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

[Makalakumu]

After viewing this program, what are your thoughts?

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm going to go through this segment by segment between commercials and just report on what I saw.

During the first segment, they set up an experiment with a mass shooting situation and they had all sorts of people with varying levels of experience with firearms. The question, would a firearm have mattered? In all situations shown, every defender was killed and no one killed the shooter.

One comment that stuck out was from a police trainer. "If you don't have the training, you won't be able to use the weapon. If you don't keep up the training, you won't be able to use the weapon. You can lose the training after one month off."

 

[Makalakumu]

End of show, "No reliable studies that show that carrying a gun for self defense is effective."

 

[Makalakumu]

Several other situations were set up to show that teens and college students who have had some education in regards to firearms, would make dangerous decisions when finding a gun.

 

[Makalakumu]

The mass shooter situation was set up again to show that defenders often end up shooting bystanders instead of bad guys. The police were there to tell the viewer that if a defender happens to shoot someone by mistake, the defender would be held responsible.

 

[KenpoTex]

I didn't get a chance to watch it. However, based on what I've heard from a few friends that did, it was designed to paint guns/CCW in a bad light.

"No reliable studies that show that carrying a gun for self defense is effective." bull-****...

 

[Archangel M]

End of show, "No reliable studies that show that carrying a gun for self defense is effective."

Hmmm..one or two "canned" "experiments" and thats the conclusion? Out of all the varying scenarios that exist and all the case history where people HAVE DEFENDED THEMSELVES with a firearm.

I don't believe for a minute that ABC didnt go into this whole thing with a preconcieved agenda.

 

[Archangel M]

The mass shooter situation was set up again to show that defenders often end up shooting bystanders instead of bad guys. The police were there to tell the viewer that if a defender happens to shoot someone by mistake, the defender would be held responsible.

I refuse to give ABC any ratings on that show so I didnt watch, but there is a world of difference between being in a group targeted by a mass shooter and being able to do something to stop him when he isnt actively shooting at you. Or when he's trying to break into the room you are in or when he passes your hiding place by... etc.

I refer to:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=75211&page=2

In somewhat recent times I can recall off the top of my head that off duty cop in the northwest who pinned down a shooter and that church security who gunned down a murder coming to cause more mayhem.

It's easy to prove a point you want to prove when you get to control the experiment parameters.

 

[sgtmac_46]

During the first segment, they set up an experiment with a mass shooting situation and they had all sorts of people with varying levels of experience with firearms. The question, would a firearm have mattered? In all situations shown, every defender was killed and no one killed the shooter.

Which flies right in the face of reality!

One comment that stuck out was from a police trainer. "If you don't have the training, you won't be able to use the weapon. If you don't keep up the training, you won't be able to use the weapon. You can lose the training after one month off."

He's partially right.....folks need to keep up the training.......but the notion that one will LOSE their entire ability to use their weapon after one month is asinine........especially when it's simultaneously being assumed that the opponent, who has likely never fired his gun more than a couple times, has some UNDEFEATABLE skills on his end.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The mass shooter situation was set up again to show that defenders often end up shooting bystanders instead of bad guys. The police were there to tell the viewer that if a defender happens to shoot someone by mistake, the defender would be held responsible.

The moral of the story is that it is BETTER to patiently wait your turn to be shot.

Another bull **** hatchet job by the morons at 20/20!

 

[sgtmac_46]

Hmmm..one or two "canned" "experiments" and thats the conclusion? Out of all the varying scenarios that exist and all the case history where people HAVE DEFENDED THEMSELVES with a firearm.

I don't believe for a minute that ABC didnt go into this whole thing with a preconcieved agenda.

One would have to be a MORON to believe that 20/20 didn't control the outcome to make sure it was exactly what they wanted!

More 'unbiased reporting' from the MSM.

I just wish I could have been in 20/20's pool of 'Active Shooter' victims!

verkill:

Betchya the produces would have edited my segment out.

 

[sgtmac_46]

What do you want to bet that the 20/20 producers gave all their Active Shooter volunteer victims Simunition headgear with clouded lenses and guns that wouldn't fire?

Diane Sawyer is a dimwit.......

I guess no one told Diane Sawyer that 20 times more children are killed by backyard swimming pools than in firearms accidents.

Watch this stupid scenario they set up!



Basically, here is Diane Sawyer's conclusion......that AMERICA is as stupid and incompetent as SHE IS!

 

[sgtmac_46]

Another point about the 'So-called' active shooter scenario, it was OBVIOUS the guy they had doing the shooting was one of the FIREARMS instructors!

Yeah, basically they came up with the Kobayashi Maru scenario........defender with NO firearms experience versus FIREARMS EXPERT!

If they wanted a FAIR representation of these kinds of incidents, they'd have BOTH been inexperienced with guns, because most such gunmen are!

Yeah, if DELTA FORCE/SEAL/GREEN BERET guy shows up to shoot you, you're having a bad day.......but what does that really prove?



Martial Artists know what this is.......it's purposely putting someone up against the 'Worst Case Scenario' opponent, and telling them that is who they will face on the street. It's the false notion that EVERY street thug is a highly trained ninja assassin!

 

[Carol]

Did they blow up any pickup trucks? :uhyeah:

 

[Sukerkin]

One would have to be a MORON to believe that 20/20 didn't control the outcome to make sure it was exactly what they wanted!

More 'unbiased reporting' from the MSM.

I just wish I could have been in 20/20's pool of 'Active Shooter' victims!

{snip very appropriate smiley}

Betchya the producers would have edited my segment out.

I would have liked that to have happened too, Mac.

If they kept it in then it would invalidate their point. If they edited it out then that would be proof positive of their manipulation of 'evidence' to support a false premise.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I did not see it but judging by the conclusion they came to after a few tests then we already know what they wanted to prove.

 

[crushing]

I saw it and a few things really stood out:

• As expected they overused/misused the term assault weapon.
• Wearing a very long t-shirt over a belt holster can make it difficult to draw a handgun.
• Children expect to find toys in a toy box, so don't store your guns there.

The only decent point they made is that even people that don't own or use guns should have some basic knowledge and awareness regarding guns. I couldn't believe the actions of the people that found the staged handguns in the drawer. Looking down the barrel to see if it loaded? WTF?

Perhaps if the media didn't treat guns as some disease that needs to be erradicated, and instead use some of their talents for awareness, maybe some of the accidents could have been prevented.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I would have liked that to have happened too, Mac.

If they kept it in then it would invalidate their point. If they edited it out then that would be proof positive of their manipulation of 'evidence' to support a false premise.

Heck, I just wish they'd have done an honest experiment. Not one single shooter of civilians of the sort we're discussing in recent memory would remotely be considered a firearms expert. In fact, most had only recently purchased the gun, and at best only fired it a few times. Yet they have a Firearms Instructor portraying the active shooter.

Then, they pick a complete novice as the CCW......give him a gun he isn't familiar with, and a holster he isn't familiar with.

The kind of person who has applied for and received a CCW has had some training to get the CCW, and further, he's familiar with his firearm. Many CCW holders are ex-military, have law enforcement experience, etc.

So, why didn't they go out and find a CCW holder? That would have been VERY realistic.....use the kind of person who has a CCW as an example of someone with a CCW.....

Then they set up the scenario and put him in the middle of the room, directly in the path of the shooter as he enters.....anyone aware enough to carry a gun, would position themselves in a far more strategically advantageous position than front row, center, directly in front of the door.

Now I have every reason to believe that the Firearms Instructor in question knew that someone in the room was armed, IF he didn't know EXACTLY who was armed, and where he was going to be sitting.

The whole situation was a sham cheap ploy.

A better realistic scenario would have involved someone with a CCW with the STUDENT as the ACTIVE SHOOTER!

 

[sgtmac_46]

I did not see it but judging by the conclusion they came to after a few tests then we already know what they wanted to prove.

Here's a clip.....

 

[KenpoTex]

Here's a clip.....

pathetic...