Jonathan informed me while I was on Tour that 20/20 ran a special on Concealed Carry (CCW), so what did I do? First chance at high speed internet I get I sat down to watch it. I have generally been pleased with the "Special Reports" and whatnot conducted by 20/20 and their stories... generally. At the same time, on Tour I was able to read tid bits of John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime", a truly boring yet informative read. I would liken the engaging prose of this work only to that of the same joy as measuring continental drift... but alas just as I ate cans of tuna for years for the protein, I can read the most boring of books they are informative.
Usually with such a simplistic title you'd think it would be a myriad of factual conclusions and rhetoric, instead it is a tedious analysis by an economist on crime statistics provided by various sources, among the most frequently cited are the exit polls from 1988, 1992,1996 and the FBI's annual crime reports. All of which simply provide raw data with no interpretation of the data offered. Although I am less than 1/4 through the book thus far, I have certainly grown a greater understanding of basic criminology. Simply comparing one state's violent crimes against another to show which is more or less safe is hardly useful. A few of the variables necessary to consider when examining crime at the state, county and local levels include: population density, population demographics, income level, police force size, arrest/conviction rate, rate of conceal carry holders, and availability of concealed carry permits. Remember these variables are just a small sample of things we ought to consider when measuring the change in crime and in hopes of finding a cause.
Back to the meat of this blog, I watched all the clips and nearly sat at my desk with my jaw dropped in awe of the stupidity of the "study". I also want to point out that the title of the Special Report seems to be an implicit reply to a headline which plastered international news directly following the Mumbai attacks. Quick summary, Sebastian D'Souza, a photo editor, witnessed the law enforcement hiding from the assailants in cowardice. The editor exclaimed "I wish I'd had a gun, not a camera". Then again after more in depth studies of the training, or lack thereof, for the Mumbai officers, I wouldn't blame them for their poor response. Many of the officers had not fired their weapons since initial academy training, including a number of detectives and officers with greater than 10 years on the force...
Enough of the segue; so the scenario set out to show average people ranging in experience to see if they could be effective in a mass shooting scenario. The six volunteers were given basic safety instruction by police instructors on proper pistol handling and then sent into a classroom with a Glock (I would bet it was a Glock 17), which is also a standard issue pistol for many police departments throughout the US. The pistol was tucked into the pants of a oversized white long sleeve shirt and loaded with training paint rounds. One armed volunteer was placed in a small lecture hall with ABC staff and police officers for a class on safety equipment. Upon donning the helmet in the class a armed assailant walked into the class, shot the teacher first, then proceeded to shoot the "students" in the class. Multiple hidden cameras were present to catch the immediate reaction of the armed volunteer to see how they could react. I have to give ABC credit, to a less discerning individual it would look pretty convincing that being armed in a mass shooting scenario would be pointless.
Now my fine toothed comb of analysis takes a crack at the given scenario. Being that one of the volunteers actually owned and regularly used his firearms I can't complain that they did not choose a good cross section of volunteers. Beyond that I have trouble giving an kind of credibility to the scenario. So let’s start the list:
1) Oversized long sleeve T-shirt - while I understand the safety factor necessary for the exercise on about half of the examples the shirt was a major hindrance to effectively drawing of their pistol. It was worn completely over the volunteers’ waist in such a way that about a foot of t-shirt had to be lifted to gain access to the weapon. In addition the weapon was placed in the pants without a holster in a rather thuggish manner. There are about as many different holsters and methods of carry as there are weapons to pick from. This move seemed like a deliberate spokes in the wheel. I had to wonder if any of the participant brought up this point?
2) Headgear - The individuals were wearing headgear (full wrap around helmets) when the attack took place. None had been conditioned on how to shoot with such hindrance and a typical situation would not involve the extra gear, although it is understood for safety reasons it is a factor which must be considered for "real world" application.
3) Weapon choice - The Glock 17 is a fine pistol however it is a full-sized pistol, not a very good choice for a concealed carry pistol. A proper concealed carry pistol for an averaged sized person would be a compact or sub-compact pistol with either a 4" or 3" barrel reducing the draw distance and thus increasing reaction time. Talking to retired law enforcement friends in Iraq (called LEPs) they explained to me the vast majority of shooting instances will be a such close range a full size pistol is unnecessary. This apparently is difficult to statistically verify. Then again, one of my sources spoke from multiple personal experiences, I'm glad he won. Regardless of range, the vast majority of concealed carry practitioners do not use full size firearms. Concerns include but are not limited, weight (carry around a 2lb weight everywhere you go, ounces make a difference), concealability (it is easier to conceal smaller items than bigger items), comfort (back to size and weight).
4) Controlled Environment - The volunteer was the only one who was unaware of what was happening, in addition none of the volunteers were previous CCW holders and thus some made spectacles of themselves about being armed. The entire point of concealed carry is that no one else knows you are armed and one should act low profile so as to not draw attention to oneself. Not everyone should carry a concealed weapon, several of the volunteers were such people.
5) Room Layout - the mini auditorium provided perfect field of fire for the shooter versus a conventional room. The shooter could enter and from the vantage point easily target anyone in the room.
6) Shooter - The shooter was an Emergency Response Team Instructor, the equivalent to the local SWAT instructor. Thus the physical responses the shooter would experience (as 20/20 pointed out the responder would experience) was greatly diminished in addition to being a highly trained shooter. Under such circumstances I would be surprised if any individual trained or untrained could effectively respond. The shooter also being tactically trained was not hindered by the protective equipment. The shooter was also mentally prepared for an armed individual to be present. This wholly undermined the value of the CCW experiment. Once again, the whole point is that the assailant does not know if there is or is not someone who can shoot back.
7) Short Time Span - Part of the tragedy of mass shooting events which statistically occur in "gun free zones" is that the initial victims are helpless due to the surprise and close quarters of the shooter. Sadly if the situation was real I would be surprised if any people in the initial room could effectively respond. The situation replicated attempted to address the Active Shooter scenario, but what of the other rooms. Upon hearing gunfire armed individuals could choose to confront or flee from the gun fire. For example in the Virginia Tech and Columbine shootings the shooters strolled the halls and attacked rooms which were easily accessible. The textbook doctrine to Active Shooter events is the sooner resistance occurs the fewer the casualties will result. This is why many police departments across the nation have patrol cars carry tactical weapons and armor for the fastest response to an active shooter situation. Prior to Columbine, the doctrine was to secure the area and wait for SWAT to arrive. When the issue became victims per minute, training and procedure adapted.
These are all points I noticed from watching the videos once... each individual point could cause significant change in the event a similar event actually occurred. Among the other points to note, CCW holders willing to put themselves in harm’s way should remain proficient with regular practice and maintain their weapon, in general be a responsible gun owner/user. Oh, and for those of you who would like to rely on police protection for your personal safety I wonder if you are aware of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, in which the US Supreme Court pointed out that private citizens do not have any right to police protection.
Epilogue: Not long ago a local news station ran a more realistic Active Shooter test. This was much more useful and not deliberately staged to get a certain political opinion. Of course it would be in Texas...
