Ready, Aim, Truth

[rbane3]

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

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How many SWAT guys have gone nuts and shot up the place?

I think that cop with the MAC in Dayton, Ohio was SWAT and that NJ cop with the HK54 was SWAT, but, come on, how often does a SWAT cop go bonkers?

 

[rbane3]

How many SWAT guys have gone nuts and shot up the place?

I think that cop with the MAC in Dayton, Ohio was SWAT and that NJ cop with the HK54 was SWAT, but, come on, how often does a SWAT cop go bonkers?

That's an interesting point, Kirk, but I'm not sure of the relevance? The SWAT guy was taking the place of an armed assailant. Scenario 1 had him as a disgruntled or terminated employee who came back to exact vengeance. Scenario 2 had him as a terrorist taking over an office building.

 

[T.Lex]

The point is, I think, that the "bad guy" in the scenario had 22 years of experience training for these scenarios (maybe not all that time on SWAT, but still). The MOST training the good guys had was... 50 hours?

Would have been more truthier if they'd had someone with comparable (or less) actual training on tactics.

 

[The Ninja]

That's an interesting point, Kirk, but I'm not sure of the relevance? The SWAT guy was taking the place of an armed assailant. Scenario 1 had him as a disgruntled or terminated employee who came back to exact vengeance. Scenario 2 had him as a terrorist taking over an office building.

I think Kirk's point is that it's unlikely for an armed assailant to have police/SWAT training, thus weighing the scenario a bit much in favor of the assailant.

EDIT: just barely beat.

 

[throttletony]

That's an interesting point, Kirk, but I'm not sure of the relevance? The SWAT guy was taking the place of an armed assailant. Scenario 1 had him as a disgruntled or terminated employee who came back to exact vengeance. Scenario 2 had him as a terrorist taking over an office building.

I believe his point is that most "mass shooters" probably don't have his level of training and experience. On the other hand, I would also imagine that he may have "dumbed down" his skills a bit for these scenarios... it's hard to say


edit to add: what's the conversion rate of mall-ninja-forum-discussion-training to actual hours training (including sending round downrange)

 

[avboiler11]

They were not told Clary would be wearing body armor. That meant in order to kill or wound the assailant, they would have to score a hit to the head, neck, or pelvis.

Obviously there are no physical effects whatsoever on someone wearing body armor when hit by a round.

 

[rbane3]

The point is, I think, that the "bad guy" in the scenario had 22 years of experience training for these scenarios (maybe not all that time on SWAT, but still). The MOST training the good guys had was... 50 hours?

Would have been more truthier if they'd had someone with comparable (or less) actual training on tactics.

Ah, I gotcha now. Bit slow on the uptake this afternoon, I guess. Fair point. Just another mark against the exercise as unrealistic or unscientific. I don't disagree.

I still found it to be an interesting watch and I'm glad that the adage is being tested, even if imperfectly, and holding true. Furthermore, none of the GGs sprayed the room with wild bullets hitting everyone but the BG, like the antis claim would be the case.

 

[T.Lex]

I would go a bit further. It is basically consistent with some real-world stats compiled by BehindBlueIs. A "normal" person (with minimal, if any, training) can successfully defend him/herself with a handgun.

Even though the one poor lady in the story didn't score any hits, the fact she was shooting changed the calculus for the bad guy SIGNIFICANTLY. Yes, a 22-year veteran stayed in the fight to shoot back. A typical hoodlum, methinks, is unlikely to have the same courage. A terrorist, perhaps more, but it also increases the need to START shooting.

 

[Thor]

Kirk's point is valid. Now if they had unexpectedly come up against someone with equivalent training then the scenario is even. Suppose the roles were reversed and the SWAT guy was sitting in the conference room and the attacker was some aloha snack bar supporter who had about two weeks of fam on their weapons? I'm guessing the guy busting in the door looking for Twinkies and spam is going down.

 

[pudly]

I would go a bit further. It is basically consistent with some real-world stats compiled by BehindBlueIs. A "normal" person (with minimal, if any, training) can successfully defend him/herself with a handgun.

Even though the one poor lady in the story didn't score any hits, the fact she was shooting changed the calculus for the bad guy SIGNIFICANTLY. Yes, a 22-year veteran stayed in the fight to shoot back. A typical hoodlum, methinks, is unlikely to have the same courage. A terrorist, perhaps more, but it also increases the need to START shooting.

Actually, non-terrorist mass murderers characteristically kill themselves and/or run away when faced with real opposition. Terrorists are a different story.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Tagged

 

[T.Lex]

Actually, non-terrorist mass murderers characteristically kill themselves and/or run away when faced with real opposition. Terrorists are a different story.

Yeah, (at the risk of being obtuse) didn't we cover this in a different thread?

First, hopefully, OC/CCers can ... dissuade a murderer before they get to whatever magic number we want to use for "mass murderer."

Second, IMHO the lessons from the OP's link can apply to non-mass murderer/non-terrorist event. The "terrorist in conference room" scenario could just as plausibly have been a robber in a bank or pharmacy or whatever. Part of the takeaway for me was to wait as long as possible for the best possible opening to start the self defense. Observing/Orienting before Deciding/Acting. But when action is necessary, commit to it.

As an aside, it appears there was no "stop or I'll shoot" attempt. (Or warning shots from the good guys.) That's probably a good thing.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

That's an interesting point, Kirk, but I'm not sure of the relevance?

The other guys have it. He's a frickin' experienced SWAT with how many hours of training vs. Holly Homemaker and Milton WideintheMiddle? Come on.

Give the pellet AR to someone with no experience and see what transpires.

I mean no offense to the police, but you have to question the validity of such a scenario.

Like Jeff Cooper said, F quality usually fight F quality.

 

[Woobie]

The other guys have it. He's a frickin' experienced SWAT with how many hours of training vs. Holly Homemaker and Milton WideintheMiddle? Come on.

Give the pellet AR to someone with no experience and see what transpires.

I mean no offense to the police, but you have to question the validity of such a scenario.

Like Jeff Cooper said, F quality usually fight F quality.

These names of yours are getting better and better.

You make a great point.

 

[chipbennett]

Next time, set up the scenario using unarmed victims, and see what the result is.

 

[chipbennett]

So, what, exactly, was this scenario supposed to prove?

FTA:

Our "bad guy with a gun" was Shawn Clary, a SWAT team member and tactical instructor with 22 years experience.

...because your typical bad guy always has two decades of force training? Oh, wait: you'd be lucky if the bad guy has even actually reached the age of 22.

Our “bad guy,” Clary, was carrying a semi-automatic AR-15 that also shot plastic pellets.

...because bad guys are always out-and-about with AR15s?

They were not told Clary would be wearing body armor. That meant in order to kill or wound the assailant, they would have to score a hit to the head, neck, or pelvis.

...because your typical bad guy rolls with body armor?

 

[T.Lex]

You know, the marksmanship aspect of being a 20 year LEO is important. That guy likely knows how to shoot really well. He has a particular set of skills, as it were.

So, while Holly Homemaker hardly hit, Harry Hoodlum's hurried hotshots probably would've suffered similarly.

 

[Beowulf]

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.

 

[T.Lex]

Oh, I think there is value to this exercise, for all the reasons you mention. I just think it could've been done even a bit better.