So, did anyone actually watch the 20/20 show on firearms?

[sgtmac_46]

Remove hands, we still have brains...which is where the intent is to begin with.

Indeed it is the human mind that is the only real weapon.....without intent and human will everything else is a mere rock.

I strongly suspect the hoplophobes are so frightened by the concept of human evil, that they psychologically can't deal with it.....so they fixate on inanimate objects in order to cope.

 

[Gordon Nore]

That's part and parcel to the problem in those communities......the belief that they have a 'Gun Problem' and not a 'Criminal Problem'........it's a delusional attempt to transfer blame from where it belongs, to an inanimate object.......as if getting rid of the guns would suddenly bring peace and prosperity to violent gang members!

It's almost as if these MORONS believe that guns are driving around committing drive-by shootings devoid of human operation........that mindset is indicative of a larger problem among various groups that are suffering community violence.......an almost institutionalized desire to shift blame about the root of that violence to something other than the individuals engaged in it.......so it's no surprise it's now come down to blaming it on INANIMATE OBJECTS!

I don't disagree, but I'm not sure how you got this out of the 20/20 story.

I see a number of problems. First, 20/20 is typical of network news magazine shows, not because of the liberalness of the journalism, but the fact that they don't actually practice journalism. Sawyer refers to the episode as an investigation. It isn't really an investigation; it's a somewhat controlled experiment. The kid in the lecture hall has basically had one lesson, brought his piece into class, probably suspecting that he would be called upon to use it, but not knowing the circumstances. Naturally, he fowls up. So it's really a piercing glimpse into the obvious -- people without tactical training probably won't perform well in a chaotic situation.

What, do they suddenly believe if they get most of the guns, the gang members are suddenly going to go back to school, get jobs and become productive members of society? Actually I wouldn't be too shocked if that IS what they actually believed.

If "they" means Diane Sawyer, she's not really thinking about gangbangers. To my knowledge, gangbangers don't even come up in the story. The news peg upon which the story is hung is mass shootings, which have taken place largely outside the inner-city, and have nothing to do with gangbangers.

My observation of reactions to these mass shootings (VT, Comumbine) etc, is the resentment that these acts of violence have invaded the suburbs and heartland. That's the whole point of the story. Sawyer's viewers probably don't live in the 'hood.

 

[Carol]

Indeed it is the human mind that is the only real weapon.....without intent and human will everything else is a mere rock.

I strongly suspect the hoplophobes are so frightened by the concept of human evil, that they psychologically can't deal with it.....so they fixate on inanimate objects in order to cope.

But that fixation goes away when it comes time to actually sentencing the convicts that committed the crime. Supporters of heavy sentences for gun crimes are usually not the same folks as those that support the idea that the citizenry should not have guns.

 

[sgtmac_46]

But that fixation goes away when it comes time to actually sentencing the convicts that committed the crime. Supporters of heavy sentences for gun crimes are usually not the same folks as those that support the idea that the citizenry should not have guns.

That goes hand in hand......these folks can't wrap their minds around human evil.....they prefer to think of people as 'victims'.......their fixation on the gun alleviates, in their mind, the culpability of the human beings who commit evil acts. They want a society where crime is treated like a disorder, where all of us are treated like children by the state, who makes sure that we don't have any sharp objects to accidentally cut ourselves, and makes sure to cover all the electrical outlets.

Mother government, craddle to grave, is what that timid cowardly sort want......TRUE individual liberty scares them to the point of bed-wetting.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I don't disagree, but I'm not sure how you got this out of the 20/20 story.

I see a number of problems. First, 20/20 is typical of network news magazine shows, not because of the liberalness of the journalism, but the fact that they don't actually practice journalism. Sawyer refers to the episode as an investigation. It isn't really an investigation; it's a somewhat controlled experiment. The kid in the lecture hall has basically had one lesson, brought his piece into class, probably suspecting that he would be called upon to use it, but not knowing the circumstances. Naturally, he fowls up. So it's really a piercing glimpse into the obvious -- people without tactical training probably won't perform well in a chaotic situation.

If it were a scientific experiment, the experimenters would be censured for falsifying their results. It was a controlled outcome.

It wasn't just that they threw an untrained kid in to defend the class, they used a FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR as the shooter. They intentionally created an ABSOLUTE worst case scenario no where reflected in REAL such shootings, where the SHOOTER usually has about the same level of training and experience as the kid in this scenario.....little to none.

So it's REALLY a piercing glimpse in to media bias.

If "they" means Diane Sawyer, she's not really thinking about gangbangers. To my knowledge, gangbangers don't even come up in the story. The news peg upon which the story is hung is mass shootings, which have taken place largely outside the inner-city, and have nothing to do with gangbangers.

See the following and it will be much clearer who I was referring to.

There was another segment where a young black kid was interviewing a bunch of people from his town, which was overwhelmed with crime and gang members. They showed how gang members could easily get guns and how they could get whatever they wanted. Then interviewed a bunch of kids who had accidentally shot another friend. The segment ended where the boy asked President Obama to do something about the gun menace in his neighborhood and in neighborhoods across the country.

Hope that clears it up.

My observation of reactions to these mass shootings (VT, Comumbine) etc, is the resentment that these acts of violence have invaded the suburbs and heartland. That's the whole point of the story. Sawyer's viewers probably don't live in the 'hood.

Again, your 'perception' of mass shootings isn't justified by the reality. 'Mass shootings' are like cases of Ebola......scary as hell, and as unlikely to cause your death as getting struck by a meteor.

 

[Archangel M]

Not to mention probably be biggest "set-up" of the experiment. Im assuming that the "professional bad guy" is going into the scenario already knowing that one of the "victims" is going to be armed and actively looking/ready for him.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Not to mention probably be biggest "set-up" of the experiment. Im assuming that the "professional bad guy" is going into the scenario already knowing that one of the "victims" is going to be armed and actively looking/ready for him.

Yeah, not to mention that fact alone completely biases the test.

I wouldn't be surprised, seeing how biased and trumped up the rest of the test is, that he not only knew that there was an armed 'victim' (a given), but where in the room he was going to be sitting, and perhaps even which one it was!

 

[KenpoTex]

Yeah, not to mention that fact alone completely biases the test.

I wouldn't be surprised, seeing how biased and trumped up the rest of the test is, that he not only knew that there was an armed 'victim' (a given), but where in the room he was going to be sitting, and perhaps even which one it was!

I agree, when they showed the camera angle from the "bad guy's" perspective it looked like after shooting the professor, he immediately locked in on the student who was trying to draw his pistol. Now this could have been because he just saw movement that was incongruous with the "run away! run away!" type of response and reacted to it. On the other hand, it seemed a little too convenient that he never even broke stride when transitioning from the prof. to the student.
Even if the BG didn't know which student was armed, putting a firearms instructor up against someone like the student would be like handing someone a knife and putting them up against Kelly Worden or Jim Keating.

 

[Gordon Nore]

If it were a scientific experiment, the experimenters would be censured for falsifying their results. It was a controlled outcome.

It wasn't just that they threw an untrained kid in to defend the class, they used a FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR as the shooter. They intentionally created an ABSOLUTE worst case scenario no where reflected in REAL such shootings, where the SHOOTER usually has about the same level of training and experience as the kid in this scenario.....little to none.

So it's REALLY a piercing glimpse in to media bias.

We agree it's a lousy story.

See the following and it will be much clearer who I was referring to.

Hope that clears it up.

Didn't catch that in the clip I saw. Thanks

Again, your 'perception' of mass shootings isn't justified by the reality. 'Mass shootings' are like cases of Ebola......scary as hell, and as unlikely to cause your death as getting struck by a meteor.

I agree with your Ebola analogy. We don't disagree as much as you think. The mass shootings are extraordinary events driven by angry, psychotic individuals. They are also the reference point for much of the discussion about guns. These events are mutually exploited by individuals who call for gun controls and by some gun rights advocates who charge that the outcomes would have been more favourable if persons on the scene were packing.

When I speak of the resentment that is registered over these events, it is precisely because they are taking place in schools, churches, universities, community centres -- what have you. If these were shootings in rough neighbourhoods, they wouldn't get the press they do. Nor would pro- or anti-gun folks feel compelled to comment on them.

 

[zDom]

I didn't watch the whole video, but I DID see the part where Dumbass Sawyer tries out the video simulation and is unable to get the bad guy even when she knows he is going to be there on the second try.

I got to try out the VERY SAME SIMULATOR as part of a "Media Day" by our local police department.

It is, without a doubt, the VERY SAME simulator — I immediately recognized the video clip.

It is the FBI's Firearms Training Simulator (FATS) used to train law enforcement in shoot/don't shoot decisions.

(note: this is when I fell in love with the Sig Sauer p226 as it was the firearm hooked up to the sim )

With no prior training, I was able to recognize, decide and take out the bad guy in just about every scenario before they were able to get a shot off.

Only once or twice was the bad guy got off a shot before I scored a "lethal" hit.

By the way, the simulator is controllable so that you DON'T know what will happen. They can press a button at several places to change the behavior of the on-camera perps/officer. So I didn't know what was going to happen in advance.

The DPS training officers were impressed (they even sent a letter stating this to my boss at the newspaper.)

I attribute it to basic awareness and decision-making skills learned from martial art training.

But more noteworthy is the lady operating the camera for the local TV news station ALSO scored VERY well, also (if I recall correctly) with no training.

The TV news reporter ... not so much.

In any case, 2/3 of those who tried the simulator did pretty well.

Sawyer is a sad excuse for a journalist. She had an outcome for the story ahead of time and there were no facts that were going to prevent her from telling the story she was determined to tell.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I agree with your Ebola analogy. We don't disagree as much as you think. The mass shootings are extraordinary events driven by angry, psychotic individuals. They are also the reference point for much of the discussion about guns. These events are mutually exploited by individuals who call for gun controls and by some gun rights advocates who charge that the outcomes would have been more favourable if persons on the scene were packing.

I do find it instructive to point to a few other, lesser known school shooting incidents that did not receive the publicity of these events in the media....for reasons that will be obvious when looking at the details.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wurst
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

All three of these incidents tend to point out the ridiculousness of 20/20's conclusions.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I didn't watch the whole video, but I DID see the part where Dumbass Sawyer tries out the video simulation and is unable to get the bad guy even when she knows he is going to be there on the second try.

I got to try out the VERY SAME SIMULATOR as part of a "Media Day" by our local police department.

It is, without a doubt, the VERY SAME simulator — I immediately recognized the video clip.

It is the FBI's Firearms Training Simulator (FATS) used to train law enforcement in shoot/don't shoot decisions.

(note: this is when I fell in love with the Sig Sauer p226 as it was the firearm hooked up to the sim )

With no prior training, I was able to recognize, decide and take out the bad guy in just about every scenario before they were able to get a shot off.

Only once or twice was the bad guy got off a shot before I scored a "lethal" hit.

By the way, the simulator is controllable so that you DON'T know what will happen. They can press a button at several places to change the behavior of the on-camera perps/officer. So I didn't know what was going to happen in advance.

The DPS training officers were impressed (they even sent a letter stating this to my boss at the newspaper.)

I attribute it to basic awareness and decision-making skills learned from martial art training.

But more noteworthy is the lady operating the camera for the local TV news station ALSO scored VERY well, also (if I recall correctly) with no training.

The TV news reporter ... not so much.

In any case, 2/3 of those who tried the simulator did pretty well.

Sawyer is a sad excuse for a journalist. She had an outcome for the story ahead of time and there were no facts that were going to prevent her from telling the story she was determined to tell.

I bet moron media types like Sawyer will FORGET their experience on the simulator the next time they do a hatchet job on some police shooting, though.......they are quite capable of talking out both sides of their mouth and dismissing evidence they themselves previously used when confronted by a salacious story.

 

[zDom]

I bet moron media types like Sawyer will FORGET their experience on the simulator the next time they do a hatchet job on some police shooting, though.......they are quite capable of talking out both sides of their mouth and dismissing evidence they themselves previously used when confronted by a salacious story.

You are probably right.

One of the things I learned during my time on the simulator was why bad guys end up with a dozen holes in them.

Media like to cry about "Did it really take a dozen bullets to stop them??" (I actually had said the same thing myself before using the FATS!)

but then I found myself putting about 3 rounds in the bad guys before I was sure they were stopped,

x 3 other officers and yep, 12 shots fired. Happens quick.