On ABC 20/20 website

[raydog1]

I didn't even bother to watch it, but yea a thumb break holster on the hip of an untrained individual? It might as well be in a locked safe.

Man, I just watched it (DVR'ed). Apparently, I have no chance with my gun because the active shooters will always be highly trained police officers who know exactly where I am in a tiny room where I will be in the front row, need to fumble with a thumb break, and have no chance to find good cover.

And I just loved the piece where the cute little kid shows us his terrible ghetto neighborhood and BEGS Obama to do something about the gangs and the no-snitching attitudes prevalent in such environments. Though, he doesn't specify exactly what he wants Obama to do. I guess since they threw it in this story about guns, the little kid must want the reinstitution of the 1994 AWB. Even though he wasn't even alive at the time to see its failure to help neighborhoods like his.

Oh yeah, and playing dead and/or running are the ONLY solutions to an active shooter scenario. But they never tell me which one is best. Can't do both at the same time. If I can't make good decisions with a firearm as an option because of the adrenaline rush, how do I make the decision between playing dead or running? Where do I get that training?

Speaking of training, they talk about how important it is, but they don't mention that even us "dumb" civilian gun owners can easily obtain it. And they didn't give it to their "test subjects." They just put them on a static range for a few minutes and then threw them in the no-win scenario.

Also loved that they picked the worst examples of self-defense Youtube videos you could find. Especially the one where it looks like this guy nearly shot a baby when fending off an armed robber because of the bad camera angle. Even the police, at the time, said it was a good shoot if I remember this case correctly. But it was never reported in the mainstream media. Only the local newspaper correctly reported that he did the right thing.

I agree with the rest of you. This was pure and the prelude to more to come. Senator Feinstein will discuss this on 60 Minutes tomorrow. The good news is she's holding off the AWB renewal because she's not "politically" stupid right now:

Feinstein: Not The Time For Gun Control

[mcurrier]

It seemed to me like they think that you are better off with nothing at all to defend yourself then you are with a gun. Im sure it got alot of people who know nothing at all about guns to think, "wow guns really are bad".

Yeah, the liberal hypocrisy is just an amazing thing.

On the one hand, they'd rather we not have the power to defend ourselves because some innocent person might be hurt while we are trying to save our lives.

But then on the other hand, they don't want to have the death penalty because some innocent person might be put to death.

They want it both ways. They think that their stupid policies will protect everyone from everyone else and even from themselves, but in reality they can't.

[Punisher84]

how do I make the decision between playing dead or running? Where do I get that training?

James Yeager?

(I know I know I'm sorry, but God where would I ever get that great of a setup for that joke again?!)

As for the rest of your post Ray I agree and that's precisely the reason I didn't want to watch it. Shows like that cater to the uninformed, liberal minded fools that put Obama in the White House. They don't want to be informed, they want to be told how to think.

Edited April 11, 2009 by Punisher84

[raydog1]

James Yeager?

(I know I know I'm sorry, but God where would I ever get that great of a setup for that joke again?!)

As for the rest of your post Ray I agree and that's precisely the reason i didn't want to watch it. Shows like that cater to the uninformed, liberal minded fools that put Obama in the White House. They don't want to be informed, they want to be told how to think.

I walked right into that one didn't I.

[-boatman-]

What also pissed me off about the classroom scenario was that the "police shooter" always went after the armed student first. In a real life situation the bad guy is not going to know who is armed.

And I think the police shooter was a instructor. Tho odds were stacked against the student from the start. ABC wanted the students to fail. A real shooter most likely would not be as trained, would not know someone was armed inside the classroom, and where he was sitting.

Until we have had it happen we can not be sure how we would react but I feel like my odds would be better than the way the students were set up.

[Guest RISC777]

It was a waste of an hour. My wife walked after 30 minutes of it. I watched it to see how bad it would/could be.

I think a possible sig line can be made from Kano's post ... LOL ...

Guns kill people the same way spoons make you fat.

[Guest Jcochran88]

Just flipped it on for a minute. Caught the bs about gun show loop whole.

[Guest RISC777]

I did laugh at the host not getting the timing right on the second run through the video when she knew what was coming. sheesh

[9teeneleven]

that show made me feel dirty.

[Currently]

It has gone viral, less than 24 hours and almost 1100 comments.

[rab1961]

A call for a boycott of all ABC television shows is needed. Remember, a strong offense makes for a good defence. We as gun owners have to make a stand and a Boycott of ABC will hit them where it hurts (the pocket).

[Fallguy]

60 Minutes has a segment about the "gun rush" coming up on this Sunday's show.

60 Minutes: Watch Full Episodes and Video and Join the Ultimate Fan Community - CBS.com

Wonder how this will be twisted?

[BigPoppa]

I thought it was good. Guns scare me, anyway.

JK It was exactly what I expected..........liberal, one-sided, biased Diane Sawyer horse - complete with skewed scenarios, misplaced emotional pleas, and a staggering absence of documented instances where people who did have a gun made a positive difference. (Pearl MS high school shooting, Trolley Square mall shooting, and the Church shooting in Colorado are 3 off the top of my head.)

I say letting ABC Corporate know of our displeasure will only embolden them to press the fight - whereas communicating with 20/20's sponsors might be the more prudent course of action.

And BTW, I was disappointed that (apparently) nobody from the NRA would be interviewed. I understand that it would have been a confrontational interview and edited heavily for the intended spin, but I think we've got to be out there at least. Where was Wayne La Pierre ?

[Guest m4coyote]

I would have liked to see the classroom scenario played out again, but this time use small town "beat" cops in place of the students - not swat or firearms instructors, but just your everyday beat cops. I work with cops like this every day, and not including one or two exceptions, they only fire their weapons once a year to qualify with them. Before ammo became scarce, I was firing between 200 - 400 rounds per week (on my dime), and no cop in our department could outscore me on "their" combat course. These cops are afforded an unlimited supply of "City" ammunition to practice with, and all but one or two do not take advantage of it. Even the ones who do practice only shoot 50 or so rounds per month - heck, after 50 rounds I am just starting to get warmed up.

In no way am I intending to disqualify or belittle any police officer, because I really appreciate the job they do - I would not want the hassle they deal with on a daily basis. Familiarity with shooting is not something that should be taken for granted just because someone has a badge. Many of our officers have had to re-do the firearms qualifications course two or three times just to receive a passing grade. Some of these same officers can't field strip a Glock pistol, nor can they correctly re-assemble one after someone else strips it for them.

This ABC "report" is just what I thought it would be - liberal trash that was thought out to make guns and the citizens who own them look as bad and ignorant as possible. Many of the classroom or public building shootings happen in multiple locations of a complex. If armed citizens heard gun shots in the room next door, they could more easily deal with the threat when it barged through the door or came around the corner.

[Guest sstouder]

wow, i could literally only watch 5 minutes of it because you can actually hear her disdain for guns (which no journalist should do as its their job to be neutral and just report the story). I watched the 60 minutes one on their website and its def not as bad but it still has its liberal slant to it. They dont say it but show obvious support to close the gun show loophole, at least they have a 2nd amendment supporter making a case for gun owners. Also if you read the comments on the abc 20/20 website of the gun peice everyone of them are people laughing at how bad the documentary is.

Edited April 13, 2009 by sstouder

[ttocswob]

+1 to all who had the intestinal fortitude to watch all of it...thanx for watching so I didn't have to...we tuned in just in time to hear, "gun show loophole" - that was enough for me.

[war4peace]

Because guns kill people, my life is in grave danger since i have a few of them surrounding me in this room! Quick! Someone call ABC and ask them why they haven't turned on me yet!?!

[TN9mm]

For a funny yet surprisingly common sense other side of the coin search for "Penn and Teller Gun Control" on youtube. Good stuff.

[poak]

For a funny yet surprisingly common sense other side of the coin search for "Penn and Teller Gun Control" on youtube. Good stuff.

+1 to that!

Penn and Teller are awesome. I loved the show "Bullsh*t".

I remember one episode where they dealt with hardcore environmentalists, and exposed them as extremely undereducated about their very own claims. They even went to a green earth festival and compiled several hundred signatures to keep "Dihydrogen Monoxide" out of our waterways, and foods... Yeah, "Dihydrogen Monoxide" is water...

[Fallguy]

For a funny yet surprisingly common sense other side of the coin search for "Penn and Teller Gun Control" on youtube. Good stuff.

+1

I Have that video downloaded and posted on my MySpace page.

I think they are 100% correct on this issue.

[Guest MediaBuster]

Isn't that the same show that put explosives in GM trucks to show how deadly their pickup truck Gas Tanks were? They have about as much credibility as Obama would if he said Dumbo's ears were too big..

[Guest Guitarsnguns]

I know why I do not watch network television. All the programming is either the gun caused the problem with the misunderstood bg from a broken home or the bg is the gun owner.

You said it! That and about 50 other reasons that have nothing to do with firearms. Reason #1. It's all a bunch of crap designed to herd sheeple.

I tuned out 20 years ago, and won't come back. Especially the news.

[mcurrier]

You said it! That and about 50 other reasons that have nothing to do with firearms. Reason #1. It's all a bunch of crap designed to herd sheeple.

I tuned out 20 years ago, and won't come back. Especially the news.

+1 Exactly the same here!

[Guest smithandwesson]

Because guns kill people, my life is in grave danger since i have a few of them surrounding me in this room! Quick! Someone call ABC and ask them why they haven't turned on me yet!?!

And dont forget, whatever you do, if your ever close by when a nut flips out and starts shooting everybody and everything in sight, the only chance you have of living through it is by playing dead!

The best weapon you can have is not a gun, but a cellphone, call 911 and the police will be there in the blink on an eye to save your life.

If you have a gun, the shooter will know it and you will be the first to die!

That show was a joke. 20/20 sucks and Diane makes me sick!

[Tim Nunan]

JOHN LOTT: ABC’s Shameful ‘20/20′ Experiment

<!-- --><!-- by -->

By John R. Lott, Jr.

Gun control advocates look desperate. Last Friday night, on April 10, ABC aired a heavily promoted, hour long “20/20″ special called “If I Only Had a Gun.†It is ABC’s equivalent of NBC’s infamous exploding gas tanks in General Motors pickups where NBC rigged the truck to explode. With legislation in Texas and Missouri advancing to eliminate gun-free zones at universities, perhaps this response isn’t surprising.

The show started and ended by claiming that allowing potential victims to carry guns would not help keep them safe –- not even with hundreds of hours of practice firing guns.

No mention was made of the actual multiple victim public shootings stopped by people with concealed handguns nor did they describe who actually carried out such shootings. Instead, ABC presented a rigged experiment where one student in a classroom had a gun. But sometimes even the best editors can’t hide everything the camera sees.

The experiment was set up to make the student fail. It did not resemble a real-world shooting. The same scenario is shown three times, but in each case the student with the gun is seated in the same seat –- the center seat in the front row. The attacker is not only a top-notch shooter –- a firearms expert who teaches firearms tactics and strategy to police -– but also obviously knows precisely where the student with the gun is sitting.

Each time the experiment is run, the attacker first fires two shots at the teacher in the front of the class and then turns his gun directly on the very student with the gun. The attacker wastes no time trying to gun down any of the unarmed students. Thus, very unrealistically, between the very first shot setting the armed student on notice and the shots at the armed student, there is at most 2 seconds. The armed student is allowed virtually no time to react and, unsurprisingly, fails under the same circumstances that would have led even experienced police officers to fare poorly.

But in the real world, a typical shooter is not a top-notch firearms expert and has no clue about whether or not anyone might be armed and, if so, where they are seated. If you have 50 people –- a pretty typical college classroom –- and he is unknown to the attacker, the armed student is given a tremendous advantage. Actually, if the experiment run by “20/20″ seriously demonstrated anything, it highlighted the problem of relying on uniformed police or security guards for safety: the killer instantly knows whom to shoot first.

Yet, in the ABC experiment, the purposefully disadvantaged students are not just identified and facing (within less than 2 seconds) an attacker whose gun is already drawn. They are also forced to wear unfamiliar gloves, a helmet, and a holster. This only adds to the difficulties the students face in handling their guns.

(more at link JOHN LOTT: ABC’s Shameful ‘20/20′ Experiment FOX Forum FOXNews.com