Apparently training counts, but only if you practice a lot and it's recent

[Big_Blue]

I ran across this video I thought might be of interest. Considering the source was ABC I couldn't help but be suspicious, but never-the-less, the video has an important lesson for any of us who carry and expect to be able to defend ourselves and our loved ones. Not the lesson I think they meant to deliver, which was carrying a gun doesn't help. The lesson I took away is practice, practice, practice; and not on a range. The practice needs to be in a threat training venue.

Proof that Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world, Part One - YouTube

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Sgt45]

You will only be as good as your worst day of recent practice. There are a lot of ways to practice and you don't necessarily have to shoot real bullets to do so. I just so happen to like making my gun go bang, but dry practice is good too. Not sure what a threat training venue is but it sounds good.

[nedrgr21]

Yeah, this has been around for a bit. It also demonstrates type of clothing not to wear and how much an advantage knowing where your opponent is before storming an area.

[sdprof]

Yeah, this has been around for a bit. It also demonstrates type of clothing not to wear and how much an advantage knowing where your opponent is before storming an area.

In other words, the whole demonstration was bogus. Rigged for failure.

[ccw9mm]

It's fair to distinguish between practice and training. There's a difference.

And it's important to recognize that accuracy is only one element of any successful defense. There's reaction time, the physicality aspects, clothing (which can hinder a defense even if everything else is spot-on), tactics, defensive skills beyond mere pointing and operation of a weapon, weapons retention, and so on.

IMO, they're correct in suggesting that "stress testing" hard via relatively realistic FoF/hands-on situations helps us see where our presumed prep breaks down. None of which means other forms of training have no value, but it does get much tougher to see the true value/limitations of skills/abilities presumably acquired without such training. On that point, I agree.

[Dandyone]

The problem is the generalizations they weave into a conclusion. First, that is a singular, almost impossible scenario. Second, they picked some gringos. Third, there is no control group. The guy came in and targeted the guy with the gun. I'd like to see some conclusions drawn from a similar test where nobody was armed. Oh, wait, that test was conducted at Virginia Tech.

If you are caught by total surprise, you are more than likely going to be hosed, and if not, you are going to have to fight an uphill battle.

Being armed is a far cry different than having a magical bulletproof bubble descend on you.

As to the GOP's conclusion... Practice is mandatory.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[Echo_Four]

There is real value to that video. The scenario is bogus because the "BG" knew that one person was armed, and where that person was. But the problems that they encountered are real. Often people think that all they have to do is be able to punch holes in paper and have the gun with them. There is more to the equation and it takes real effort and work to get to the point where you're really ready for the situation.

Of course I differ from their final analysis though. Even if I didn't train and practice regularly I'd rather have a gun than not. I may mess up a draw and get shot as a result. But I'd rather get shot attempting to fight back than get shot cowering in a corner with no means to resist.

[Arborigine]

I feel dirty for having watched the video. That is why I do not watch TV "news". I already know that practice is crucial, and people on TV are paid to tell elaborate lies. The actor William Hurt once told me that he had difficulty dealing with his personal problems because he was a professional liar and it was hard to separate fact from fiction when lying was encouraged.He got an Oscar a few months later.