Posted on 04/10/2009 12:43:14 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Good post - I recommend this video to anyone who didn’t bother to click on it before getting here.
Thanks.
Even the first responders in Pittsburgh ended up dead. Range time is all well and good, as is simulation training, but the bottom line is that the good guys are first responders. The bad actor has the advantage of offensive surprise.
I agree.
By definition, the Perp always has the drop on the Good Guys. That makes it all the more important for the Good Guys to have a near-perfect response: whatever that is going to be — draw-and-shoot, drop, find cover, run, go for the window, go for the door, throw a desk — whatever the response, it needs to be near-perfect.
And it needs to be rehearsed.
RE: OP’s message: “It’s my own fault. What else should I have expected from ABC. “
and your message:
“Nothing. But it is good that you did watch it and report back to us that ABC has not changed. They are still an enemy of the Republic.”
*********
Not only was I pretty sure it would be a hit piece starring old Diane Sawyer, but I watched carefully so I’d know how to respond to ABC afterwards. Many of us have written them citing our objections to the content from last Friday night. I suggest we all do our part and tell them what we think, and let the advertisers hear from us as well!
> Not only was I pretty sure it would be a hit piece starring old Diane Sawyer...
I watched it and felt that, on balance, it was pretty good. Their scenario methodology was sound and realistic, and the results did speak for themselves.
I didn’t hear them once say that you shouldn’t carry and, while it was evident that they don’t like guns, they weren’t particularly un-balanced about it.
What part of it didn’t you agree with?
I hasten to add — I didn’t watch it on TV, we don’t receive ABC down here in NZ. My comments refer to the program as posted to the web (link is on this thread a couple few posts back).
“Good post - I recommend this video to anyone who didn’t bother to click on it before getting here.”
Here’s the link to it again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkWgp2abM2w
My objection to writing ABC is that programming managers count all contact, positive or negative, as viewership and use that to sell advertising. They really don’t care if you hate their stinking guts with a white hot passion. As long as you’re watching they’re happy and so are the advertisers. That’s the media biz.
Before even watching it I have to say that your points about the simulation being good would be more meaningful if it was presented to an audience who was interested in carrying instead of ABCs audience who are already predisposed to gun control.
I'm not sure you appreciate how deeply committed the major networks of America are to gun control. Having watched this issue closely since about 1980 and been a life member of the NRA since '86 I have seen nothing but propaganda from any of them. They hate America and all it stands for especially gun ownership.
The behavior of an armed citizen will be CLEARLY different from a maniacal sociopath walking around a school, church, mall, office, or wherever spraying bullets. Seeking cover, calling 9-1-1, maintaining quiet alertness, and not shooting at others would be clear indicators of who is a "good guy" and who is a "bad guy" in that kind of scenario.
> The behavior of an armed citizen will be CLEARLY different from a maniacal sociopath walking around a school, church, mall, office, or wherever spraying bullets.
You hope. But how do you know?
A hypothetical mass-killing sociopath who manages to hide behind cover, convince others that he is not the killer, and calls police "acting" like an upstanding citizen, and all while still managing to shoot innocents...is going to be such a rarity it would be statistically negligible. This ain't the movies...someone bent on catastrophic human destruction isn't going to be a cool operator...he is going to go down in flames with lots o' drama. It doesn't pay to overthink the scenario too much. :-)
> A hypothetical mass-killing sociopath who manages to hide behind cover, convince others that he is not the killer, and calls police “acting” like an upstanding citizen, and all while still managing to shoot innocents...is going to be such a rarity it would be statistically negligible
Refer Graeme Burton, infamous NZ sociopathic killer. He did something very similar to this during his escape two years ago.
> Graeme Burton was killing (or attempting to kill) everyone encountering him on that mountainous trail. No mystery there.
I can see where the point hasn’t been made: the moment-by-moment reference you cite is a timeline released by the NZ Police shortly after Burton was shot and captured. It is factual, but it is missing in detail.
When Burton shot Kuchenbacher dead on his quad-bike, his intention was to swipe the quad-bike and effect his escape. He was interrupted by the two mountain bikers. And so he pretended to have come across a quad-bike accident, telling the mountain bikers “There has been a terrible accident”. He nearly had them fooled.
My point is that with Burton you had an armed sociopath who *did* kill somebody and then pretend to be on the side of the “good guys”. Far from being an unlikely thing to do, it was the most natural thing in the world for him.
(Not exactly on topic, but there was another bit of info that was missing in this preliminary Police sequence of events. For some reason the police did not take their Bushmaster or shotgun with them out of the boot of the police car — so they were only armed with their Glocks. Burton made his way back to the parking lot, broke into the boot of the police car, and retrieved the Bushmaster and shotgun. The police returned and, seeing Burton with an armful of weapons, drew down on him and demanded he drop the weapons. He didn’t, and in the ensuing firefight, Burton was shot in the leg. This leg was subsequently amputated.)
> Based on the narratives, do you feel it was better the quadbiker, two male mountain bikers, and the father and his daughter were unarmed?
Tough call. My gut tells me that it would be better if they were all armed, as a matter of course. Then I look at this particular specimen — Graeme Burton — a parolee who had already served a sentence for murder, who was about to commit his second murder, and who had a history and talent for violence, a sociopath with no conscience.
And he did not want to be taken alive, as subsequent testimony showed.
If Mr Kuchenbacher were armed, Burton would have harvested whatever he was armed with. He was riding a quad bike not expecting to be ambushed by Burton.
The first pair on the bikes may have been able to stop him had they been armed: they didn’t have that choice as they were unarmed and forced to flee.
There is an excellent chance a well-armed Burton would have emerged from the trails to meet the police, with several dead people left behind in the hills. As it were, we know that the best the police could do is hit him in the leg.
On balance I’d prefer everyone armed. But that comes at a significant risk.
> I think it would have been better if the those adults had possessed firearms. Graeme Burton would have been facing tougher odds.
Agree. And facing tougher odds, perhaps he would have acted even more ruthlessly than he did.
Under the same circumstances, I’d prefer to be armed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.