WFAA gun discussions this week

[mojo84]

I too thought it interesting how he mentioned shooting above and below the body armour. That brings a bit of a new dimension to the fight. Definitely, something to consider.

[Pawpaw]

Agreed!

Do not overlook the value of shooting below the body armor. If you can shatter the pelvic girdle (basically the pelvis or either hip bone), the BG is at the mercy of gravity which will suck him to planet earth in a heartbeat. Putting him on the ground may not end the fight, but it will put him at great disadvantage. His legs will be almost useless for anything other than scooting himself along the floor a few inches at a time.

Caliber is important for this. I think 9mm is probably the smallest round that has a good chance of shattering the pelvic girdle. Bigger is always better when it comes to breaking bone.

[rentz]

One thing to note though that getting hit center mass wearing body armor is still going to be felt and slow someone depending on caliber. But I suppose for the simplicity of this demonstration it was easier to dismiss that which I can't argue too much with

[baldeagle]

Let's count the ways this was a ridiculous sham:

1) Use trained Tactical Officer as bad guy vs untrained CHL. More realistic would be an untrained person with mental issues.

Seriously? You want to put people at risk in a training scenario?

2) Put CHL in 4th Cube or same chair in each scenario.More realistic would be to let him choose wear to be.

Why?

3) Make sure CHL is only one wearing gun, so it is easdy for bad guy to pick him out.More realistic would be everyone wears a helmet.

4) Allow bad guy to wear Vest, to further discount any hits CHL might make.More realistic would be no vest.

Colorado high school shooters wore vests. Colorado movie theatre shooter wore a vest. What's wrong with training for the worst possibilities?

5) When open carry is used, make sure it is fully exposed as soon as someone walks in door.More realistic would be random seat and allow him to use body to block view from door.

Sure, if the open carrier thought of that. This open carrier obviously didn't. I bet he will next time. And other open carriers watching it will include that in their thought planning.

I am actually shocked the CHLS did so well.

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.

[baldeagle]

These so called "tests" are 100% rigged with a specific agenda that is often anti 2A. Classic example of experimenters cognitive and confirmation bias, a two for one if you will.


Now, if you would do an educational forum where public is informed of facts and stipulations pertaining to LTC holders such as non-felon, non-drunk driver, no history of domestic violence, not behind in child support payments and many many more, THAT would be a great start WFAA folks!

This stinks.

Totally disagree.

[VMI77]

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.

[anomie]

I like this, it's much better than the one I saw where the guy was one of only two people in the room and it was set up so the attacker could just immediately "kill".

I think, though, that ultimately this isn't really a good test either, because the 'good guys' know something is going to happen. Kind of like the above, but in the other direction.

To set up a really good study, you'd have to have a control group, and a test group, set up double-blind so that neither the people being tested nor the people running the test have knowledge of who is in what group. It would also have to be done long term, such that everyone carrying in both the test group and the control group get a chance to "settle in" so that it's more like real life, where you're not going to have foreknowledge that something is going to happen. That would take a really long time and be hard to set up.

Still, much better than the other one I saw.

[Solaris]

Let's count the ways this was a ridiculous sham:

1) Use trained Tactical Officer as bad guy vs untrained CHL. More realistic would be an untrained person with mental issues.

Seriously? You want to put people at risk in a training scenario?

You thought I really meant get a mental patient out of the asylum and give him a gun? ROFL. No, the point was shooters are typically unskilled, more realistic would be an unskilled shooter instead of a 20yr Tac Officer..

2) Put CHL in 4th Cube or same chair in each scenario.More realistic would be to let him choose wear to be.

Why?

So he does not know who has the gun when he goes in. He sure got fooled when the one guy moved out of the cube.

3) Make sure CHL is only one wearing gun, so it is easdy for bad guy to pick him out.More realistic would be everyone wears a helmet.

4) Allow bad guy to wear Vest, to further discount any hits CHL might make.More realistic would be no vest.

Colorado high school shooters wore vests. Colorado movie theatre shooter wore a vest. What's wrong with training for the worst possibilities?

No they wore tac vests but not actual body armor. Media does not know the difference. I am sure some have somewhere though. Anyway, it was not training, it was a silly simulation run by a TV station..

5) When open carry is used, make sure it is fully exposed as soon as someone walks in door.More realistic would be random seat and allow him to use body to block view from door.

Sure, if the open carrier thought of that. This open carrier obviously didn't. I bet he will next time. And other open carriers watching it will include that in their thought planning.

How do you know he did and was told he could not change seats?

Questions answered. Can't wait for tonight's episode.

[Pawpaw]

One thing to note though that getting hit center mass wearing body armor is still going to be felt and slow someone depending on caliber. But I suppose for the simplicity of this demonstration it was easier to dismiss that which I can't argue too much with

I agree, if they're weairing soft body armor only. In that case, they will likely have a broken rib or three.

If they have AR500 steel backing plates behind soft armor though, that changes the dynamic. The impact of the round will be spread throughout the entire plate and not amount to much for most handgun rounds.

I've seen videos of our boys in the sandbox getting hit in the body armor/steel plate with an AK-47. That put them down, but they were immediately on their feet and scrambling for cover. The effect of rifles and handguns are not equal.

[VMI77]

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.

[rtschl]

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.

In my training classes we too have been told to go for pelvic shot if it appears BG is wearing armor because it is a bigger target than the head, but to not stop until the threat is stopped because though he may now be immobile and excruciating pain, he may still be able to shoot. But at least you brought him down when you couldn't have with CM shot to armor.

So I regularly practice all three: CM, head and pelvis at different ranges.

[rentz]

One thing to note though that getting hit center mass wearing body armor is still going to be felt and slow someone depending on caliber. But I suppose for the simplicity of this demonstration it was easier to dismiss that which I can't argue too much with

I agree, if they're weairing soft body armor only. In that case, they will likely have a broken rib or three.

If they have AR500 steel backing plates behind soft armor though, that changes the dynamic. The impact of the round will be spread throughout the entire plate and not amount to much for most handgun rounds.

I've seen videos of our boys in the sandbox getting hit in the body armor/steel plate with an AK-47. That put them down, but they were immediately on their feet and scrambling for cover. The effect of rifles and handguns are not equal.

Yeah I was thinking soft body armor which I believe he had in this demo, if they had plate inserts yeah that's different

[baldeagle]

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.

[hornetfan63]

If you like this experiment check out the First Person Defender series on YouTube. It does a good job at sending a variety of scenarios at good guys. They also always change something the second time the simulation is run.

[mojo84]

If you like this experiment check out the First Person Defender series on YouTube. It does a good job at sending a variety of scenarios at good guys. They also always change something the second time the simulation is run.

I enjoy these also. Sometimes It's a little surprising how the people react. It shows how hard it is under stress.