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



## Makalakumu (Apr 11, 2009)

After viewing this program, what are your thoughts?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 11, 2009)

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 (Apr 11, 2009)

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


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 11, 2009)

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 (Apr 11, 2009)

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 (Apr 11, 2009)

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 (Apr 11, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> 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 (Apr 11, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> 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 (Apr 11, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> 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!



maunakumu said:


> 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 (Apr 11, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> 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 (Apr 11, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> 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 (Apr 11, 2009)

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 (Apr 11, 2009)

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 (Apr 11, 2009)

Did they blow up any pickup trucks?  :uhyeah:


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 11, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> 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 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 (Apr 11, 2009)

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 (Apr 11, 2009)

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 (Apr 11, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> 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 (Apr 11, 2009)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> 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 (Apr 11, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Here's a clip.....



pathetic...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 11, 2009)

It is my opinion that many people who choose to go about armed do not know the basics about self-defense.

Their range time is limited to the training they had to receive (if they had to receive any) as part of the CCW licensing process.  Many do not continue to train with their weapons beyond that.

Very often, they do not know how to handle basic weapon malfunctions, such as clearing stovepipe jams or failures to feed.

Some don't even know how to change magazines, or whether or not the slide locks back on the last round of their particular pistol.

Many do not know when they are authorized to use deadly force in self-defense, and many more do not recognize when the right to use deadly force in self-defense has ended.

I've posted news stories about situations like the man who was pickpocketed and opened fire on his attackers as they were running away.  Some here have suggested that if you're threatened by a gang of thugs, you can run into your house, retrieve your firearm, and then come out and re-engage them and still call it self-defense.

I am comforted by the fact that the overwhelming majority of CCW holders have an extremely low arrest percentage - most are law-abiding citizens.  They are far less likely than the general public to be arrested for violent crimes.

I support the right of law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.  It makes me nervous that so many of them are apparently dumb as stumps and don't know when they can legally use them, when they cannot, or even how to properly aim and fire the weapon they carry.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It is my opinion that many people who choose to go about armed do not know the basics about self-defense.
> 
> Their range time is limited to the training they had to receive (if they had to receive any) as part of the CCW licensing process.  Many do not continue to train with their weapons beyond that.
> 
> ...



I'm more concerned that we give a 16 year old a driver's license.......i've never been accidentally shot by a dumb citizen with a CCW, but I did have a teenager nearly run me over on the way home from work this morning.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 11, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I'm more concerned that we give a 16 year old a driver's license.



I'll go along with that.  They tend to be menaces.  I think 21 would be a good age for a driver's license.  I also support making driving while talking on the phone a felony, with mandatory sentencing.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'll go along with that.  They tend to be menaces.  I think 21 would be a good age for a driver's license.  I also support making driving while talking on the phone a felony, with mandatory sentencing.


 True, that.  Cell phones and cars a far bigger menace to public safety than even the dumbest law abiding gun owners.

Of course, ultimately in a free society we have to accept the lowest common denominator.  It's the trade-off for liberty.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 11, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> True, that.  Cell phones and cars a far bigger menace to public safety than even the dumbest law abiding gun owners.
> 
> Of course, ultimately in a free society we have to accept the lowest common denominator.  It's the trade-off for liberty.



I agree with that as well.  It's why I still support the right of law-abiding citizens to carry concealed, even though I think most of them are too dumb to walk and chew gum at the same time.  Our rights apply to everybody.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree with that as well.  It's why I still support the right of law-abiding citizens to carry concealed, even though I think most of them are too dumb to walk and chew gum at the same time.  Our rights apply to everybody.



Absolutely....in a free society we have to judge folks by what they do, not what they might do.......otherwise we leave it up to bureaucrats who are even DUMBER than the citizens themselves to try and 'fool-proof' society.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 11, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Absolutely....in a free society we have to judge folks by what they do, not what they might do.......otherwise we leave it up to bureaucrats who are even DUMBER than the citizens themselves to try and 'fool-proof' society.



I would be in favor of mandatory firearms training in public schools, starting at grade 4.  To include the full course of when a person may and may not used deadly force in self-defense.  No, not talking about arming 4th graders, just teaching them, like we used to teach them 'civics' classes that explained how our political system works (we don't teach that anymore either, based on the number of people who don't know what a plebiscite or the electoral collage are).

One of the schools I attended had a (long abandoned) .22 caliber rifle range in the basement.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I would be in favor of mandatory firearms training in public schools, starting at grade 4.  To include the full course of when a person may and may not used deadly force in self-defense.  No, not talking about arming 4th graders, just teaching them, like we used to teach them 'civics' classes that explained how our political system works (we don't teach that anymore either, based on the number of people who don't know what a plebiscite or the electoral collage are).
> 
> One of the schools I attended had a (long abandoned) .22 caliber rifle range in the basement.



The NRA still runs it's very successful 'Eddie Eagle' program.  

Even in my day we still had (probably the last) firearms/hunters education program as part of our PE credit, though it involved BB guns......same principle of operation and safety.

It's a shame that our modern schools seem more interested in producing in-offensive worker drones than producing fully functional intelligent and independent adults.....but intelligence and independence are contrary to the interests of modern government.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 11, 2009)

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.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 11, 2009)

After watching the show, I think they had one valid point.  If you buy a gun, you need to have training in how to use it.  All of the so-called experiments they performed would have been different if the defender had trained properly with the weapon in question.  Even against a firearm instructor, there would have been more center of mass shots taken from cover.

That said, the entire piece, THE ENTIRE PIECE was nothing but a political infomercial.  It was designed to guns are useless in self defense situations, that they were a public danger, and they needed to be controlled.  

It's not hard to imagine a conspiracy against guns in this country.  Especially when our national wealth is being stolen by huge financial interests.  People are getting very angry about a lot of things...as much as I sympathize, I don't think we need to go there.  It's simply part of our Constitution and that needs to be upheld.

That said, I think there is an agenda in this country that wants to disarm the public.  I don't know who and I don't know why, but when you have political programs like this that blatantly target people's ability to fight back, it seems pretty obvious to me.

So, now what?


----------



## girlbug2 (Apr 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'll go along with that. They tend to be menaces. I think 21 would be a good age for a driver's license. I also support making driving while talking on the phone a felony, with mandatory sentencing.


 
Agreed. 

17 states have so far passed laws banning cell use while driving. But it's anything but a felony apparently. You get stopped and fined, period.

It's pathetic how California passed a ban on handheld cell phone use while driving last year, but so few of my fellow Californians are aware of it. Very little was done to publicize this law that affects what, 90 percent of drivers on the road these days. I see it very commonly, and so far nobody I know has been stopped for it.

But get this -- for such a dangerous distraction, what do you suppose the fine would be if somebody was caught?..$20.00! A whopping 20 for the first offense, going up to a max of 50 bucks for subsequent offenses. Yup, that'll teach 'em.

Get real California, please.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 11, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> 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.



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!


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.


A couple problems with the idea that outlawing guns will stop inner-city violence.........

1) Gang members are young violent males, the group LEAST in need of guns to pursue violence.  Remember that the Rwandan massacre, the killing of nearly 1 Million people in mere days, was committing by gangs of young men armed MOSTLY with cheap Chinese machettes, which was the weapon they used to kill the majority of that 1 Million people.

2) It's based on the even more absurd notion that we CANNOT stop multiple thousands of tons of cocaine, heroin and other drugs reaching these street gangs from Central America, South America and Asia, but we CAN stop GUNS for those same places from reaching those same gang members!

Quite frankly I can only conclude that the anti-gun crowd is made up of two types of people......well-meaning but ultimately ignorant folks who don't remotely grasp the real problem AND totalitarians who understand completely that gun control isn't crime or violence control, but REALLY a way to gain power of the populace.



America's violence problem isn't a result of it's gun culture........the problem is ENTIRELY rooted in a huge social and economic stratification.  We are largely prosperous society as a whole, who's prosperity also brings with it the means and desire to seek gratification in illegal controlled substances.  Underneath that larger prosperity is an inner-city sub-culture, made up of minority groups and immigrants, hallmarked by poverty and deprivation that see profiting off that desire for controlled substances as a means of gaining prosperity, and several neighbor nations, likewise driven by poverty, to profit off that multi-billion dollar market.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 11, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> After watching the show, I think they had one valid point. If you buy a gun, you need to have training in how to use it. All of the so-called experiments they performed would have been different if the defender had trained properly with the weapon in question. Even against a firearm instructor, there would have been more center of mass shots taken from cover.
> 
> That said, the entire piece, THE ENTIRE PIECE was nothing but a political infomercial. It was designed to guns are useless in self defense situations, that they were a public danger, and they needed to be controlled.
> 
> ...


 

Now, you Just put in place all that you realistically can, and wake up every morning prepared for the fact that this is the day you could die, and apart from that everyday reminder, go about your otherwise normal business. That's all any of us can do.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 11, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> I think you know already and just don't want to accept it or are being smart and not putting it on the web.



Probably best not to put it out on the web directly, even if you think it.  Talking in theoretical vague terms is probably better.

Anyway, none of this has yet come to pass.......I have faith that it can still be averted.



> "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." -Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 11, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Probably best not to put it out on the web directly, even if you think it. Talking in theoretical vague terms is probably better.
> 
> Anyway, none of this has yet come to pass.......I have faith that it can still be averted.


 

It may.

I very much hope so, I should hate to have to die over something as stupid as this.

Just put in place all that you realistically can, and wake up every morning prepared for the fact that this is the day you could die, and you'll be as well prepared as anyone can without going nuts.*shrug*


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 11, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> It may.
> 
> I very much hope so, I should hate to have to die over something as stupid as this.
> 
> Just put in place all that you realistically can, and wake up every morning prepared for the fact that this is the day you could die, and you'll be as well prepared as anyone can without going nuts.*shrug*


 Indeed....

I move in many circles, and there seems to be an understanding among many disparate folks i've spoken to that are feeling exactly what you and others are referring to......without coordination or direction.  It's spooky.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 11, 2009)

Remove guns.
We still have knives.
Remove knives.
We still have swords.
Remove swords.
We still have spears.
Remove Spears.
We still have clubs.
Remove clubs.
We still have bottles.
Remove bottles.
We still have rocks.
Good luck removing the rocks, but go ahead, remove rocks.
We still have hands.

Your move.


----------



## Carol (Apr 11, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Remove guns.
> We still have knives.
> Remove knives.
> We still have swords.
> ...



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


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 11, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Indeed....
> 
> I move in many circles, and there seems to be an understanding among many disparate folks i've spoken to that are feeling exactly what you and others are referring to......without coordination or direction. It's spooky.


 

Yep. We've seen this movie before and enough of us, not all, maybe not even half at first, but enough of us, will not tolerate a sequel.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 11, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


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


Remove brains.


Oops.  Now we're ready for Congress.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 11, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> 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 (Apr 11, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> 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 (Apr 11, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> 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 (Apr 12, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> 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 (Apr 12, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> 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.





Gordon Nore said:


> 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. 





maunakumu said:


> 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.






Gordon Nore said:


> 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 (Apr 12, 2009)

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 (Apr 12, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> 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 (Apr 12, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> 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 (Apr 12, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> 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 (Apr 13, 2009)

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 (Apr 15, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2009)

zDom said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 16, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> 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.


----------

