https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/articl ... m_content=
OR
The video itself is here:At exactly 59 seconds the gunman, played by an actor, steps into a building, and the door closes. For a second or two we can see that there is a warning on the door about trespassing, and we see the word “handgun.” The full text of the statute cannot be read. If you watched the video (hopefully it will not be taken down), you see that the mock gunman had no qualms about entering the building armed. Though it was a scenario played out according to script and cast with actors, it followed what happens in real life quite well. Criminals have no problem breaking gun laws. The only thing gun laws cause is the law-abiding to be disarmed.
The full text of Texas Penal Code Title 7 Chapter 30 Subsection 06 (30.06) can be found HERE. The sign seen at 59 seconds in the video has the force of law because it appears to comply with all of the requirements in the subsection of the penal code. Basically, it is illegal in the state of Texas for even licensed concealed carry permit holders to carry on any premises that put up a sign that meets the font requirement and reads in Spanish and English, “Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun.”
I want to go on record that I applaud the Mayor’s Office of Public Safety of the city of Houston, Texas for making the video. The credits at the end indicate that it was produced by the City of Houston Mayor’s Office of Public Safety with a grant from the Department of Homeland Security. The video can be far more effective at giving the bulk of the public useable information to help them survive an active shooter situation than the old Duck and Cover video from the Cold War era offered for surviving a nuclear attack.
If there is anyone that is convinced that Duck and Cover was an effective means of protection against nuclear explosion, I invite them to view the videos at Atomicarchive.com. The one on the thermal pulse of a nuclear explosion alone pretty much negates the effective use of Duck and Cover. Was it better than nothing? Yes. Could a better training video have been made? Absolutely. However, that is the problem in educating the “general” public. Information has to be quite general and easily assimilated by the masses. Unfortunately, it still remains the same in our society. There is quite a bit the average citizen can do to protect against all kinds of threats, but the masses do not desire to take the steps necessary to learn those skills.
The anti-gun element in our society that is clamoring louder and louder to restrict civilian possession and carrying of guns is convinced it is doing the right thing. The signs, such as the one on that door of the office building in the video, come about because legislation was enacted to control guns. Whose guns does it control? Does it control my gun that is carried legally and safely by me for protection, or does it control the guns of sociopaths who have decided to commit mass murder? Inherently, gun laws control my gun because I submit to being a law-abiding citizen.
In a nutshell, if anti-gunners desire to antiquate possessing and carrying guns in our modern society, criminals who would commit atrocities against the public need to be extincted first.
That sign at 59 seconds could mean a couple of things. It could be taken as an anti-gun statement by the makers of the video. Maybe the director had sole discretion as to what made the final cut of the finished video. I cannot say who had the last say. However, I do not see that couple of seconds of statute 30.06 being displayed on a video teaching the public how to survive an active shooter scenario as being anti-gun. I could be wrong, but I think someone was trying to say to the public: If you followers who cannot stand up and realize that bad people exist and the law-abiding must be ready to stop them, then this video is your last ditch hope of surviving a nut who comes gunning for you, especially if you have to work in a place that outlaws your right to self-defense.
The Run and Hide sections of the video were quite good. It follows what I have taught from my beginnings of teaching this stuff, which is to Avoid-Evade-Escape-Defend. Defined, it simply would read, attempt to avoid trouble first, evade it if possible, escape if there is a way out and defend when there are no other options. The Fight section of the video summed up the section with a nice set of bullet points (pun not necessarily intended).
The bullet points in the Fight section of the video read:
“Attempt to incapacitate the shooter.
Act with physical aggression.
Improvise weapons.
Commit to your actions.”
The one that advises to “improvise weapons” could give a last hope to unarmed people with no way to get away from a killer who is superiorly armed. It just does not fit into good logic that in this 21st Century where technology has pocket pistols available in a military caliber (9mm Parabellum) that intelligent, trainable human beings would not only decide to go about unarmed to defend but actually vote to enact laws to further disarm members of the rest of the law-abiding public who could do something when a nut with a gun shows up to do some killing. That fire extinguisher up against the head of the shooter in the Fight section of the video would be a good start to disabling him. That chair the other man was readying to swing is better than nothing too. Seven rounds center mass from a .45 ACP in the shooter’s head and chest is far more effective.
I heard it postulated once that maybe anti-gunners are so fierce about disarming the US citizenry because they do not believe themselves trustworthy enough to possess and carry them. However, this author has discovered through years of research that a driving force behind gun control is not because those who bring it to pass think they cannot be trusted with guns. In fact, the driving force behind gun control comes from votes for it from those who believe no one else except themselves could be trusted with guns.
Sure, they say how they only want the police and military to have them. However, after all the discussions, interviews and research, the real fact is that human beings want to be in a position of superiority over others because of fear. In a nutshell, people who cannot take responsibility for the “self” in self-defense feel that a viable alternative is to attempt to halt the need to ever defend through outlawing weapons. Functionally, that is utterly illogical. We have always had laws against murder, yet murder is committed every day. How is it logical to assume that a murderer will obey a gun control law? Is it not logical to push for adequate training and arming of the law-abiding to be prepared to stop the murderers who are out there right now making plans?
If the video made by the good public safety folks at the office of the mayor of Houston, Texas was all that could be done to train and protect the average citizen, I would not even be writing this article. However, more can be done. It is patently obvious that we cannot stop violent crime by making more laws. What concern of law does a sociopath have? However, what if a sociopath thought he might be walking into a building full of armed people spread out behind closed doors, around corners and down long corridors? Think it through. If you were that sociopath, what building would you choose? It is why there have been few occurrences of these active shooters deciding to go on a rampage inside a building filled with law enforcement officers. They do not want a fight; they want victims! That is exactly why at 59 seconds in that video, the realism is at its height for it is truly a building even a half-witted sociopath would choose—one that disarms the law-abiding.
I really like that video. It shows the one woman who is falling apart and putting her coworkers at risk because she cannot keep her mouth shut. That is one aspect of group dynamics I have thought about for years. Once she compromised the group’s position, two of the group improvised offensive weapons. Think about it. In a building full of anti-gunners, most any of the regular readers of this author’s articles would be a hero if he or she shot down an active shooter. The simple truth is that anti-gunners should be allowed to decide to not do anything at all to be prepared to defend against lethal threats. However, they should not be able to tell the rest of us that we have to submit to just becoming victims as they have chosen for themselves.
Cody S. Alderson is a long-time regular contributor to The United States Concealed Carry Association. He is a private consultant and author based in southwestern Pennsylvania. Cody invites you to visit his website at www.aldersonarts.com.
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VcSwejU2D0
Hope the link works,
Oh yes. for debate..not sure that pumping 7 rounds of any calibre into someone would be easily defensible in court irrespective of the benefits of doing so.
