Defensive Carry banner

Reaction from ABC's 20/20 Anti-Gun Episode (Merged)

13K views 131 replies 90 participants last post by  Landor 
#1 ·
I was working last night so I didn't get to watch this fine piece of work :ticking:, but I got the following from a good friend in an email and thought I'd share:

All,

Tonight 20/20 aired a totally biased episode on guns and gun violence. In this episode, they presented many false or skewed facts. Below I have listed a few and their explanations. Also, at the end of the show, they said they looked long and hard for a study that supported the fact that a gun is helpful in defending yourself against a crime. They couldn't find one. I ask you to all email the producers and forward this to all the people you know and ask them to do the same. We have the power to show our strength in numbers.

They presented several shocking statistics about how many children are killed by guns each year. This is an old trick and a dirty one. One thing they fail to mention is that in their statistic, "children" are defined as anyone under 26. This means they count a 25 year old gang member in LA shooting another 25 year old rival gang member a "child" killed by a firearm. No kidding. Take all the guns away and they will hack each other apart with machete's. Look at Africa and South America.

Second, they apparently haven't heard of John Lott's book, More guns less crime. It details the decrease of crime in all states that have inacted a Right to carry law. My guess is either they didn't know where to find a book store that would sell a "pro gun" book, or they were unable to undermine his statistics with lies that would be believable, even to an anti gun audience.


Third,
The had a guy go into a gun show and buy all sorts of guns to show the "gun show loophole". They didn't just use a regular anti gun citizen. They pulled at your heartstrings with a guy whose sister was killed at Virginia tech. This guy has been working hard to get the Virginia government to change gun show laws. The funny thing is, even if he was successful in getting that done 10 years ago, it wouldn't have saved his sister. The guy that shot her bought the Glock that he used at a gun store, legally and registered. This is ridiculous. That is like my brother getting killed by a drunk driver in a truck. So I try to get the legislature to pass a bill making it illegal to fly an airplane if you are intoxicated. Oh wait, it is illegal to fly an airplane while intoxicated. It is also illegal to shoot someone with a gun, any gun.

Last, they had a student put a training pistol containing paint rounds on. They did have several people with varying degrees of firearms experience. They put them in a classroom, front and center. They were told later in the day, they would use the firearm. Then they had a Police firearms instructor burst into the room and shoot the teacher, then the armed student. They presented this a inexplicable proof that you cannot defend yourself in any situation. They didn't bother to use typical scientific protocol like a double blind. They placed one student in the front row of a class of 30 or so, then had the trained instructor shoot the professor, then the student with a gun. They also had the instructor say on tape that you will lose any skills you acquired by training in 1 to 2 months of inactivity. Please contact your local police office and make sure they train every single month. I would hate to think that the people sworn to protect me when they take my guns have forgotten their training. Especially when they rarely shoot more often than 4 to 5 times a year.

Please remind people there are many self defense situations. Even if the situation ABC presented were true and all the students in that room were killed. How likely would it be that the gunman could then walk to the room next door containing a student with a gun and kill all of them too? Not very likely. Also, if the gunman was a video gamer who had little experience and the student was an avid IDPA shooter, the outcome would likely be very different. Heck, put me in a room and send in the instructor without telling him where I was, and things would have been different. Or arm several other students and see how far he gets.


Remember, the first step in getting rid of guns historically has always been to require law abiding people to register their guns. Then they just round them up later. It happened in England, it happened in Germany, it happened in Australia, and it could happen here. Oppose all registration of guns no matter how innocent or well intentioned it may appear.


-Plop
 
See less See more
#3 ·
It seems to me that the indoctrination which preceded the extreme restrictions in the UK, Australia, and Canada was convincing the public of three things:

that individuals are incapable of defending themselves.

that individuals can expect the police to save them.

that even if they CAN defend themselves effectively,
it is IMMORAL for them to do so.

these are the lynchpins of all the anti gun rhetoric, and rather than going all constitutional and such to the fence sitters (who are not even clear on what century WWII was in) we need to hammer these deranged premises to the people who don't yet understand the issue.
 
#5 ·
ABC's 20/20

Sorry, some things just have to be mentioned....

I didn't expect ABC to do as thorough a hatchet job as they did.

Here are my thoughts.

On the classroom scenerio, you had a trained LE firearms instructor acting as the perp. He knew his target (the student that was CCWing) and after the initial shot to the "teacher", he was gunning for the CCW "student".

Granted, the "student" (with no weapons training) made some fatal errors (couldn't get weapon out of holster, stood straight up and failed to obtain cover, etc.), but the "shooter" knew exactly who to target. Unlikely in a real situation, where the perp either sprays the room with gunfire or targets victims as he/she walks.

The second section about kids with guns, while an important topic, obviously was designed to show that everyone that has a gun in the home is irresponsible. Make no mistake about it, kids and guns don't mix but the article failed to take into account the millions of gunowners that are responsible.

This country fails to properly prosecute perps that commit gun crimes or have a gun in their possession when committing crime. And the court system fails to lock these perps up for maximum sentences.

Every community in every state in this country has been victimized by some thug that should have been in prison but instead got an early release or little or no jail time.

And let me just state this (IMHO): practically all of the mass-shootings in this country were done by guys that did not have any felony record to speak of and did obtain their weapons either legally (or removed them from a family member's home).

I think in the case of these mass-shootings, all the gun laws would not have prevented the crime.

With regard to those shooters, whatever happened to just plain crazy?
 
#7 ·
The basic theme of the program is that no one is qualified to own or use guns except police and even they aren't real good at it. The solution offered is to run away ( ok if you can do it ) or do nothing and die because if you try and use a gun you will fail or shoot an innocent person. What garbage. The name of the game is training and more training but even untrained you have better odds then just waiting to die. This program was without a doubt one of the worse, biased, one sided pieces of journalism I have seen in a long time. I am naive I keep hoping the media will provide an even handed appoach. I guess it isn't ever going to happen. In ABC's case, maybe that's why I don't watch this channel.
 
#8 ·
Bender.... enjoyed the article.

In all of the killings (even where one of the bad guys supposedly bought his guns legal), I have not heard of a single one of them carrying a CCW. That to me would have been a good point to make by Dianne Sawyer, but we all know here feelings.

My wife used not to be able to understand that....why the News would report that these BAD GUYS legally owned their guns. I've started pointing this out to her; "Honey, have you heard of them having a CCW or any training"? I'm sure that someone with a CCW can crack to, but I am *** proud to be a CCW holder & I cherrish my permit. It has made be a better person because of it, and I hope that I never loose that right.
 
#52 ·
Actually there was, but they failed to point it out.

In the carryout shooting that had 14 shots fired, THE GOOD GUY LIVED...HELLO!!!! Ya, the bad guy got away too, BUT THE LAW ABIDING GUN OWNER SURVIVED!!!

Not the mention that they basically compared the school shooting set-up to the carryout shooting, indirectly making the point that they are the same. So sad.

Just enforces my belief in the need to carry.
 
#11 ·
The classroom scenario was so cherry picked. That was more of an ambush or perfessional hit than anything else. Also, anyone else notice the how they put the "good guy" front and center in a three tiered room. How about the countless other scenarios where someone with a gun has more than nanoseconds to react.

One statement that got me fired up was when they said the ATF says the majority of guns used in crimes come from gunshows, however they have no records and don't really know the percentage since records are very difficult to keep. So if there are no records, how do they know?:twak:
 
#35 ·
Exactly! It was the equivalent of sending in a SEAL team to take a handicapped person down.

Put the intended target front and center of the room and tell all the other occupants to drop to the floor. Diane Sawyer has little to concern herself with. Between what is likely a home in a gated community and limo rides to and from work. I wouldn't need a gun either. Nice job Diane, you deserve the yellow journalism of the year award. :congrats:
 
#12 ·
I knew that this show was going to be an anti's propaganda showcase going into it, what i didn't expect was the one sided aspect of the show, I thought that at least in some small portion of the show they would acknowledge the good that a trained ccw would have in a given situation, but then again this is ABC.:comeandgetsome:
 
#14 ·
I just wonder why they didn't have one of the kids come in and be the attacker with the trained shooter sitting in the class with everyone else.

I just loved how they said the normal concealed carry person would be way slower than the cops because of their superior level of training. While that may be the case with some carriers and some cops, I am pretty sure that a lot of folks on this site could out perform a lot of cops that are on the job.

While I only watched bits and pieces of it, my wife watched the whole thing, but I am sure I didn't miss anything important to me.

I surely hope that none of our members have decided to put down thier guns and attempt to play dead if ever in a situation like this.

What a freaking joke of program.
 
#16 ·
It's unfortunate that ABC blew a chance to really critically examine gun control in the United States, and instead posted up a ridiculous straw man argument on our behalf. This doesn't do anything other than solidify the anti-gun people's beliefs that they're in the right, and anger the pro-gun side. It's just more of the same drawing arbitrary lines in the sand based on incorrect or insufficient data.

Crime is incredibly tricky to monitor, in the field of criminology we often refer to all crime committed as the "dark figure of crime", dark because nobody really knows how much crime actually goes on, we can only go on what's reported, pursued, prosecuted and convicted, then set into the records. You can cherry pick statistics from anywhere to suit your argument, or make invalid arguments and assertions based on insufficient and often contradictory data. An objective scientist does not reach his conclusion until all the data is in, but many people have their minds made up when they go looking for the "truth". What a shame.
 
#17 ·
If normal people don't have the skills to win a gun battle with a perp, how did the perp get his skills? After all, Media tells us that the perp has such a jedi-like mastery over his weapon that we don't have a chance.

He stole his gun, or he is underage, could be a gang member who's only shooting experience is busting a few caps in the hood.

But somehow the rest of us that have a few seasons of IPSC under our belt, plus special classes, plus years of constant practice don't stand a chance against a punk who doesn't even know what kind of handgun he has? Right.
 
#55 ·
If normal people don't have the skills to win a gun battle with a perp, how did the perp get his skills? After all, Media tells us that the perp has such a jedi-like mastery over his weapon that we don't have a chance.

He stole his gun, or he is underage, could be a gang member who's only shooting experience is busting a few caps in the hood.

But somehow the rest of us that have a few seasons of IPSC under our belt, plus special classes, plus years of constant practice don't stand a chance against a punk who doesn't even know what kind of handgun he has? Right.
and he's most likely hyped up on drugs of some kind. So, even untrained, unfamiliar and most likely under the influence and yet a CCWer or even a LEO doesn't stand a good chance.

They did target their prime demographic: Women and Mothers, who statistically would be scared to death and ready to call the representative to ban all guns.
 
#18 ·
I started watching it but soon found out where it was headed and turned the channel. I guess their desired alternative to defending oneself is to scream hysterically and beg for mercy. The survivors of an attack then can sue the nearest deep pockets of some entity. I guess Diane Sawyer can feel smug and protected with security guarding the TV station she works at. I am my own security force!
 
#19 ·
...Tonight 20/20 aired a totally biased episode on guns and gun violence. In this episode, they presented many false or skewed facts...

Does this garbage surprise you?:22a::confused::ziplip:

Worse...
We now have individuals in three branches of government who probably all liked the reporting.:hand1::hand1::hand1:
 
#20 ·
ANTI PROPOGANDA (caps intended) from start to finish portraying legal and law abiding gun owners as the bad guys. Typical media lies.
 
#21 ·
It's really a shame...... That classroom experiment could have been so telling if ABC hadn't broken just about every rule about setting up an unbiased experiment! :mad: They even ignored a possibly fatal shot to the inner thigh made by one of the females!

If a student had set that up when I was in school he would have ended up with a D- IF he were lucky, more likely a F!
 
#22 ·
While most of it was pretty biased, some was also pretty accurate. We get new shooters at our IDPA matches quite a bit, and their first few matches do not usually go well.

Most have never shot under any kind of pressure, even as little as being timed with a bunch of folks watching. Few have even bothered drawing from concealment, even though they may carry daily. Fewer still have had the opportunity to engage multiple targets and shoot while moving. They go to a square, sterile range, engage a silhouette (if that’s even allowed) and shoot groups.

Occasionally, we’ll throw in a low-light stage, but most have never fired a weapon while using a handheld light. So we’ll group them together and let them run it with the lights on. Keep in mind that the majority of SD shootings happen in diminished lighting, but most folks practice in full light.

A lot of it has to do with the fact that most ranges won’t allow this type of shooting. Most people just can’t train at a public range. A whole lot more has to do with the fact that people go to ranges to shoot, but very few actually train.

I’ve taken a couple Force on Force classes and the results are similar to their experiment. I also shoot quite a bit, at least weekly and a couple of matches a month. If I go a week or two without practice, then I will be "off” then next time I shoot.

If you haven’t taken any formal training, you should probably look into it. I spent 23 years in the Army, and 5 years as a reserve cop. In both of those endeavors, the training was at best marginal compared to taking modern tactical firearms class. I spent decades in the service with the M16 and M4, but learned more in a 3 day tactical carbine class then I ever did in the service about running the rifle.

Just something to think about,

Chuck
 
#23 ·
A TV show that gives someone who has no firearms experience 1 hour of training
and then expects them to successfully defend against an experienced gunman ON CAMERA

would be like NASCAR Today having someone take a drivers-ed course
then putting them in the Daytona 500

Its not just Biased
its Irresponsible
 
#24 ·
"A TV show that gives someone who has no firearms experience 1 hour of training and then expects them to successfully defend against an experienced gunman ON CAMERA would be like NASCAR Today having someone take a drivers-ed course then putting them in the Daytona 500."

+1
bosco
 
#26 ·
exactly, wish they'd put one of us in that classroom setup

If normal people don't have the skills to win a gun battle with a perp, how did the perp get his skills? After all, Media tells us that the perp has such a jedi-like mastery over his weapon that we don't have a chance.

He stole his gun, or he is underage, could be a gang member who's only shooting experience is busting a few caps in the hood.

But somehow the rest of us that have a few seasons of IPSC under our belt, plus special classes, plus years of constant practice don't stand a chance against a punk who doesn't even know what kind of handgun he has? Right.
:congrats::congrats::congrats:
 
#25 ·
I missed the show since I was on duty, but I'm not surprised that ABC would produce the show in this fashion. They'd do anything to advance anti-gun, anti-2A, anti-self defense, and the thought that only the guvment can protect us.
And nobody at ABC will listen to our emails/calls/complaints....they are too far gone into the abyss of their gun phobia induced intellectual shortcomings.
John Stossel is the ONLY person at ABC that has any common sense and any particle of a clue as to how the real world operates.
 
#27 ·
After watching that program I now realize how dangerous guns are and am planning on selling mine. I will start a new running schedule to keep myself in shape to run away should someone threaten to kill me. I will try to get my loved one's on the same running schedule so they won't be that far behind me should we have to run.
I hope the rest of you can see all that you are doing to make our inner cities more dangerous.:wink:
 
#28 ·
At the opener of the hack piece the biased info-wench Diane "Save Us All" Sawyer states " there are 250 million guns on the streets...........and in homes in America." :scruntiny:
Yep, so many guns on the streets we use the snow plows to clean them off. :rolleyes:
Glad I had the remote in my hand!!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top