Powerful demonstrations of how concealed carry permits may not make us safer


Wholly apart from the two guys in Michigan who shot each other to death yesterday.

ABC News ran some tests.  People with concealed carry permits — how would they help in mass shooting situations?

Part 1:

Part 2:

Liberals Unite commented on these videos:

The controlled study documented in these videos show that concealed carry permit holders are fooling themselves if they think they will be able to react effectively to armed aggressors.  Most CCW holders won’t even be able to un-holster their gun.  They will more likely be killed themselves or kill innocent bystanders than stop the aggressor.

For more details, see “Unintended Consequences: Pro-Handgun Experts Prove That Handguns Are a Dangerous Choice for Self-Defense.” http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm.

CCW permit holders don’t protect innocent people.  They kill them.

Perhaps we should discuss preventing these cases altogether.  Discuss politely.

More:

It's a cotton t-shirt, not Kevlar.

It’s a cotton t-shirt, not Kevlar.

About these ads

30 Responses to Powerful demonstrations of how concealed carry permits may not make us safer

  1. Black Flag® says:

    Uh?
    Didn’t you watch your own video?

    First of all the “CCW holders” were seated in the exact same place during each of the confrontations. All of them were seated in the center of the front row. It’s hard to imagine a worse place for the students to sit or an easier place for the “Gunman” to shoot.

    Of course the shooter walked into the class knowing which person was armed and where they were.

    WATCH YOUR OWN VIDEO, ED.

    I would love to see the same study done with the CCW holders placed randomly around the room.

    Secondly, the students didn’t get to pick their clothing, their holster or their handgun. Don’t blame the trainees for not being familiar with their equipment if it doesn’t belong to them. In the real world CCW holders put a lot of thought into their gear.
    If the students are put in gloves and baggy t-shirts then it shouldn’t be a surprise that it’s slower and more difficult to draw from concealment. None of them had any muscle memory in regards to drawing a weapon despite the limited training they received.

    Carrying the same gun on a daily basis won’t make you more accurate but it will make you less likely to fumble during a draw. Everyone does better with their own equipment, and I suspect that the trainees would have been much more proficient if they had a few days of carrying the guns that were used.

    However, in counter point, and in your lopsided world viewpoint, things like this never happen, except they do.

    Like

  2. Ed Darrell says:

    Where’s your evidence? You assume a lot contrary to the explanation offered by the reporter. Frankly, though she started her political run in the Nixon Whitehouse, I trust the reporter’s explanation a lot more than I trust your completely unevidenced claims to the contrary.

    Like

  3. Black Flag® says:

    No, Ed.

    They were absolutely knew the entire scenario.

    They were absolutely aware that there were CCW individuals amongst the group

    Don’t feign their ignorance of what was their agenda.

    Like

  4. Ed Darrell says:

    The cops (the actors) were told the scenario, told about the CCW, were told to target them first, were told not to threaten anyone else directly, were not acting like terrorists who have a wholly different motive then a bunch of cops and a movie producer setting up a movie scene to made particularly to fool a set of Progressives (your group) into thinking being disarmed whilst under violent assault is a good strategy.

    Look at the videos again. You’re not describing these videos at all.

    Those playing the crazed shooter roles were not instructed to target the CCP carriers.

    Like

  5. Black Flag® says:

    Or, soldiers, who in the wars slaughter =in the millions= innocent people? Where is your call to disarm them?

    Silence.

    Like

  6. Black Flag® says:

    So, in counter position, do you think cops should be disarmed too, since they face the threat of violence, their best choice would be to have no weapon? Hmmm. Didn’t think so.

    Yet, cops shoot and kill innocent people all the time.
    Gunning down a man asking for their help….
    Gunning down civilians whilst blasting wildly at suspected criminals….
    Gunning down 107 year old men…
    Gunning down a knife-welding 17 year old kid on an empty bus, surrounded by cops, while he was merely…standing there……hitting him 6 times and then tasered him and shoot him 3 more times while he was bleeding to death on the ground…

    Yet, where is your call to disarm cops?

    Like

  7. Black Flag® says:

    The cops (the actors) were told the scenario, told about the CCW, were told to target them first, were told not to threaten anyone else directly, were not acting like terrorists who have a wholly different motive then a bunch of cops and a movie producer setting up a movie scene to made particularly to fool a set of Progressives (your group) into thinking being disarmed whilst under violent assault is a good strategy.

    Ask a solider, cowering behind a wall with bullets flying at him, whether he prefer to be there with his weapons or be there defenseless?

    Like

  8. Black Flag® says:

    “Who were the actors in the piece? The only ones acting a role and not reacting in real time were the cops who played the shooters — not the people with the concealed carry permits.”

    That is exactly what I said, Ed.

    Now go back and read the rest of what I said.

    “What makes you think anyone could do better with real bullets whizzing at them?”

    Trained soldiers, trained cops choke at the same thing, so why do you believe “regular” people wouldn’t?

    So if trained personal also choke – how do you believe your complaint about one class of victims be valid, when that complaint applies to all classes?

    “it’s unlikely they’d be doing better as they bled to death, don’t you think?”

    If you are the victim of terrorist attack, you will be in a mess of hurt and trouble. Period.

    In that place, what is better?
    A chance to fight back
    or
    No chance at all.

    Like

  9. Ed Darrell says:

    Who were the actors in the piece? The only ones acting a role and not reacting in real time were the cops who played the shooters — not the people with the concealed carry permits.

    What makes you think anyone could do better with real bullets whizzing at them? As early as the well-intended concealed-carry permit holders got hit, it’s unlikely they’d be doing better as they bled to death, don’t you think?

    Like

  10. Black Flag® says:

    In other words, Flakey, do you believe you are better off facing a terrorist when you have … nothing but begging for your life?

    Or at least something that gives you a fighting chance?

    Like

  11. Black Flag® says:

    Do you know what you were watching?

    A staged event. Not reality. A movie set. Not reality.

    The motives of the actors are not the same as terrorists. The actors were told of what was prepared, the “victims” were not.

    The actors had no other motive than to make a movie. Real terrorists are not there to make movies. They have other -deadly- motives.

    Do you base your future plans or strategy on terrorist actions from “Rambo” or “Die Hard”? Probably not.

    To argue a point based on a fantasy play as a method to determine real action in real events will lead to disastrous results.

    Like

  12. Flakey says:

    Did you even watch the video Blackflag? In every instance they showed it was worse for the person to be armed than not.

    Like

  13. Black Flag® says:

    “Do you have a case to make, either way, on concealed carry permits as crime preventive? Make it.”

    I did already.

    In face of violence, it is always better to be able to defend one’s self then not.

    Again, it is not an attack on you. That attitude of yours is the mental disease of most Progressives like yourself that see any disagreement as an attack because -in your own mind- you cannot be wrong because you are Progressive.

    Like

  14. Ed Darrell says:

    When anyone points out your errors, you think that is a personal attack. You can’t ever be wrong, huh, Ed?

    Do you have a case to make, either way, on concealed carry permits as crime preventive? Make it.

    I’m weary of your attack on what you thought you might have seen. If you have something to say, say it.

    Clearly I was wrong: I thought an invitation to discussion might invite discussion, rather than personal invective from Black Flag. I’ll try to avoid that error in the future.

    Like

  15. Black Flag® says:

    “Ad hominem? I’m merely observing. I asked your opinion about concealed carry laws, and you said I was stupid and wrong.”

    See, that’s the problem with you Leftist/Socialists/Progressives.

    When anyone points out your errors, you think that is a personal attack. You can’t ever be wrong, huh, Ed?

    My point is absolutely has basis as I pointed out. Singling out one aspect of self-defense as being some futile against a particular attack – when there is NO DEFENSE TO SUCH A PARTICULAR ATTACK is specious!

    Obviously you don’t know what ad homenien means, either.

    Like

  16. Ed Darrell says:

    Ad hominem? I’m merely observing. I asked your opinion about concealed carry laws, and you said I was stupid and wrong. I pointed out that your claims had no basis in anything, you claimed I was evil and stupid and wrong.

    You said my question assumed a false position and I don’t like robust debate.

    I noted that my question asked your opinion, and you replied, again, that I’m stupid, my positions wrong — though, I must confess, you avoided commenting on my mother’s combat boots.

    Ad hominem, it seems to me, is a tactic you use frequently, but cannot identify.

    Like

  17. Ed Darrell says:

    Ad hominem? I’m merely observing. I asked your opinion about concealed carry laws, and you said I was stupid and wrong. I pointed out that your claims had no basis in anything, you claimed I was evil and stupid and wrong.

    You said my question assumed a false position and I don’t like robust debate.

    I noted that my question asked your opinion, and you replied, again, that I’m stupid, my positions wrong — though, I must confess, you avoided commenting on my mother’s combat boots.

    Ad hominem, it seems to me, is a tactic you use frequently, but cannot identify.

    Like

  18. Black Flag® says:

    Seems to me, someone who uses ad homenien as generously as you would rarely miss a chance to expatiate about it.

    Like

  19. Ed Darrell says:

    This image comes to me, of a person wearing a shiny helmet (tinfoil?) covering both ears and eyes, so that any information simply bounces away without having any impact at all upon the wearer.

    Like

  20. Black Flag® says:

    Pray tell how do you pretend to stop those -for whatever reason – seek and plan to do grave harm to others?

    Do you believe you can remove all guns? Knives? Bombs? Bricks? Cars? Airplanes? Trains? etc?

    That’s why its specious. You pretend there is a cure by making people defenseless. It isn’t a cure – its a opportunity for the nefarious.

    Like

  21. Ed Darrell says:

    This question is specious?

    Perhaps we should discuss preventing these cases altogether. Discuss politely.

    Like

  22. Black Flag® says:

    The question is specious.

    By asking “does CCW save people from planned attacks” infers there is something that can prevent/save people from planned attacks.

    But the essence is the planned attack that makes such a question moot. If someone is willing to plan an attack with enough detail and contingency, there is nothing that will stop the attack from occurring except pure luck.

    If someone wants to hurt enough people and willing to accept the massive risk and consequences, they will accomplish it.

    What CCW does, though, is offer a chance to fight back – even though success may be hard to achieve. But one thing is utterly certain – no ability to fight back is far worse situation.

    Like

  23. Ed Darrell says:

    What argument did I make? I asked for your opinion.

    Apparently, THAT is where my argument fails.

    When you start out assuming something that was not stated, and then attack the person who didn’t say what you attributed to them, it is often difficult to figure out just what you’re railing at, Black Flag.

    What argument did I make here? http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/rio-a-film-study-in-time/

    Maybe video can bring the savage argument beast to senses.

    Like

  24. Black Flag® says:

    Do cops with guns stop mass shooters? No better.

    Do army dudes stop mass shooters? No better.

    The point remains – it is has nothing to do with the quality of the victims, it has to do with the quality, motivation and planning of the perpetrators.

    That is why your argument fails – because it is disingenuous; you point your finger at one class and proclaim “ha!”, but that same claim can be made against all classes.

    Like

  25. Black Flag® says:

    But your assertion is wholly untrue.

    Like

  26. Ed Darrell says:

    Neither did I post the facts that most stopped mass shootings have been stopped by unarmed people talking the not-yet-perpetrator into having some sense and/or compassion.

    Please read the links. Concealed Carry Permits can occasionally be useful — far more often, the weapons are used to commit a crime, or simply injure someone through misuse.

    Like

  27. Black Flag® says:

    Whose flying?

    My point remains unmoved.

    Like

  28. Ed Darrell says:

    Read the links at the bottom before flying off the handle, please.

    Like

  29. Black Flag® says:

    Yet, as typical you, do not post the facts that CCW holders have stopped murderers in their tracks.

    Whereas it may be true that a planned terrorist assault would be devastating even in the face of CCW presence, the fact is equally true that a planned terrorist assault upon personal trained in the application of massive violent force (ie: the military) are just as equally devastated.

    The extreme cases of planned terrorist assaults, by their nature, are devastating no matter who the chosen victims are – because they are planned.

    It has nothing to do with the capabilities of the victims whatsoever, so the argument you present is disingenuous.

    CCW however is proven defense against those whose motives are not terror, but revenge or due to mental illness or mental breakdown, etc. – ie: not planned much or at all.

    Like

Play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,333 other followers

%d bloggers like this: