WFAA gun discussions this week

[Pawpaw]

I though part 2 was also fair, even though the GG's performed poorly. 2 of them just blundered around the doorway and put themselves inside the "fatal funnel". Only the lady stayed back, used the doorway for cover, and quartered the room without entering. It's not surprising she''s the only one that got the BG.

I just hope the next episode is done as fairly. Body armor protects good guys too.

[baldeagle]

Here's part 2. http://www.wfaa.com/videos/news/local/i ... /78724756/

this one was good too, and shows sometimes the best option is to sit tight and call 911.
I'm surprised how well the lady did in that scenario given how poor her aim was in the previous ones.

Maybe it was because she was shooting at a woman abuser.

[fickman]

"So why is Body Armor so easy to obtain?"

hahahaha

I laughed so hard I almost spit my iced tea when he said that. I knew there would be sensational angle somewhere - not sure if this is just a great tease or if he's really going after body armor tonight, but it struck me as funny nonetheless. Amidst a multi-part investigation into firearms which has not really called into question their necessity or the motives of those who carry them, body armor was a non-sequitor I didn't see coming.

If this is a calculated move for the antis (and I don't think it is), it is a major retreat to fight a battle outside of the theater where most of the skirmishes have occurred in recent history.

I do think the LEO actor is trying to create realistic scenarios that are useful in training for real students. The involvement of a shooting academy and its employees has made the conclusion of each scenario so far to lead us to "so what can we learn" and "how could we have done better" rather than "see, guns are bad". This is keeping the entire series on track in my opinion.

[rentz]

"So why is Body Armor so easy to obtain?"

hahahaha

I laughed so hard I almost spit my iced tea when he said that. I knew there would be sensational angle somewhere - not sure if this is just a great tease or if he's really going after body armor tonight, but it struck me as funny nonetheless. Amidst a multi-part investigation into firearms which has not really called into question their necessity or the motives of those who carry them, body armor was a non-sequitor I didn't see coming.

If this is a calculated move for the antis (and I don't think it is), it is a major retreat to fight a battle outside of the theater where most of the skirmishes have occurred in recent history.

I do think the LEO actor is trying to create realistic scenarios that are useful in training for real students. The involvement of a shooting academy and its employees has made the conclusion of each scenario so far to lead us to "so what can we learn" and "how could we have done better" rather than "see, guns are bad". This is keeping the entire series on track in my opinion.

i'll give this series one thing, its a great marketing tool for training. I know i'm now thinking of calling them up to take a class since they're just up in highland village i've been to their shop before the owner gave me a great deal on a pistol.

[TexasJohnBoy]

"So why is Body Armor so easy to obtain?"

hahahaha

I laughed so hard I almost spit my iced tea when he said that. I knew there would be sensational angle somewhere - not sure if this is just a great tease or if he's really going after body armor tonight, but it struck me as funny nonetheless. Amidst a multi-part investigation into firearms which has not really called into question their necessity or the motives of those who carry them, body armor was a non-sequitor I didn't see coming.

If this is a calculated move for the antis (and I don't think it is), it is a major retreat to fight a battle outside of the theater where most of the skirmishes have occurred in recent history.

I do think the LEO actor is trying to create realistic scenarios that are useful in training for real students. The involvement of a shooting academy and its employees has made the conclusion of each scenario so far to lead us to "so what can we learn" and "how could we have done better" rather than "see, guns are bad". This is keeping the entire series on track in my opinion.

i'll give this series one thing, its a great marketing tool for training. I know i'm now thinking of calling them up to take a class since they're just up in highland village i've been to their shop before the owner gave me a great deal on a pistol.

I need training, and bad.

[The Annoyed Man]

"So why is Body Armor so easy to obtain?"

hahahaha

I laughed so hard I almost spit my iced tea when he said that. I knew there would be sensational angle somewhere - not sure if this is just a great tease or if he's really going after body armor tonight, but it struck me as funny nonetheless. Amidst a multi-part investigation into firearms which has not really called into question their necessity or the motives of those who carry them, body armor was a non-sequitor I didn't see coming.

If this is a calculated move for the antis (and I don't think it is), it is a major retreat to fight a battle outside of the theater where most of the skirmishes have occurred in recent history.

I do think the LEO actor is trying to create realistic scenarios that are useful in training for real students. The involvement of a shooting academy and its employees has made the conclusion of each scenario so far to lead us to "so what can we learn" and "how could we have done better" rather than "see, guns are bad". This is keeping the entire series on track in my opinion.

i'll give this series one thing, its a great marketing tool for training. I know i'm now thinking of calling them up to take a class since they're just up in highland village i've been to their shop before the owner gave me a great deal on a pistol.

Yep. I just showed the two videos to my wife, and I mentioned two things, both of which she agreed to:

1. Ok Honey, NOW do you believe that it might be a good idea for you (and I) to get some real firearms training beyond just going to the range?
2. Also Babe, did you notice that ALL of the shooters were using duty-sized pistols with lots of rounds on tap? You realize that your Glock 43 would have run dry long before the scenario was over? Do you think that you might actually start carrying that Glock 19 you've owned for 7 years now, in that beautiful custom made OWB leather holster for a Glock 19 I bought off of Carlson1 several years ago, just for you?

The answers? "Yes," and "yes."

Sometimes a picture IS worth a thousand words.

I have a G43 of my own too, and I sometimes carry it when its smaller size is an advantage in a given situation (like this morning's Dr's appt.); but my primary carry remains my G17. I really hoped all along that my wife would make her G19 her primary carry, but she steadfastly did not. Although she likes shooting it, she doesn't carry it because she puts fashion ahead of gun choices. I think she thinks that the G19 would be too heavy to carry......because it didn't carry well in her CCW purse. But she has never really tried to carry it on her waist, and I don't think she has understood just how much easier it is to carry a heavier gun when you're not slinging it around inside a bag. But now, after seeing those videos, she is at least willing to try it out. (Yes, she's kind of stubborn that way. )

I call that another win.

As far as body armor goes...... those kinds of questions are beneath consideration. Someone seriously thinks, in world where people carry guns unlawfully, that it's a good idea to prevent regular folks from being able to buy body armor? The question is proof of its asker being a fart-for-brains.

[fickman]

Also Babe, did you notice that ALL of the shooters were using duty-sized pistols with lots of rounds on tap?

Good observation. We've listed a few things that were skewed against the LTCer (I still believe they are OK for the purposes of a training session), but this is a major advantage to the LTCers. . . an abundance of rounds (not sure how many) and an absence of recoil.

It shows the need for a layered approach to training:
- Scenarios and simulations that focus on decision making
- Drawing / reloading / FTF clearing
- Real fire (target acquisition, accuracy, recoil management)
- Different body positions and environments

Somebody who does no training should do some, and somebody who always does the same training should consider branching out into one of these other disciplines. (And I'm talking to myself here.)

[fickman]

Part 3 basically pushed for 1) background checks to buy body armor with the reasoning that felons are not allowed to purchase it, or 2) an outright ban of body armor for all civilians.

My initial response is quite simple - there is a myriad of things that felons might be prohibited from purchasing. Some hackers or sex offenders are not allowed to have Internet access at all - and yet nobody does background checks for smart phones or computers. Additionally, some felons are not allowed to have alcohol. This is another place where we do not call for background checks.

If a felon gets caught with something they're not allowed to have, they will get new charges. If law enforcement is concerned about a particular individual, then they should be following up with them.

The written description also mentions that background checks are not required to buy ammunition.

This was the least substantive installment of the series. It was very disappointing given where the bar had been set by the previous two.

[Smokey]

http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/in ... /78766250/

The best quote was "If they want body armor they're gonna get it"

Maybe I wanna EDC some body armor. Maybe I want to wear some to the range in case the guy next to me is really terrible. Maybe I want to wear some to work if their policy forbids guns. That would be a fun sight, if a place is posted 30.06/30.07, don some body armor before going in.

[carlson1]

I thought they did a fair job at setting up the scenarios. In officer survival classes we were put into situations knowing something was going to happen. As someone already mentioned it is hard to have a 100% spot on scenario. Shoot or don't shoot is a good thing to go through.

I think most folks on this Forum are shooters. The problem I see with the average LTC holder is the same problem I see with LEO the average LEO only has his Academy trading and then he never attends any more training in firearms. The average LTC holder never has traing they just qualify. The scenario I think was spot on using the average experience.

Shooting paper on the weekends is not training. Shooting paper is practicing the training you have had. Most have never attended a real trading class.

You folks who shoot the IDPA and other events are the elite not the norm in my opinion

Just food for thought.

[Middle Age Russ]

The best quote was "If they want body armor they're gonna get it"

In a similar vein, if criminals want guns (and ammo), they're gonna get 'em.

I have heard that the typical use of a handgun in defense is at extremely short range -- 5 - 8 feet -- and that even law enforcement officers miss with more than 80% of their shots. Training is indeed a great idea to raise the potential hit ratio. Training at a traditional range -- specified single lane/target/shooting position -- is great for marksmanship but isn't really that helpful for a high-stress, adrenaline-filled encounter. You definitely need to "get outside the box", so to speak.

If you need to use your gun, you'll first have to remove your gun from your holster. You'll want to be moving to cover. Your targets will be moving. You may have multiple targets to deal with. It may also be in poor lighting conditions. Training for each of these independently and in various combinations is a good idea, but you'll have to seek opportunities because most gun ranges don't allow drawing from a holster, let alone the other stuff. The action games, IDPA, USPSA and such, are great to add stress and combinations of the above in different scenarios, and I would highly recommend trying them out as well as looking for other opportunities.

[RPBrown]

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.

[VMI77]

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.

[TexasJohnBoy]

I agree, that segment was much for sensationalist than the first two. There was a clear agenda there, and she pushed for it in the segment.

[Solaris]

Part 3 basically pushed for 1) background checks to buy body armor with the reasoning that felons are not allowed to purchase it, or 2) an outright ban of body armor for all civilians.

They did a pretty good job of hiding their agenda. Took till night three to find out what they wanted banned/restricted.