What Can We Learn From This ABC Study On Concealed Carry?

[RockBottom]

Everyone is focusing on the gear and training and frankly neither would have mattered in this case. This study was pure crap with highly flawed processes. They placed the study participant “front row center every time”. And, the BG came in already knowing EXACTLY where the study participant was going to be seated "front row center".

Even if the study participant was a police officer, former solder or sharp shooter with the gun un-holstered and laying on the desk in front of them ready to fire when the BG came into the room results would have still been similar.

You're right. One of the worst possible scenarios is to be somewhere and a person appears and starts shooting. My first reaction would be to get behind cover. Unlike many in the room, I would already have chosen the best available cover and the nearest available seat when I entered the room. That's preparedness and situational awareness. Only when crouched behind cover will I draw my gun and cock the hammer. I may only get one shot and I want it to be single action. When the shooting stops, I will pop from behind cover, acquire the target, and take my shot. At that point, the element of surprise is on my side. That's my scenario.

All of that means that the planets are in perfect alignment and God is on my side, because it's based on a lot of assumptions. I'm assuming that I'm not the original target when the shooter enters the room. I'm assuming that the shooter has fired until the weapon has malfunctioned or the magazine is empty. He's not just stopping to ascertain the damage that he's done. I'm assuming at this point that he's the only person still standing in the room. I'm assuming that he'll be a stationary target. I'm assuming that my first shot will find its mark.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[CR Williams]

We can learn how to do one of our own that skews the results as far toward our desired conclusion as they did theirs.

[RockBottom]

We can learn how to do one of our own that skews the results as far toward our desired conclusion as they did theirs.

I think I just did that with my scenario.

[paaiyan]

Everyone is focusing on the gear and training and frankly neither would have mattered in this case. This study was pure crap with highly flawed processes. They placed the study participant “front row center every time”. And, the BG came in already knowing EXACTLY where the study participant was going to be seated "front row center".

I agree to a point. I think the equipment matters as well, though. It does bother me how they put the student in the same place every time though. The "shooter" went for the instructor and then the student every time. It's not a double-blind test. For it to be fair, I think the following things need to be changed:

- The shooter can't know where the responder in the class is seated.
- Ideally they won't even know if one is in there. Pit two students against each other without their knowledge.
- The student should be more familiar with their equipment. Any responsible carrier could be caught up by giving them equipment they aren't familiar with. I think they were using retention holsters. I'd get tripped up switching from my CBST to a retention holster.
- Give them a different shirt to wear. That dangly, clingy thing was ridiculous. Of course they got caught up.

I know I would have done better in that situation because of several things:

- The shooter wouldn't know where I was or that I had a gun. A shooter with no foreknowledge will be unprepared for an armed response, unlike the instructor who knew who had the firearm and where they were.
- I am familiar with my equipment. I've been in one situation where I drew entering my apartment and didn't even think about it. Pure muscle memory, because I've trained with my setup.
- I wouldn't be caught dead in that dangly, clingy shirt. I wear clothes that conceal, but are easy to sweep away when needed. When I drew entering my apartment, my shirt didn't hold me up at all. At least one of the students was sitting on the shirt because it was so long, that's part of the problem.

The "study" is inherently flawed. They started off with a conclusion and built a faux "experiment" around that conclusion, specifically to reach the same conclusion at the end. I've never had experience with doing studies and I could design a better one in 10 minutes.

[Bark'n]

The "study" is inherently flawed. They started off with a conclusion and built a faux "experiment" around that conclusion, specifically to reach the same conclusion at the end. I've never had experience with doing studies and I could design a better one in 10 minutes.

You hit the nail right on the head there. 100% Correct!

Excellent post!

[CR Williams]

The "study" is inherently flawed. They started off with a conclusion and built a faux "experiment" around that conclusion, specifically to reach the same conclusion at the end.

But surely no respectable news organization would do that.

Oh...wait...they're not a respectable news organization...

Still...I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that even they would stoop to such depths. I will have to see if I have a couple of minutes next week to sit in utter amazement at the very thought of what they have done. Tuesday looks like a good day...

[Guantes]

This was no study, it was specifically choreographed propaganda.

[Old School]

This was no study, it was specifically choreographed propaganda.

AMEN !

[TerriLi]

The only thing I know this "experiment" can teach you is how to deal with a Lose situation. Think of it as a Kobayashi Maru, or a no-win situation.

[PM]

One question; how many of the Good Guy shooters CC'd? I know even with my EDC weapon I would have been in trouble with the shirt they all were wearing. I carry with a open button up shirt as a cover garment not a tshirt that I have to pull up as I pull up to remove my gun. My draw is the FBI style sweep the open shirt back and get weapon. Still not sure if I could out shot a trained LEO but then again how many active shooters are trained and how many are trained LEO's? I would hope that a shooting instructor could out shot his students after a few hours for training. I will bet that my CC instructor (an LEO) could have out shot all of us in a face to face active shooter situation! As wel he should.

[PM]

I assumed it was a 1911 because it's the most commonly carried pistol with the use of a thumb safety.

They said Glocks if I remember! Went back to make sure I was right; they said modified Glocks the mod was to shot paint rounds. I would say by the look model 17's or 19's. The advantage is no thumb safties to move. Only a grip and trigger safe that has to be engaged if I remember my CC Trainers ervice weapon.

[FireCop]

Lots of excellent responses to these "study scenarios". I agree with the poster that stated there is actually something to learn here. Even the top notch range shooter/gun enthusiast did not immediately go for cover. It was an unfair study in that the active shooter knew where the armed student was in every scenario. Some of the real world incidents they cited (Columbine, Northern Illinois) would have made better study scenarios. Those incidents were much more dynamic, that is, occupied more time and space. These are the types of scenarios in which a concealed carrier can make a difference. They can have their weapon remain hidden, use concealment and cover, and then use force against the active shooter when they have a better tactical advantage. The news presentation was definitely slanted against concealed carriers!

[Walk Soft]

What if it were a room full of GTers?

[LongGoneDays]

I watched part 1 and want that 10 minutes back.