Reaction from ABC's 20/20 Anti-Gun Episode (Merged)
This is a discussion on Reaction from ABC's 20/20 Anti-Gun Episode (Merged) within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I did not get to see the 20/20 program, but I did get to see the classroom scenario on a news program advertising the program.
April 13th, 2009 07:59 AM
I did not get to see the 20/20 program, but I did get to see the classroom scenario on a news program advertising the program.
At first I was enraged. Then I began to realize, they were pretty close to right. There was some bias against armed citizens, but there was still a lot of revealing truth as well.
First, everyone got to see just how fast these things can happen.
Second, everyone got to see how effective an untrained person is with a gun - pathetic.
Third, everyone got to see that nobody's magazine flew apart in the middle of a gunfight, and nobody had time or opportunity to reload. Carry a spare mag if you like, but if you think it's a substitute for education and training or that it prepares you for the worst, go back and watch the classroom shooting. This isn't just 20/20, I learned these very lessons in training.
Fourth, all kinds of tactical rules were broken by the defender with a gun - popping up to shoot which fully exposed the shooter, big, gross, unecessary movements that draw attention to yourself.
Every bit of what went wrong in the classroom shooting was due to lack of training. That's not to say that training wins everytime, but we can think of it as getting in a NASCAR and trying to go too fast. Notice I didn't say race a pro, I said try to go to fast.
So, I think there was some backlash that will have very positive effects on gun owners.
They should realize that if they are unarmed, they are doomed if they are in a classroom, etc. and an attack occurs.
They should also realize there is absolutely no way a lock down, email warnings, cell phones, SWAT, police, or campus security can protect them from an armed attack.
They should realize they need to get some serious training. Let's face it, people buy a gun, shoot 25 rounds through it and take the gun and the remaining 25 rounds home and put them away. A step up from that is they carry the gun. A step up from that is they shoot at a stationary paper target regularly and read gun magazines. Some of these very people then stick a spare mag on their belt so they are now prepared for the worst. Go back and watch the classroom shooting and consider if a spare mag would have helped. Again, and I want to be very clear about this, I'm not at all against carrying a spare mag; I am very concerned about the notion that is commonly projected that if you carry a spare mag you are prepared for the worst. Well that classroom was a worst - a spare mag on someone's belt wouldn't have helped in any way. I'm just saying, be careful what you're depending on as being prepared for the worst.
While I would like to have seen less bias and more honesty in the presentation, I think it was pretty revealing and a lot of eye-opening truth came out that they probably didn't intend.
I realize they were desperately trying to make the point that your gun won't help you, but what they really showed is get training and carry a gun to defend yourself or be slaughtered.
I'm too young to be this old!
Getting old isn't good for you!
April 13th, 2009 07:59 AM
April 13th, 2009 11:19 AM
she obviously has not heard of Lance Thomas, the urban gunfighter..so much for "ballanced" reporting
April 13th, 2009 11:53 AM
We all knew what was coming b4 10:pm. But I sat down in front of the boob tube to satisfy my curiosity. By 10:30 I thought I was going to puke , so with remote in hand I switched over to 35 yr old reruns of Rockford Files
I'll bet Diane Saywer calls herself a jounalist. Pityfull.
DEMOCRACY is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for lunch...
LIBERTY is a well armed sheep contesting the outcome of the vote.
April 13th, 2009 12:40 PM
Did anyone see the segment on 60 minutes yesterday?
April 13th, 2009 02:13 PM
my post on ABC's 20/20 site
Dear Ms Sawyer I am sending you my copy of John Lotts book "More Guns, Less Crime" because you were unable to locate "Any studies that showed that gun ownership prevented crime". Perhaps you have never heard of Amazon.com or Google.
In the book PROFESSOR Lott uses statistical analasys of data from FBI and state agencies showing a direct relationship between non-discreationary concealed weapons permit laws and violent crime. I doubt that even if you knew about this book you would have presented the information, since it is obvious that you did not intend to present a fair and unbiased report. If you had wanted to present a truly objective report you would have attempted to contact one of the thousands of gun owners that have successfully defended their life with a gun. Based on the report you presented there have never been any such cases. (By the way the convience store shooting you did show was such an example.) The store owner was not shot, the perpetrators did not successfully rob the store, yet you fail to mention this.
If you need another example I can forward to you a case that happened here in Michigan in Febuary, in which the owner of an insurance agency successfully used his handgun to defend himself against two armed robbers.
I would also like ot add that I am greatly disturbed by the education you recieved in journalism school. You did go to school didn't you? I would have thought that somewhere in your classes there would have been a discussion of ethics, and unbiased reporting. Perhaps you had a beauty salon appointment that day.
April 13th, 2009 02:34 PM
I watched the very first part of the program. I started getting sick so I changed the channel and watched "Guess Who" with Bernie Mac and Ashton Kutcher.
Even a bad movie was more entertaining.
My Music: www.reverbnation.com/dickiefredericks
New tunes added.
"The Double Tap Center Mass Boogie. Learn it, know it, love it, shoot it. Good guys should live, bad guys not so much. " - Ted Nugent 09
April 13th, 2009 04:02 PM
I missed this program the other night, but watched the classroom scene on the web. Initially I was angry as I picked the scenario apart for all the biased ways it was set up. Then I began to reflect on my first force-on-force session and how pathetically I performed. The quote above from Tangle says it all. This program reminded me that I need to step up my training.
Originally Posted by Tangle
It would be great to see a rebuttal experiment done in the same way, but with less bias. Put Jang, or a similarly trained CCW'er, in the hot seat there in the classroom. Let that person choose their own seat (guaranteed they wouldn't be sitting front and center). Have the "bad guy" come in the class room the same way but be unaware of who had a gun or better yet have them think that no one had a gun. Basically take all the biased points in 20/20's piece and counter them. I would love to see the outcome from that experiment.
The other thing I wanted to point out after reading through all these posts is how most of them are very well thought out and logical arguements. This post/forum represents a great cross-section of gun owners in America. Granted it is skewed since this forum is focused on concealed carry, but all the same how nice it would be if we could distill these arguements down and have all the anti-gun people read them with an open and honest mind. Fantasy I know but it would be nice.
April 13th, 2009 11:26 PM
All I saw was the classroom scenario. Yeah, let's just leave all the gun toting and shooting to the real experts, the criminals. Who are we amateurs to stand up against the highly skilled pros? What kind of irresponsible person does that anyway? Jeez! They could have shot their best friend! Don't you like the way they portrayed the young woman who in my book would have been a hero, perhaps the only one courageous enough to stand up to this guy while he gunned down dozens? According to ABC, she was an irresponsible shmuck.
As if it was impossible for the average joe to stand up against these highly skilled, trained and determined murderers. That almost makes the murdering scumbags sound respectable doesn't it? I think I read something somewhere that criminals do have the experience advantage even when up against veteran cops. It's absurd though to say that being unarmed is an advantage when facing this same cold blooded murderer.
As if it's impossible for a gun to do any good. Maybe 18 year old Kayson Helms was a real fan of Diane Sawyer. Must have seen the show and went out to try out her theories in real life. He tried interrupting an AA meeting to rob the participants at gun point. I hear it didn't work out too well for him. He walked in brandishing his .25 auto saying "Gimme what you got." A CCW license holder, wanting to cooperate fully with this trained professional, pulled out his own gun, and as amateur as it was I'm embarrassed to say, shot him in the abdomen, chest, and throat. Kayson handled it like the real scumbag pro he was. He ran about 100 feet and died like every murdering scumbag should be proud of. So much for reality according to the gun grabbers.
Here's a quote from one article I read:
"This is the second time in five weeks that a person with a concealed weapons permit has killed a person in the Midlands."
They'll never get it.
April 14th, 2009 07:01 AM
April 14th, 2009 10:14 AM
If there was ever any question as to whether the main media has an anti-gun agenda, this show puts it to rest.
I expect some blowback... any clear-thinking person (liberal, even ambivalent about guns) has got to look at the scenario as presented and realized it was completely rigged in favor of the shooter and unrealistic.
April 14th, 2009 10:40 AM
I spoke to several people who agreed with the show that CC should not be allowed. The people I spoke with never paid enough attention to the shooter nor even gave it a second thought that the shooter was a professional against a novice.
Originally Posted by JohnKelly
Biased is Biased.
April 14th, 2009 11:41 AM
That lie of a program was about as far left as you can get. The timing of this show is very suspicious. I would be willing to bet they are trying to move HR45. It has been sitting in committee for a few months now. Any rep that 20/20 or DS had are gone as far as I am concerned.
By oakchas in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: October 23rd, 2010, 12:07 AM
By Sailorcbr in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: October 23rd, 2009, 09:36 AM
By fernset in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: April 15th, 2009, 04:22 PM
By goawayfarm in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: April 1st, 2008, 04:03 PM
By paramedic70002 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: July 27th, 2007, 09:53 AM
Search tags for this page
20 20 episode anti-gun
20/20 ccw dream
20/20 college concealed carry
20/20 concealed carry
20/20 concealed carry experiment
20/20 gun episode
20/20 gun experiment
abc concealed carry study
abc news concealed carry debunked.
abc news concealed carry experiment
Click on a term to search for related topics.