Very useful - Everyone should watch this, even if they don't ever plan to cary a gun! It could still save your life!

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxNRLMWkjc8

Wow, that is some seriously bad science. Lets put a bunch of college students up against a freakin SWAT-trained veteran. HMMMM. How's this gonna turn out?

They should have made the shooter another student. That would have made more sense and would have made this worth its water. The way it is, they might as well have thrown their money in a fire. It would have been as worthy.

I warn all who watch this that it is completely retarded and politically motivated. They decided what their conclusions would be before they began the study. That is about the biggest blasphemy you can possibly commit in science.

Downvote.

They go on to say that there is not a single study that supports the idea that having a gun in the house deters bunglers. This is simply a LIE! They are either simply lying or they are the most pathetic journalists ever to live... My bet is both.

More reasons why ABC is tanking as a network.

^ Journalistic dramatics? Sure. But science? I didn't hear anyone saying it was supposed to be a "scientific experiment".

They said at the beginning that they asked them to participate in a scientific experiment with ABC.

They should also have had the whole room carrying weapons. If everyone in the room could be armed the gunman would think twice before entering.

>> ^Doc_M:
They go on to say that there is not a single study that supports the idea that having a gun in the house deters bunglers. This is simply a LIE! They are either simply lying or they are the most pathetic journalists ever to live.


...it's true. I can't see why a gun would deter a burglar.

most of the time, burglaries are committed on a whim, with a lack of planning, ergo, they wouldn't know that the place they're robbing has a gun.

And besides, if you're not home, or if you're asleep, and they're good enough not to wake you, what the fuck good is the gun to you anyway?

Not to mention if it IS the type of burglary that has been planned for a while, do you think they wouldn't bring their own weapons to counter yours? break in, kill you while you sleep, then take your stuff?

There's nothing to me that proves having a gun deters burglary, at all.

Something else that bothers me about this video is that the shooter always seemed to target the person carrying the gun immediately after shooting the instructor.

You would think that a real shooter would prefer to go after the nearest person within their field of vision or at random than go after the person they somehow know is carrying a concealed weapon.

He goes after the first guy before he even tips off that he has a gun by reaching for it.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

very interesting post. It may not be a rigorous double-blind experiment but it makes the point very well. Everyone thinks they could take out the shooter if they only had a gun - the reality is very different.

scientific or not, that was interesting. the narrator was annoying as hell though.

>> ^Shepppard:
There's nothing to me that proves having a gun deters burglary, at all.


Personally, I'd use either the shotgun or the .22 to just shoot the bastard, but maybe I'm looking at it wrong. Though I also admit that shooting a person is much harder than people realize, in more ways than one.

I have zero pity for burglars.

Think of it as deterrence in the post-modern sense of the word.

I have a concealed carry license and they're right that getting it out from under your shirt is the hardest part of a quick draw. Also, here you're trying to draw on someone who already has their weapon ready.

Hence, enough practice to create muscle memory is a must.

>> ^Doc_M:... They go on to say that there is not a single study that supports the idea that having a gun in the house deters bunglers. This is simply a LIE! They are either simply lying or they are the most pathetic journalists ever to live... My bet is both...


I was burglarized once. Some guys broke into my house (thankfully while I was out) but didn't take anything. It turns out they had the wrong address. They then broke into my next door neighbor's house, their original target. What did they steal? His extensive gun collection. (actually they also stole his extensive drug collection too, but of course he didn't tell the cops that, or that his gun collection was much more extensive than he'd told them because most of them were unregistered).

That's my only personal experience with the crime-deterring power of having a gun (or many guns) in the house.

People who make the choice to carry a firearm with them naturally rehearse in their mind situations and their reactions many times. Having a plan that automatically kicks in can make all the difference. This appears to be a significant confounding factor in this experiment.

There was a church shooting about 2 years ago in which an armed security guard froze for minutes behind cover, and a church-goer with military experience repeatedly asked the guard for his gun, but the guard wouldn't give it to him.

Some people are overwhelmed by stressful situations, and others aren't.

>> ^chilaxe: There was a church shooting about 2 years ago in which an armed security guard froze for minutes behind cover, and a church-goer with military experience repeatedly asked the guard for his gun, but the guard wouldn't give it to him.


I'm sorry, but that there is just smart. How would the guard know if the military dude wasn't in on it or a convict or just a fricking whack job? Also, if the guard had any training whatsoever, he might be worried about shooting a bystander, or causing one to be shot when he came out of cover. Too many variables and not enough info in your story as it stands.

Most burglars focus on empty houses, having a gun in your home is no deterrent, it just puts the gun into their hands. You have a better chance of shooting a loved one than ever using it to defend yourself against an intruder.

As for the situation in the video. You have a prepared assailant against an unsuspecting "hero". The training level of the "bad guy" makes no difference in this situation, they've the upper hand as soon as they walk in. You'll notice the "bystanders" flee, usually covering their head, or try diving on the floor to use the tables for cover. The "heroes" all went for their weapon, an action that draws the attention of a shooter, seeing that everyone is wearing a hood and are basically anonymous. They shouldn't have tried to immediately take out the shooter, but rather take cover, get out of his line of fire and try to find an angle that doesn't expose them to the shooter.

I'd love to see this same scenario play out with a few dozen conceal-carry permit holding, "I needs mah guns fer protekshun" hero wannabees and see how well they'd perform under stress. I'd be amazed if they would fair any better.

I don't know. Guess it's fate. Several old people in this town were stuck in their homes during robberies and beaten to death. One guy, a gay hair-dresser, they just tied up and beat for a while, but left him alive.

Guess we all gotta make our choices and stand by them.

Does anyone know of any link to any actual peer-reviewed scientific study regarding civilian gun ownership and home robberies? There seems to be a lot of talk out there.

I found the video interesting but I'm still pretty skeptical. Most of the people I know who own guns are ex-military and I trust them for the most part.

But my point was, how are you going to shoot the gun if you're not home or awake, and if you're actually going to shoot them, and they knew about you having a gun, its not exactly like the gun deterred them, is it?

>> ^rougy:

Personally, I'd use either the shotgun or the .22 to just shoot the bastard, but maybe I'm looking at it wrong. Though I also admit that shooting a person is much harder than people realize, in more ways than one.
I have zero pity for burglars.
Think of it as deterrence in the post-modern sense of the word.

1) The attacker seems to know where the gun in the room is. So, how is that possibly fair? He gets the element of surprise, gets his gun drawn, and gets to know what target he needs to shoot second.
2) The students were put in this outfit, with baggy t-shirts and a waist holster. They weren't comfortable with it themselves.
3) Did the students know the guns were shooting paintballs?

I'm generally against the internet tough guys who think that arming everyone is a solution to crazy gunmen, but this "experiment" is just a strawman.

>> ^Doc_M:
They go on to say that there is not a single study that supports the idea that having a gun in the house deters bunglers. This is simply a LIE! They are either simply lying or they are the most pathetic journalists ever to live.

Yes, Doc_M. We should listen to you, instead of the highly trained cops they interviewed in this report. You know, the ones who say it's pretty much bullshit that being armed during an attack such as at a school, a church, or home, is going to help you somehow.

Oh, but it's just those police-state cops who are trying to ensure noone owns firearms, so when martial law is instigated, we're all screwed!


BTW: Doc_M

Can you point us to studies showing this to be false? Nah, didn't think so.

You seem to completely miss the point of the story, and instead jam your own misguided wedge issue where it doesn't belong.

"nowhere near the head"

oh contrare...

Personally, I use a 12 gauge shotgun for home defense. It was cheap, but good construction, easy to fire and very clearly tells intruders whats coming for them. My first warning for intruders is yelling "Who's there?" My 2nd is chambering a shell. That is a truly universal sound in this day in age.

To be honest, I think most of you are missing a major point in the video. Yes, the 'science' behind the panic-room tests are questionable, but there are several important points made about humans' ability to respond with a gun in a crisis situation.

Let's review, shall we?
- When the adrenaline begins to pump, the body removes blood from the appendages in order to make sure it's better at running. This removes dexterity from the hands and can render grabbing and shooting a gun futile. Only through major training can those interested parties (police, in this case) retrain their bodies.
- The minds of those in crises narrow their focus, to focus in on the danger point. In these cases the danger point is another gun but focussing on the gun is futile, because it's the human that's shooting the gun. As well, there are many other things going on in the room it's necessary to be aware of, that those in the situation will simply not be aware of. Shooting at someone without paying attention is likely to have unintended consequences. Again, only through major training can those interested parties retrain their minds to broaden their focus.
- Unless you train regularly, it's often impossible to react with enough speed to do anything before the consequences of not running catch up with you.
- Probabilistically speaking, it's better to just run, because only 50% of people with guns will actually shoot, and each shot is more unlikely to hit you the further away you are.

Now, having said all that, I don't think it's bad that anybody owns guns. Just that they need to realize that in crisis situations they're not really that effective. Yes, it's great that you have a bunch of guns in case the government decides to become a dictatorship. I live in Canada where everybody is allowed to own guns who wants to (assuming they pass license requirements) and we're one of the safest countries in the world. I must admit, though, nobody I know owns a gun. I live in Vancouver, BC where there's recently been a few gang-style shootings, but nobody I've talked to feels unsafe. I mean... there's 11,000 murders in the US every year, but there's less than 50 per year in Canada. Even at the small amount of gang murders the public outrage has been huge. These people know they are not welcome to practice their violence here (or anywhere for that matter.) Not much to worry about here.

It's not guns that kill people, it's crazy people with guns that kill people. (:

So, to conclude, I think that focusing on the 'shady' science done by NBC is incorrect. Many of the important points made in the piece were simply corollaries to the demonstration. If you want to maximize your chances of surviving a gun-standoff, just fucking run. Or, if you want to minimize you chances of being in a gun-standoff, just move to Canada. Of course, you will have to accept Canada's national identity (Peace for all) if you move here, so make sure you're ready for that. (:

P.S. I didn't intend that to be about Canada, just happened to mention it and ran with it. Don't think I'm trying to be nationalistic, just realistic, given the statistics.

http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=5585 ABC news Primetime Live faked poor meat handling prices at food lion.

Dateline NBC General Motors investigation: GM placed incendiary devices in GM pickup truck to ensure gas tanks would explode.

And then, there's always the news show who put a non functioning revolver in a toy box in a pre school to see what the kids would do when they found it.

I don't seen any pattern of credibility in these types of reports but they don't get paid to be right. Oh well.

Yet more reasons untrained Americans need to arm themselves and claim 2nd Amendment.

Strawman video.

Until you've been sitting at home alone and have someone quietly turn the doorknob and try to open the door, you don't know the value of having a gun within reach. Luckily the door bolt was bolted and the .357 was at hand.

Guns are for pussies. Just punch him in the face - Canadian style.

>> ^Memorare:
Strawman video.
Until you've been sitting at home alone and have someone quietly turn the doorknob and try to open the door, you don't know the value of having a gun within reach. Luckily the door bolt was bolted and the .357 was at hand.


Strawman comment.

Until you've killed a relative who was trying to quietly turn the doorknob and try to open the door you don't know the consequences of a national gun-craze.

Guns don't save people... peer-reviewed scientific journals do.

How many times have we heard "The gunman then stalked from room to room killing as he went" or something similar. I understand that it takes training to efficiently draw a gun and fire in a matter of seconds but many of these shootings involve a gunman stalking from one room to another shooting unarmed people at point blank range over a period of several minutes. To say that a concealed carry is worthless in a situation like this is ignorant. There is no point in arguing hypotheticals. There IS a point in conducting scientific expirements under varying situations. That is certainly not going on here. If it is possible for someone to pick up a cell phone and dial 911 in a situation like this it is possible for someone to draw a gun and defend themselves and the people around them. I certainly don't think everyone should be armed but this video didn't prove anything except that if a trained gunman bursts into a room, shoots the instructor and then turns the gun on you, you will probably die. That is the only situation this video addresses.

For starters in the case of an even mildly thought out burglary guns are probably irrelevant.

It seems strange to me that in the case of a lone gun man in a public setting they try to say that drawing weapon is pointless yet using a cell phone would some how be less pointless. If you have time to hide, call 911, and start answering questions, you have time to hide, draw your weapon and select a target.

I've been in a violent situation before where I was the person in the back on the phone, and to be honest the only thing that protected me, and prevented the situation from escalating, was a well timed can of mace.

think about the lone gun man again. What if multiple people had weapons? What if a hand full had weapons and a couple called 911??

I guess the feeling I got from the video, was that in the case of a shooting, one of you hiding and calling emergency while the rest were lambs to the slaughter, was preferable to calling for help while some try to defend.

I'm glad I don't live in a country where I have to worry about guns.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^ Kind of feel bad about saying it, but me too. My first child was born in Torrance, SoCal - near the end of the year. When I heard all of the guns going off around us and our new born on New Year's eve - decided to get out.

What they didn't do was show the result of what would have happened if the crazy guy pulled a gun, and NO ONE ELSE in the room was armed... Of course, that would have annihiliated the propoganda point of "this is why civilians shouldn't carry guns..." As usual, I'll ignore the mainstream media's biased point of view here. They have no credibility, and therefore anything/everything they say has to be winnowed carefuly.

The lesson I choose to take away is this... "American civilians need to be better trained in firearm usage."

If you compare the crime rates in sleepy middle-class towns in the US to those in Canada, they're going to be relatively similar.

To me, it was interesting to see how people with limited training reacted to a worst-case scenario. I don't think anyone who carries a gun would argue that more training would be a bad idea. But to speak to some of their specific claims:

1) If you have time to hide and call 911, you have time to hide, call 911, and draw your pistol for protection until the police get there.

2) If someone beats you to the draw, the only thing you can really do is run and hide and hope you don't get hit. That should be common sense.

3) If you make it to cover and the gunman shoots someone and leaves, you're fine. If that person goes around methodically shooting people, maybe you can have time to at least try to save yourself - which is more than you can do if you're not carrying.

4) What if you were in the classroom next door and had a gun? You would have had plenty of time to find cover, get a good sight picture on the door, and possibly protect your roomful of people in a mass-murder situation.

5) The students that had guns didn't hurt anyone, and, in some cases, shot the gunman several times. Yes, they got shot as well, but what if they had incapacitated the gunman with those shots? Or scared them away? It may have saved lives.

In general, carrying a gun exposes you to a new set of risks and responsibilities. As someone who has a concealed carry permit, I would agree that there is not enough training required to sufficiently expose people to those variables. However, I do think the right person with the right training could have prevented a handful of attacks in this country from being much worse. The fact that those people were prohibited from doing so is kind of a bummer.

As a cop buddy told me, "Signs saying 'No Firearms' don't have any positive effect. No criminal has ever gone to rob a bank and said, 'Oh, gee... I can't bring my gun in here.'"

But they do deter law-abiding citizens from carrying with the appropriate permits. Therefore, nothing good really comes from "no gun" zones, regardless of the arguable efficacy of having one in a situation where you need to use it.

>> ^ridesallyridenc:
I don't think anyone who carries a gun would argue that more training would be a bad idea.


Tout au contraire, I would prefer concealed carry licensed individuals such as myself keep the training basic, concentrating on safety and the law. Training them to be trigger happy, shoot first ask questions later types, like cops, won't help our cause. In fact it will probably only result in further restrictions on who could be licensed. Both the legislation and the practice of CCW require people to act as ordinary citizens would in that situation because they have the right to protect themselves, too. If they can get the guy to leave without killing him the more power to us. The pharmacist missed, but it is impossible to conclude that the situation ended badly. (besides him getting fired, and I'll put cash down on that prediction)

iaui ^ ^ ^

"only 50% of people with guns will actually shoot"

What? What the hell is that based on?

>> ^Doc_M:
Wow, that is some seriously bad science. Lets put a bunch of college students up against a freakin SWAT-trained veteran. HMMMM. How's this gonna turn out?
<stuff...>
More reasons why ABC is tanking as a network.


Sorry doc, but there is more propaganda in YOUR post than in this video. I think it's vastly unfair to politicise this when there was absolutely no agenda in the discourse that took place during the video.

The fact that the guys entering the room swiftly took out two targets is a problem - true. But the response from the student is the key point here. They freeze up, or fail to get their gun out, and i completely understand, i've been in a similar situation (or at least, in my mind it was similar, i was scared for my life and i had to act quickly) and i can't explain to you the systems at work in my mind and body when it happened.

I consider myself well capable of handling situations where i need to defend myself or where action is needed rapidly for self-preservation, and i knew what i WANTED to do at the time, but it felt like muscles were tensing in my body that i didn't need to tense yet, as though my brain was telling them things in the wrong order. Now that i think of it, i can barely describe it beyond that because it's so confusing and unlike anything else. The terror is immense and hits you like a wall and you'll never understand that unless it happens.

But there is no way to perform a double blind test, what the fuck do you tell the shooter? It's impossible. How can you adequately mimic the behaviour of a psychopath? Any person you send in to do that job will do it unflinchingly and with as much speed and clinical precision as their skill would allow.

The things you are meant to take from this video is that, in a hectic, scary, life threatening, raw situation, you will not act as you think you will act. You will not react in the ways you think you will react. You will find the simplest things difficult and time will move faster than you think it'll move. Your body will betray you, because it's a WHOLE new experience to you.

I really, really don't think guns are a good thing. People argue the toss about it all the time, and i'm so sorry, but HAVING GUNS INCREASES GUN CRIME. Taking guns away might not reduce crime, because people can always resort to knives, but it does reduce GUN crime.

If the statistics on that don't back me up, i'll be forced to re-evaluate my opinion. Check school shootings especially, because i think it's the best possible demonstration of the point. Law abiding citizen turns crazy and shoots people. They have easier access to a gun because it's available under law. Now scale that down if you wish using our population ratio, and you still have a clear message.

And i'll pre-empt the circular argument by BEGGING you not to say "but if i had a gun i could kill him". HE HAS THE GUN BECAUSE YOU CAN HAVE A GUN.

I once had a link to wikipedia gun crime statistics and as i remember there was either 0 or 1 (my memory isn't clear on this) gun crime incident in britain, ever, compared to america's growing list. Can't find it now.

The person you're most likely to kill with your own gun: yourself.

The second person you're most likely to kill: a member of your own family.

The third person you're most likely to kill: a perfect stranger who was of no threat to you.

The single biggest predicate for dying from gun violence: owning a gun.

This is just sad. Let's watch and see what happens when trained police officers have the advantage of surprise and drawn guns on an untrained student with his gun still in it's holster? Oh right, he gets shot before he can take the gun out of it's holster! This is just a stupid 'experiment'.

I was taking a nap once when a burglar broke into my house. I would have had time to set myself up "Blue Velvet style" with a gun, but instead decide to scare him off with a machete. I also didn't have a shirt on. I think it worked better than shooting him. The weirdest thing was when I told the cops what I did, they told me I should have chased him down the street.

Besides illustrating that reality is a horrible, complex fucked up set of events at the best of times, the other thing I take from the video is that the assailants had fucking guns in the first place. Yes I'm no big gun fan.

Still there's no automatic need to view this an anti-gun piece is there?

I don't see any real science going on here but their point is that usage of guns in any scenario, especially the worst-case one depicted, is going to be messy experience unless you're a trained pro. Now a life of constant training for people to keep their edge does not seem smart or practical - more like completely insane. I'm sure there's a wonderful buzz to be had in owning guns but you've got to recognise and deal with the downsides.

BTW Ryjkyj asked about that 50% observation. I can't quote any sources or figures right now but I remember watching some WW1 programmes last year (or maybe it was a newspaper) but apparently many soldiers didn't shoot to kill and at a certain point deliberately missed targets. Either because they were no longer feeling the cause or become traumatised. Doesn't apply to civilians but I suppose shock and panic might prevent them from using weapons they had originally intended to fire.

http://www.gunowners.com/psatext.htm

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

(Most of the time, the defenders never fire a single shot).

* Locking up firearms can cost lives during a life-threatening situation. In California last year, two children died -- they were pitchforked to death by a crazed drug addict -- because a resident in the home could not access the household firearms in time. The guns were locked up in deference to California state law.

* Guns are the Great Equalizer for women. As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.

* Law-abiding gun owners are a good form of crime control. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).


Self-defense is a fundamental human right. The choice by some to be victims should not infringe on that right.

>> ^bleedingsnowman:
The weirdest thing was when I told the cops what I did, they told me I should have chased him down the street.


Wise advice. And here people are knocking a GED education.

^ ^ ^
In other news today, a shirtless machete wielding maniac was shot by police, while running down the street slashing at a terrified young man.

i would like to believe this was a scientific experiment. But first I would like to hear any evidence against this data before placing my trust.

Since we're all using anecdotal evidence about whether or not guns make a difference, here's some from this week.

http://www.wsls.com/sls/news/local/article/troutville_man_who_shot_intruder_says_911_tapes_are_accurate/33207/

You can find plenty of cases like this in casual news searches. I've had similar problems in my neighborhood over the last year alone where home invaders were scared off by homeowners with firearms. It's true that people without police/military training are not likely to be Rambo in high stress situations like the one demonstrated in the sift. Hell, even with training there is still a large element of chance when sitting in what is essentially a shooting gallery while you're ambushed by a gunman that has the draw on you. However, I don't think that makes a compelling argument for writing off concealed carrying.

Now for some real evidence. The Lott study from the University of Chicago contains plenty of real data on crime deterrance and firearms. Studies done in Florida showed crime dropped significantly after concealed carry laws were enacted. Also, of the crimes reported in Florida between 1987 and 1994, only 18 were attributed to legally licensed owners (of which there were over 220,000). There is a documented connection between decreased homicides, rapes, and assaults in states where citizens can legally carry firearms. Facing a serious risk of death while attempting a burglary or robbery tends to deter people. If that knowledge still isn't enough to stop them, then bullets get the job done quite effectively.

http://www.mtssa.org/lott.htm

"But there is no way to perform a double blind test, what the fuck do you tell the shooter? It's impossible. How can you adequately mimic the behaviour of a psychopath? Any person you send in to do that job will do it unflinchingly and with as much speed and clinical precision as their skill would allow."

Simple answer for this one... Take one of the students, even one of them with gun experience and tell them to enter the room and shoot as many people as possible... a realistic goal for a killer. Don't tell them another person in the room has a gun. Once they are hit once or the gunman gets hit, trial over. Do this a few times with a few groups, then compare it to a like study where no one in the room except the gunman has a gun. Look at the numbers and you've got a good study. Science gods appeased. Demonstration valid... and still scary.

"* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense."
To be fair, that number is likely an overestimate:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t1h35xg532770p26/


The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 86, No. 1 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 150-187 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1144004?seq=2 :
"...research has consistently indicated that victims who resist with a gun or other weapon are less likely than other victims to lose their property in robberies and burglaries. Consistently research has also indicated that victims who resist by using guns or other weapons are less likely to be injured compared to victims who do not resist or who resist without weapons."
"With regard to studies of rape, although samples typically include to few cases of self-defense with a gun for separate analysis, McDermott, Quinsey and Upfold, Lizotte, and Kleck and Sayles (citations in linked article) all found that victims who resisted with some kind of weapon were less likely to have the rape attempt completed against them."

I found that in ten minutes... Apparently ABC had fewer than 10 minutes to look?

Here's a book I found but can't yet vouch for, still:
http://books.google.com/books?id=B1TqrNK3OkAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=gun+personal+protection+evidence&lr=&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0

Just want to correct myself. I believe it was 0 or 1 "school shootings" that i was referring to. Not gun crime incidents, that'd be stupid.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by notarobot.

Awarding eric3579 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.