes and a professional marksman who knows exactly who to shoot. There are better ways to make the point.

[Blue_Tires]

45. 53,000 down votes? LOL folks are mad...

[Turn CO Blue]

54. I saw this when it first aired. I wish I could rec this more than once Josh.

People with a Rambo mentality, go around all-tough saying things like "if I'd been in the Aurora theater, I would have done blah blah blah" have some crazy idea it's like a video game. The adrenaline spike alone leaves many people frozen, not to mention the eye/hand coordination needed under that pressure. This news report nails it.

[Kaleva]

56. The odds of such an occurrence happening as depicted are about zilch

While such events make the news, given the size of the population of this country, the odds of anyone being a victim or a survivor of such an attack is very, very, small.

And demographics come into play. A gang member in Detroit has a higher chance of being a victim of such an attack then does an elderly white woman living in Montana.

[joshcryer]

61. You hear more stories of concealed carry people "being on the scene but not firing..."

...than you do of them intervening. These types of situations go down very quickly. I've seen enough CCTV of stuff like this happening to know that humans react very panicy in situations like this. It's really hard to combat someone who is intent to kill people.

(Not talking about home intrusions, I'm talking about some hot shot conceal carry guy getting interviewed and saying he was sorry he couldn't do anything in some random act on the streets.)