TexasCHLforum.com

As I was drinking my coffee, procrastinating housework as usual, I browsed youtube for videos on holster making. You know how youtube is, one thing leads to another and before you know it you're learning how to build a tiny house with nothing but paper mache. Or is that pinterest? Anyhow, I stumbled across this video: http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I watched about half of it before I couldn't stomach anymore. It's arguing that concealed carriers wouldn't be able to effectively defend themselves so they apparently shouldn't have the option.
It starts with a gun instructor teaching safety and handling to a bunch of college students with varying levels of experience. Their focal student is well suited at shooting air soft guns, so since this is the same thing they give him a holster and a gun and send him to a fake class and tell him he will have to defend himself at some point with it.
They then go to commenting on how uncomfortable he seems as he keeps tugging on his shirt, then go to show him bragging to nearby students that he has a gun.
So in comes the intruder in a truly Oscar worthy performance. You'll laugh, you'll cry, but it's more likely you'll get extremely angry at what happens next. Mr. Air soft pro goes to pull his weapon (that he trained on for a day at most) and, oh no!! It gets stuck on his shirt!!! The bad guy shoots him and wins and there was nothing the good guy can do.
That's the point I quit watching. After my blood pressure comes back down, I'll try to finish, but it's not hard to see where this is going.
I've been around guns my whole life, but really started training a year or so ago. I didn't go to the store, pick out a gun for the first time, stop by the dps for my chl, and throw on a cape to defend the country. And I would never throw on a holster and gun and assume all is well. I try to go out and shoot as often as possible, whether at the range, my mom's dried up pond at her land, or dry firing a safety checked gun at a pushpin in my wall. I draw from my holsters and wear them around the house to be sure they don't cause any kind of problem.
This video is what's wrong with the anti's. They don't do their research based on truth. It's all just an irrational agenda.

I've seen the video(s) you're talking about. The other obvious experimental contaminant is that the "BGs" KNEW which student was carrying. He was the first one targeted each time. One of them did get a hit or two on the bad guy even though he was hit.

The whole thing was a set-up. They put the carrier on the front row and immediately shoot him after the professor. They make them wear giant shirts and gloves, both of which hinder the draw, and then use severely under qualified candidates against professional shooters.

If it is the one that I am thinking of, it was a was a Diane Sawyer set up. The student had to sit in a specified spot and the shooter had an accomplice just a couple chairs away from the student that shot also. It was a set up by the news organization to prove their view on the subject.

It would be easy to set up a scenario that even a member of Seal Team 6 wouldn't be successful. It's easy to set up a scenario that feigns "real world situations" but has nothing to do with the real world.

I just consider it the anti propaganda junk it is and move on.

Note that there are many comments following the video that debunk it.

All of these types of simulations are silly because they don't have anything to do with the real world or the types of dangers we are likely to encounter.

That being said, the liberals who push this propaganda are confusing the RIGHT to defend ourselves with the ABILITY to defend ourselves. Their argument boils down to, "you can't defend yourself reliably, so you should not even try". While many of us many not have the ability to defend well, we all have the right to defense. Each of us, no matter how inept, has the God given right to defend ourselves from the attack of another.

Take guns out of the equation. An elderly individual probably is not going to win a fist fight with a 20 year old street thug if he is attacked by one, but who would argue that the senior should not at least try to protect himself? Now reintroduce guns, why should the elderly individual not at least have the right to try and defend himself with his firearm, no matter the possibility that he will be killed anyway by an armed thug?

If these people want to prostrate themselves and submit to the mercy of whoever is assaulting them, I recognize their right to do that, but not their right to force that on me. Personally, I would rather attempt a defense no matter how bungling. I just don't buy the whole "honer in being a victim" mentality that has seeped into our culture.

karder wrote:An elderly individual probably is not going to win a fist fight with a 20 year old street thug if he is attacked by one, but who would argue that the senior should not at least try to protect himself?

Liberals argue exactly that. They're against self-defense period. They're against guns because they are a tool of self-defense. They want the US to be like most of Europe and the UK: defend yourself and go to prison. Eliminating guns is only their first step in the process of eliminating the right to self-defense.

I saw the video with the gloves they put on him I don't see how he could use a gun the whole thing was anti-gun propaganda

MeMelYup wrote:If it is the one that I am thinking of, it was a was a Diane Sawyer set up...

The phony BGs should have shot Sawyer first and helped put her out of our collective misery.

Pacifist wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:If it is the one that I am thinking of, it was a was a Diane Sawyer set up...

The phony BGs should have shot Sawyer first and helped put her out of our collective misery.

I think you mistyped..... it should be "The phony BGs should have shot Sawyer first and helped put US out of our collective misery.