Ready, Aim, Truth

[bwframe]

You folks realize that ACT runs at least one force on force scenarios course a year and Mindset Labs runs them throughout the year, right?
Very worthwhile to test and train one's mental and physical prowess in relation to any kind of threat. Excellent training, money well spent.

 

[chipbennett]

It seems like a lot of people seem pretty critical of this exercise. I'm wondering if they read the article or watch the video, in which the armed citizen killed the attacker 4 out of 8 times and hit the attacker 2 more times (which probably would have stopped most of them, even with a vest). The two complete failures were the woman just missing completely, which is a call for more training, and one guy choosing to open carry in one of the scenarios, so the shooter targeted him first immediately.

Yes, this isn't a perfect scenario, since the people participating were ready for an attack. On the other hand, the shooter knew exactly who and where the concealed carry holder was each time, so that gives them quite an advantage (plus having 22 years of effective combat training).

This is better than previous simulations which were run by anti-gunners, where they pitted a trained SWAT team member against a college kid with no training whatsoever, and ran the scenario in which somehow the shooter always knew exactly where the concealed carrier holder was sitting (which lead to basically a wild west quick draw) and then magically shrugged off multiple hits as being "not fatal" while declaring any hit on the CCH as lethal.

The point I took from the exercise was that, even stacking the deck against the armed citizens, they still proved themselves able to be the "good guy with a gun" stopping a bad guy with a gun.

 

[KellyinAvon]

If we got rid of GFZs we'd see more real-world scenarios like this. Until then...

 

[RobbyMaQ]

I think it does coincide with BBI's course. I am surprised the woman did as well with off body carry.
I agree with Kirk's idea that a swat officer is more skillfully adept in training, but I feel he also tried to make it realistic and offer opportunities as they appear in real situations (as best as a keyboard commando can tell anyways).

I think it speaks volumes that the old guy saw the body armor, but kept hitting him in the chest on the fisrt run, likely thinking it was a safety gear / precaution as part of the training they were doing. He made up for it the next round realizing head shots were allowed. They should have been more informed / prepared for the scenarios.

lastly... 50 hours of training? seriously? Many of us get 30+ hours a year easily... BBI's course shows a 80% success rate with few training hours whatsoever...

I'd have never been comfortable with an exercise as shown in this video, without BBI's course. I might have pulled it off (seeing the few hours of training by many of the participants), but would never have been as calculated in my decision making. for better or for worse... those odds are still better than zero chance of success.

 

[Jeepsandguns]

I thought it was interesting that most of the time, the GG froze once they started shooting. A couple of times, both shooters just stood there facing each other firing as many rounds as they could. I wonder how more movement/better use of concealment would have changed things even more

 

[Cameramonkey]

Another vote for "screw SWAT". If you want to TRULY balance the exercise, have a novice act as the shooter. All this exercise showed is what happens when a highly trained cop goes nuts and shoots up a place. How often has a shooter been a disgruntled SWAT trained cop?

If you want it balanced, make one of the "victims" go try to shoot his coworkers and act as a disgruntled employee like one of the turds in recent events (VA Tech, Nadal Hassan, etc.). when putting novice up against novice, I think you would get a better result. Hell, even saying "Billybob EDCs and has owned guns all his life. Lets let him act like a shooter" would be a more realistic approach to this exercise.

All I got out of this was "Billy Blanks and Richard Simmons can out exercise their students for the most part". Well DUH! This only compares novices to attacks by trained terrorists, not the everyday attacks we are more likely to see.


Now if they were trying to say that Joe the Plumber has no chance against Achmed the highly trained ex-special forces of Iran terrorist, I could agree with their methodology.

 

[Tombs]

I was baffled anyone passed the test... Unskilled individual concealed carrying a handgun vs someone with 22 years of swat training, a rifle, and body armor.

If the success rate is even below 50% it's still a MASSIVE testament to the fact that gun free zones are the most sadistic thing ever enacted in our nation's history.

 

[ajeandy]

I thought it was relevant. The bad guy dying @ least one time is better than him killing the whole office every time.

 

[wtburnette]

A Texas news station set up a training demonstration with licensed concealed carriers at varying levels of training to test the adage "The only thing that stops a Bad Guy with a gun is a Good Guy with a gun."

The test could have been a bit more scientific. While they may not have known what the threat was, they knew there would be one, so situational awareness wasn't tested here. Still an interesting read/video.

Ready. Aim. Truth: 'Good Guys' vs. 'Bad Guys' Part 1

Interesting video, thanks for posting

It seems like a lot of people seem pretty critical of this exercise. I'm wondering if they read the article or watch the video, in which the armed citizen killed the attacker 4 out of 8 times and hit the attacker 2 more times (which probably would have stopped most of them, even with a vest). The two complete failures were the woman just missing completely, which is a call for more training, and one guy choosing to open carry in one of the scenarios, so the shooter targeted him first immediately.

Yes, this isn't a perfect scenario, since the people participating were ready for an attack. On the other hand, the shooter knew exactly who and where the concealed carry holder was each time, so that gives them quite an advantage (plus having 22 years of effective combat training).

This is better than previous simulations which were run by anti-gunners, where they pitted a trained SWAT team member against a college kid with no training whatsoever, and ran the scenario in which somehow the shooter always knew exactly where the concealed carrier holder was sitting (which lead to basically a wild west quick draw) and then magically shrugged off multiple hits as being "not fatal" while declaring any hit on the CCH as lethal.

I think I saw the same video you did, by ABC. That was such BS. Giving the college kids oversized t-shirts that fouled the guns almost every time they tried to draw from concealment. There was so much fail in that video it wasn't even funny. I had to look it up in case anyone else wanted to laugh at it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

 

[Beowulf]

Interesting video, thanks for posting



I think I saw the same video you did, by ABC. That was such BS. Giving the college kids oversized t-shirts that fouled the guns almost every time they tried to draw from concealment. There was so much fail in that video it wasn't even funny. I had to look it up in case anyone else wanted to laugh at it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

Yeah, it is the most ridiculously staged failure scenario. Every single time, the active shooter zeros in on the CCH, even when they aren't really doing anything noticeable (also they are in the same spot). It would have been fun to run that same exercise and move have the CCH shooter switch seats with a student by the door. If you watch, the shooter completely ignores basically everything to his left when he is locking on to the CCH. I'll bet he'd have shot the wrong the student and ended up with a couple rounds in his guts after that.

Plus, you see the girl in the second scenario hit the shooter basically directly in the femoral artery in his thigh. Maybe he would have taken her out after that, but he certainly wouldn't have gone on to execute anyone else before he bled out on the floor. So, I'm not exactly sure what's that supposed to prove.

 

[wtburnette]

Yeah, it is the most ridiculously staged failure scenario. Every single time, the active shooter zeros in on the CCH, even when they aren't really doing anything noticeable (also they are in the same spot). It would have been fun to run that same exercise and move have the CCH shooter switch seats with a student by the door. If you watch, the shooter completely ignores basically everything to his left when he is locking on to the CCH. I'll bet he'd have shot the wrong the student and ended up with a couple rounds in his guts after that.

Plus, you see the girl in the second scenario hit the shooter basically directly in the femoral artery in his thigh. Maybe he would have taken her out after that, but he certainly wouldn't have gone on to execute anyone else before he bled out on the floor. So, I'm not exactly sure what's that supposed to prove.

Agreed. I guess it's to prove that liberals are idiots. As if we didn't have enough proof of that already...

 

[Beowulf]

Here's part 2 of that BS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLN6_s66wTg

They have one guy with training be the CCH and he manages to take out the active shooter... only to be shot from the side by a surprise second shooter who was one of the students in the class. Again, what does this prove? I don't care if you are a SOCOM badass, if you get blindsided by a second assailant who comes out of nowhere from a group you think are friendlies, then guess what... you are going to be shot. They might as well had a scenario where people dressed like police show up, but actually turn out to be murderers in disguise. Or maybe have a 90 year old woman actually turn out to have a suicide vest under her sweater. What a show.