I remember watching that. But, has it actually happened?
To answer your question, no: I am not aware of any such on campus.
Did anyone catch the major flaw in the video?
I guess the problem could be solved with insurance that would cover potential legal fees but I don't know anyone that has that insurance. If the bad guy was overheard to say something to the effect, "I 'll kill you" to a clerk I'd take that as a real threat and take the guy down with my weapon. It might save a life down the road also. Some of these bad guys are plan evil and couldn't are less about taking a life.
I would be worried about being misidentified by another CCW holder, especially if I have to fire on the bad guy, and the CCW holder didn't observe the whole situation.
"the"????
The only valid info is that someone who has little to no training with their gun/holster and little to no mental preparation stands little to no chance against a highly trained and well informed swat member who also has the element of surprise. Not a surprising result.
One major flaw - the "bad guy" was a trained instructor. Not the typical bad guy we've seen in these. Should have used one of the other "test subjects" to play the bad guy. They would have better represented the type of shooter we've *actually* seen.
Another - the "bad guy" appeared to know that there would be someone with a gun. Worse, it appeared they knew who had the gun. Both of which aren't true either. These events happen in places where there is little to no expectation of armed resistance.
Valid point. Same answer.
Edmund Burke: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
The bolded text in red was what I was getting at. The others are all good points--excellent points, in fact--but this will rarely be the case in real-life incidents. The cops knew who they were going after.
So, to use this as 'proof' that CCW won't help in mass shootings, is very dishonest.
The "flaw" was that this video is a full-retard, anti-gun propaganda piece. There wasn't a single valid premise to the entire setup from start to finish.
Yes; I agree with you but we spoke of specific flaws in their methodology, and your post while the vast majority here agree with it, addressed ideological concerns. Valid? Of course, but the majority of the public when they watch stuff like this, see police telling us that we'll for sure and for certain get killed if we use a gun to stop a mass shooter. And since the police are all experts when it comes to guns*, we should do as they tell us. Most of the time, John Q won't see past this silliness unless he is pretty strongly pro-gun.The "flaw" was that this video is a full-retard, anti-gun propaganda piece. There wasn't a single valid premise to the entire setup from start to finish.
*They're not, of course.
The bold red, do you mean the video makes good points?
*****
They didn't tell us what the actual "training" of the students was. Other than some vague implication that "it is more than half the states require to carry". Which doesn't tell us anything. Some states require no training at all.
They set up the audience.
They set up the bad guy to succeed. (training and knowledge)
They didn't show us all 6 actors. They only showed 3 that failed. How did the other three do? Did they all pass (meaning subdue the attacker) hence being cut due to the "study" being clearly and fundamentally biased?
The student was always in the same place. When I was a potential carrier, I never sat front middle.
*****
I would argue that just like the student's chances of success, there is little to no valid data from this video.
Here's the article that went with it in 2009.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=7298996&page=1
