What an INSULT!

[Metal god]

What a crock . All the ccw guys were in the same place ,front row center and the shooter new it and went straight for them . As for the claim you need to train , I think thats spot on .

I'm not really sure what the reporter was trying to get across in the story . Was she saying , even if you have a gun that does not mean you will be able to fight off an attack ? It sounded like she was saying . It would be hard to win in that situation so why bother . If the point was the former I would agree but that does not mean you don't even try . I say just ask Susan Gratia-Hupp how she would feel about this .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgrIsuO5PLc She watched people die all around her And could do nothing about it cus she was not aloud to have her gun with her . Just because you are in the area of a shooting does not mean you will be the first to get shot as the report seems to imply . It appears she would have been able to take the guy out .

 

[Buzzcook]

The experiment may have been flawed, but it did expose problems with lack of training.

One thing to remember is that the student was the second target of the gunman not the first. There was time to draw and fire for the last couple of students.

The point remains, just having a gun is not enough.

 

[Metal god]

I believe the video shows the experiment's flaws when that last guy takes cover never moves and yet the gunman goes right at him even though there are plenty of other targets . It was clear the gunman got his intended target the teacher then turned his attention to his next "intended" target the ccw guy . I don't care who you are if your the intended target of a surprise attack your odds of surviving it will go down quite a bit .

I'd like to see that exact same experiment and the only difference being the gunman does not know who has the ccw or where they are seated . Oh lets also not have the gunman be a professional firearms instructor or cop and just your average bad guy like the average god guy they are putting him up against . If they did that I would bet the ccw guy would not look so inept . They say real world it would be different . well then lets see a real world scenario

 

[Beepy]

It's a prime example of a politically-motivated piece, using a cherry-picked experimental group who are pretty much set up to fail.

Sounds very much like the precise definition of "propaganda", doesn't it?

From the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda)

Definition of PROPAGANDA
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause

Judge for yourself.



ETA:

I'd like to see that exact same experiment and the only difference being the gunman does not know who has the ccw or where they are seated .

Well, let's take the "experiment to the other extreme. Let's do it with a classroom where all the attendees are armed and the BG/Shooter is not privy to whom, if anyone, is armed.

BP

 

[Chowder]

Ok, who's going to say it? Alright I will "Of course it was a guy named 'Chowder' who noticed that first....

This truly made me laugh out load haha. I got the nickname Chowder in college in PA. I was the only kid from New England so "new England Clam Chowder" or just chowder became my name. A decade later the name still sticks... It also helps that I'm somewhat portly and love chowder haha.

 

[Skans]

I guess, then, anyone who is attacked, whether with a gun, knife, club or fist, if they don't have the "proper training" they should simply lay down and die. Don't ever bother fighting back. Not even the backyard bully....because if you don't have proper training, you are worthless.

 

[SPEMack618]

Also, to go along with what Skans said, something that I've always found funny was a year or so ago, the Political Science Club hosted a debate about the merits of campus carry.

The girl who was arguing against it, who I had a few classes with in the past, went on a tangent about "training" and the ever popular frat boys with guns with argument.

I took great pleasure, in having anticipated that remark, wearing a fraternity t-shirt, and pulling my Expert Pistol badge out of my pocket at about the time she said that.

She then went on another tangent about how I was "different", being a National Guardsman, and that most people wouldn't get training.

I countered with the fact that our local range NRA basic pistol course was constantly full.

But whatever, the notion that one must under go some from of training to excersise a Constitutional Right angers the hell out of me.

You don't have to pass a test to vote, shouldn't have to own a gun.

But like being a well informed voter takes work, being a responsible gun owner should invovle training.

 

[Skans]

You, know Spemack, you got me thinking. I will agree to a firearms test so long as an equally difficult voting test is also required before anyone is eligible to vote. If the firearms test consists of loading a .22 revolver with 3 rounds and firing them all into a 2'x2' target 7 feet away; then the voting test should consist of the following 4 questions: 1) Name the US vice-President; 2) Speaker of the House; 3) Secretary of State; 4) write the 2nd Amendment.....in English....spelling counts.

Fair enough.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

FYI on training.

1. Having a training requirement was a strategy by antigun groups to decrease those who carry.

2. One well known principle in moral psychology is that taking the life of an innocent, even to save other innocents, is unacceptable. The rational calculus of the greater good isn't that emotionally powerful.

Both of these are operative in the training requirement discussion.

I do think that if you do argue that you will be a 'sheepdog' in some critical incident - you will make a more convincing case if you have training.

Whether it should be required is another discussion. It is fairly clear to me that in a fair test of an attack on a locale, competent shooters could have a high chance of reducing causalities.