TexasCHLforum.com

fickman wrote:From last night. . . after detailing that the law prevents BATFE from maintaining a database to reconcile gun serial numbers to purchasers and detailing that they have to go to the manufacturer, then to the wholeseller, then to the distributor, then to the FFL / storefront, then to the original purchaser in order to determine ownership. . .

BATFE Agent: Last year we did over 300,000 serial number lookups for criminal investigations.
Reporter: And you had to do all of those manually?
BATFE Agent: Yes
Me (from couch): You're darn right!

. . . I couldn't even muster a crocodile tear.

And what they're not telling you is how many paid off....I suspect not many.

RPBrown wrote:Most of the body armor they were talking about was Class 4. I don't have an issue with someone obtaining class 4 armor but that stuff is heavy and bulky. If I were to own any, it would be a class 2 or 3 I think.

None of it is pleasant to wear in Texas heat.

baldeagle wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:I'm not. With the exception of the woman, who clearly needs to go to the range (and I have no doubt she will now), they all seem to have trained enough to put lead on target. That's all that really matters. The husband might have done better in the first scenario if he hadn't had an aversion to the head shot. I think about head shots all the time in game planning. It's a part of awareness. If you are facing multiple bad guys, you'd better do some head shots or you'll lose. You need to put people down fast when you're confronted with multiple attackers. And if a guy is wearing body armor, only a head shot is going to stop him.

When my son went to the police academy there was an ex-Marine in his class who advocated head shots. He was told to keep his shots center mass because police accuracy in a gun fight is already only about 20% with the larger target. I too practice head shots but I don't expect them to be successful in a dynamic situation (movement), especially with multiple BGs.

Head shots are not the only way to take down an attacker wearing body armor. In my advanced pistol class they advocated shooting into the pelvic area below the vest because the target is larger and a broken pelvis is better than a missed head shot. Obviously, if the attacker is behind cover and the head is the only target that's where you have to shoot.

Within 15 yards I'm confident I can make a head shot with any handgun I own...including my snubbies....on the range with no movement and no one shooting at me. In a gun fight, with adrenaline dump and movement, I'm not so sure.

And yet in the demonstration, several of the shooters made lethal head shots. Something to think about.

I like the idea of shooting to the pelvic area. That might be effective as well.

I think it depends on the situation. I'm not saying never take a head shot just that I don't think I can count on that opportunity presenting itself as easily in a gun fight. I think another scenario that calls for a head shot is a crowded area, like a restaurant, where you can't clear the background.....the idea being to get low and angle the shot upwards into the head so a miss or thru and thru goes into the ceiling.

In the class I took we practiced a three shot series...pelvis, CM, neck/head....the idea being we might not know that someone is wearing body armor. I'm reminded of that courthouse shooting where one of the bystanders shot the BG (who had an AK) at near point blank range CM and dropped him. The carrier was a marksmanship instructor and an excellent shot and I believe he used a 1911. He didn't know the BG was wearing armor and didn't expect him to get up. When he got up unexpectedly he was surprised and unprepared to follow through and ended up getting killed.

baldeagle wrote:I'm not. With the exception of the woman, who clearly needs to go to the range (and I have no doubt she will now), they all seem to have trained enough to put lead on target. That's all that really matters. The husband might have done better in the first scenario if he hadn't had an aversion to the head shot. I think about head shots all the time in game planning. It's a part of awareness. If you are facing multiple bad guys, you'd better do some head shots or you'll lose. You need to put people down fast when you're confronted with multiple attackers. And if a guy is wearing body armor, only a head shot is going to stop him.

When my son went to the police academy there was an ex-Marine in his class who advocated head shots. He was told to keep his shots center mass because police accuracy in a gun fight is already only about 20% with the larger target. I too practice head shots but I don't expect them to be successful in a dynamic situation (movement), especially with multiple BGs.

Head shots are not the only way to take down an attacker wearing body armor. In my advanced pistol class they advocated shooting into the pelvic area below the vest because the target is larger and a broken pelvis is better than a missed head shot. Obviously, if the attacker is behind cover and the head is the only target that's where you have to shoot.

Within 15 yards I'm confident I can make a head shot with any handgun I own...including my snubbies....on the range with no movement and no one shooting at me. In a gun fight, with adrenaline dump and movement, I'm not so sure.

LSUTiger wrote:There are many real life examples of armed people successfully defending themselves. Why present a rigged test unless you want to present a specific outcome?

Here's just a few real life examples of the good guys winning, I am sure there are many more.

Don't show that second one to the antis....the guy in that video is not a CHL, he's an undercover cop....in Venezuela if I remember correctly...it's ok with them if their body guards and the police have guns.

Let's have the carrier be Marcus Lutrell.