TexasCHLforum.com

RPBrown wrote:Here's the link to the first section. It was pretty good.

http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/2016/01/ ... /78655818/

Thanks for posting the link. I meant to watch, but forgot about it. I normally watch channel 11 for my news, but nice that channel 8 is doing this. Can't wait to see what, if any, editorial they say either positive or negative. Most of the local newscasters have been neutral unlike the national news agents.

Outcome was better than I expected, of particular note is scenario two and what occurred with the open carrier

Let's have the carrier be Marcus Lutrell.

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.

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

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.

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.

I am actually shocked the CHLS did so well.

VMI77 wrote:Let's have the carrier be Marcus Lutrell.

I vote for Jerry Miculek.

Seriously, it was a good piece with no apparent political bias.

Solaris wrote: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.

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

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.

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.

I am actually shocked the CHLS did so well.

I had some similar thoughts. Most important was their choice of bad guy as a trained tactical officer. Of course this doesn't simulate real life either because the CHLers knew something was going to happen and had time to think about it. I don't think it was a fair test at all, but at least they didn't say anything negative about even having a CHL. I'm glad they did pretty good. In any case, if I owned that business I would want to have any of those good guys armed vs. unarmed.

Lynyrd wrote:

Solaris wrote: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.

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

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.

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.

I am actually shocked the CHLS did so well.

I had some similar thoughts. Most important was their choice of bad guy as a trained tactical officer. Of course this doesn't simulate real life either because the CHLers knew something was going to happen and had time to think about it. I don't think it was a fair test at all, but at least they didn't say anything negative about even having a CHL. I'm glad they did pretty good. In any case, if I owned that business I would want to have any of those good guys armed vs. unarmed.

There really isn't a way to have a 100% realistic scenario
Even if you put the individuals in an office and say sometime today someone will come in while that's more random than what they did you still know somethings going to be coming
I'll be honest I think the success rate would be a lot lower in real world scenarios but I'd rather have a fighting chance than not at all

rentz wrote: There really isn't a way to have a 100% realistic scenario
Even if you put the individuals in an office and say sometime today someone will come in while that's more random than what they did you still know somethings going to be coming
I'll be honest I think the success rate would be a lot lower in real world scenarios but I'd rather have a fighting chance than not at all

Whether I succeed or fail, I don't want to be a lamb for the slaughter.

It is good they are showing the general public LTC holders

1) are regular people of all types
2) are not crazy
3) can actually defend themselves with a gun
4) will actually hit the bad guy and not just spray and pray

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqgk1fSPJuM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8syKVfUc7Y

I'm encouraged after watching this first episode. WFAA is my go-to for news.

Bret Shipp is as close as we have to an old school investigative journalist in the local TV news circuit. His dad was a long tenured reporter with WFAA and was pivotal in their coverage of the Kennedy assassination. Bret has always seemed to be mostly cut from that cloth. I think it's rare for a station to give a reporter the time and budget that he apparently gets to chase some of his stories. . .

He definitely loves the sensational story. I wonder if he made the calculation that it would be more sensational or provocative to run a piece showing reasonable people as CHLers.

*I reserve the right to quickly adjust this assessment if the series takes a left turn in the coming installments.

I've wondered what the best outcomes from this could be:
1. The general public (not the antis) see normal, thoughtful, humble people representing CHLers.
2. More of these types of personalities pursue a CHL.
3. Some small-to-mid sized companies rethink their 30.06 stances.
4. CHLers sign up for more advanced training.

. . . all of these would be good.

Fingers crossed!

Since we are at somewhere around 3-4% of the population now, maybe they could also try this with a classroom or theater scenario with 100 people and 3 or 4 carriers in different trials. Three in one and four in another. Or perhaps, even more depending on the density in your county or zip code since some have more carriers than others. Put the attacker up against an unknown number of carriers and let's see how well they do. Everyone is wearing helmets and they sit where they want and the carriers have no idea who the other carriers are.

Very pleasantly surprised that a major local news station would be so balanced. I do agree that to make it more fair, you don't have a tactical officer be the bad guy. But the great part of that is even with his expertise he was taken out by a civilian good guy with a gun in most of the scenarios.

The biggest problem I see as far as it being not realistic is that most office settings like this workplace DO NOT allow employees to carry at work. I have moaned for years that at my "workplace" any "Joe CHL" legally or "Joe Criminal" illegally can carry into my office, but I cannot. (Legally I can, but can/will be fired).