Common sense prevails, Houston Zoo forced to remove it's no gun signs (2014, car registration)

[txdemo]

Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow

Anyone ignorant enough to use that debunked video as some sort of proof of their point deserves the label "idiot".

What part of the video was debunked? Do you really think the average CHL holder would fare any better? Why?

[DSL_PWR]

ABC had to pull the video from their website when they got a lot of hate mail from defensive firearms instructors. The video has been debunked and declared fake so many times, it's not funny.
Sorry, but the media lies to people. I am really sorry to break that to anyone, but they do.

The video is bull. Watch as the "instructor comes in the room. The first person he "shoots" is the teacher. The second is the armed student. How is an assailant going to know what person in the room is armed or if there is one. The last scenario with the kid who knew how to use guns. The shooter went right for him when he was crouched down even with other potential target running around him. Total Bull.........

We have seen a video showing 4. That's right folks 4, four, 4 whichever you want it 4 people reacting.

Obviously concrete evidence that all CW holders would fail when faced with a live fire situation.

Also note that the "assailants" in the video knew where the armed responder was sitting. Very realistic

Just some interesting information.

[DSL_PWR]

Originally Posted by txdemo

Just wondering how many times have you had to use your gun?

do you even own a gun?

[oespinoza83]

Originally Posted by DSL_PWR

We have seen a video showing 4. That's right folks 4, four, 4 whichever you want it 4 people reacting.

Obviously concrete evidence that all CW holders would fail when faced with a live fire situation.

Also note that the "assailants" in the video knew where the armed responder was sitting. Very realistic

Originally Posted by DSL_PWR

Just some interesting information.

I never said all CHL holders would fail in a live fire situation, did I? I don't even fully agree with the video, but it was only a means to prove that most CHL holders would fail in this situation, not all. But this goes both ways doesn't it? You are willing to defend these scenarios as false and unrealistic. I am okay with that. But does that mean you are willing to state that the following is true (because most defenders on here believe it is)?

In real life, ALL CHL holders are in the back corner of the rooms, are not targeted at random by the shooter(s), have night-vision equipment, can see through smoke and chaos, have no problems pulling their weapon (which means no other bodies are bumping into them, screaming and distracting them, tripping over them, getting in the line of sight/fire, etc.) taking aim, firing, and taking out the shooter?

Is that what you are saying? Many ex-military CHL holders will have experience with these scenarios and for that I agree they are better prepared. But let's be realistic, the majority of CHL holders aren't ex-military. Between the two scenarios, I think common sense tells us which is more likely to happen, regardless of attitudes towards firearms.

[arleigh]

Because a policeman can carry a gun any where're should they be restricted ,
In real fire fights they can't hit the broad side of the barn .
They wear vests and have hundreds if not thousands of hours training, and still shake in their boots in a fire fight?
They blow off the handle emotionally, and beat people to death that are not even armed .
They make a mistake and get their hand slapped, a civilian makes a mistake and goes to jail.
Most anti gun folk have a very poor estimation of humanity probably from a personal perspective ,they don't trust them self , may be that's justifiably so. That being the case put a sign on your door "this is a gun free zone"
Many of us that own guns are extremely paranoid/cautious about where the bullet is going due to liability and the safety of their family.
The law is not so lenient on us.
But liberals don't see any of that ,but then liberals depend on public services for every thing, including their income food and shelter and security .
Liberals are the ones first offended having been molly coddled all their life never taking responsibility for them self. "the world owes me a living" emotionally unstable.
And the liberals in government are doing ever thing in their power to keep it that way, and intend on removing our rights to insure it.

It takes more courage then fear to carry a gun, because of the potential that exists ,especially if conditions change in an area that is unexpected, robberies ,riots, and uprisings.
Those of us whom are trained, tend to avoid areas of trouble if possible, we don't strut into areas we know are trouble.
( One is no longer a conservative if they do those sort of things.) ( None I know of any way)

We whom carry are not obligated to protect any one but our self, we are not authorized to be chasing after criminals out side our home of personal zone of safety.
So if you are depending on those of us that are armed to protect you , you got it wrong there too.

[txdemo]

Originally Posted by DSL_PWR

do you even own a gun?

I don't need one. I'm sort of a Jason Bourne type.

[arleigh]

I've seen the video and the training is false, and programed to fail .
That is the point some one is pushing to prove something doesn't work.
I have trained people to shoot and gave far better instruction on ones dress and responsiveness to an event.
Wearing a long sweat shirt and gloves is insurance it will fail.
I would be willing to bet that was provided by the those organizing the event.
Think folks ,please think.

[DSL_PWR]

Originally Posted by oespinoza83

I never said all CHL holders would fail in a live fire situation, did I? I don't even fully agree with the video, but it was only a means to prove that most CHL holders would fail in this situation, not all. But this goes both ways doesn't it? You are willing to defend these scenarios as false and unrealistic. I am okay with that. But does that mean you are willing to state that the following is true (because most defenders on here believe it is)?

In real life, ALL CHL holders are in the back corner of the rooms, are not targeted at random by the shooter(s), have night-vision equipment, can see through smoke and chaos, have no problems pulling their weapon (which means no other bodies are bumping into them, screaming and distracting them, tripping over them, getting in the line of sight/fire, etc.) taking aim, firing, and taking out the shooter?

Is that what you are saying? Many ex-military CHL holders will have experience with these scenarios and for that I agree they are better prepared. But let's be realistic, the majority of CHL holders aren't ex-military. Between the two scenarios, I think common sense tells us which is more likely to happen, regardless of attitudes towards firearms.

I'm not saying anything, I'm pointing out any video can be set up to show you whatever they want you to see.

You don't have to be ex-military to be a good marksmen. The two are not related. I know some hunters that could shoot with the best snipers.

[DSL_PWR]

Originally Posted by txdemo

I don't need one. I'm sort of a Jason Bourne type.

he was heavily trained if I recall correctly. you live in fear of something?

[EMGuy]

Originally Posted by arleigh

Because a policeman can carry a gun any where're should they be restricted ,
In real fire fights they can't hit the broad side of the barn .
They wear vests and have hundreds if not thousands of hours training, and still shake in their boots in a fire fight?
They blow off the handle emotionally, and beat people to death that are not even armed .
They make a mistake and get their hand slapped, a civilian makes a mistake and goes to jail.
Most anti gun folk have a very poor estimation of humanity probably from a personal perspective ,they don't trust them self , may be that's justifiably so. That being the case put a sign on your door "this is a gun free zone"
Many of us that own guns are extremely paranoid/cautious about where the bullet is going due to liability and the safety of their family.
The law is not so lenient on us.
But liberals don't see any of that ,but then liberals depend on public services for every thing, including their income food and shelter and security .
Liberals are the ones first offended having been molly coddled all their life never taking responsibility for them self. "the world owes me a living" emotionally unstable.
And the liberals in government are doing ever thing in their power to keep it that way, and intend on removing our rights to insure it.

It takes more courage then fear to carry a gun, because of the potential that exists ,especially if conditions change in an area that is unexpected, robberies ,riots, and uprisings.
Those of us whom are trained, tend to avoid areas of trouble if possible, we don't strut into areas we know are trouble.
( One is no longer a conservative if they do those sort of things.) ( None I know of any way)

We whom carry are not obligated to protect any one but our self, we are not authorized to be chasing after criminals out side our home of personal zone of safety.
So if you are depending on those of us that are armed to protect you , you got it wrong there too.

This post is a good example against concealed carry. If someone can't put together a well thought out and supported argument while under no time pressure or stress, can they really be trusted to keep and use a lethal weapon responsibly?