Posted on 04/15/2009 4:29:04 AM PDT by marktwain
Do you think it's a good idea to be armed during a mass shooting? Diane Sawyer and the producers of ABC's 20/20 aren't so sure. In fact, on Friday, April 10, 2009, Sawyer spent a full hour trying desperately to prove how dangerous guns are and how ordinary people can't possibly defend themselves with firearms. The show's snarky title: "If I Only Had A Gun."
Slanted information filled the report, seemingly pulled from the press releases of the Brady Campaign, with not a single dissenting opinion. The most egregious slight of hand was a rigged experiment that struggled to show why having a gun would do you no good in a Virginia Tech style mass shooting.
The scenario played out in a classroom filled with ABC employees and police posing as students. At the far end sat the "victim," a young, wide-eyed man whose experience consisted primarily of shooting pop cans with an Airsoft gun in his back yard.
Everyone in the room wore a large, protective helmet, bulky gloves, and a white shirt to show "hits" from paint-filled rounds. The victim carried a Glock in a belt holster. To add "realism" to the scene, the show producers instructed all the other students to scream, run, and panic.
The experiment started as the students sat listening to a lecture about protective gear. The victim had been told the experiment would be later in the day, but the armed "shooter" entered the room suddenly and calmly proceeded to shoot the lecturer then turned and immediately aimed at the victim. As the other students ran and screamed on cue, the young man fumbled with the Glock, getting it caught in his shirt and taking a hit to the head and chest.
The show's conclusion? Having a gun doesn't protect you. Ordinary people aren't trained to handle stress. You might shoot innocent people. The bad guy might take your gun from you.
So having a gun is pointless, right? Well, hold on. Let's take a closer look at that experiment.
The victim wore a helmet and bulky gloves. Obviously there was a safety issue, so the helmet is understandable. But why the gloves? They appeared too large. They certainly made drawing and firing a handgun far more difficult than it should be. I've run through scenarios similar to this and never wore gloves. Hits sting, but they don't hurt.
The victim carried an unfamiliar gun and holster. Is that the gun he would have actually carried? Is that the holster he would have used? The video showed the holster placed in an awkward position and at a difficult angle, not likely the way the young man would have carried the gun in real life.
The victim had to draw from concealment under a long shirt. Is this the shirt he would really wear? Did he receive any instruction on drawing from a holster, with gloves, from that oddly placed holster, from beneath that long shirt? We'll never know, but the video didn't show any training beyond a little ordinary target practice at short range . The shooter knew there was an armed student in the classroom. This is a big error in the experiment. What mass shooter would enter a room where he knew there was someone with a gun to shoot back?
The shooter shot the lecturer first, then turned directly to the young man and began firing. How convenient it was for the shooter to know who was armed and where he was sitting so he could quickly take out the one and only threat in the room.
The shooter knew he could be fired at, but showed no surprise at the sight of a gun. The experiment was repeated with other "victims" under the same circumstances and not once did the shooter react in surprise. In real life, a shooter won't expect any resistance and is likely to react when shot at. The shooter was a professional firearm instructor and a good shot under stress. Not exactly realistic, since real mass murderers are usually just insane people with guns.
In other words, this experiment was rigged. The armed student was set up to fail.
Let's be clear. A real violent encounter will be confusing and terrifying. It's likely you'll make mistakes. Every competent firearm instructor will tell you this. But Sawyer acted as if stress reactions such as narrowed vision and loss of fine motor control were frightening revelations and proof that guns are useless in a violent encounter.
Worse, this experiment says little about carrying a concealed weapon other than Diane Sawyer and her crew mistakenly think it's a bad idea. In real life, the shooter won't expect you to be armed. He won't know who or where you are. He'll be surprised when you start shooting back. You won't be hampered by gloves or a helmet or a situation designed to get you killed. There are no guarantees. But carrying a gun CAN level the playing field with an active shooter.
And what did Sawyer suggest you do instead of carry a gun? Carry a cell phone. That's right. A CELL PHONE. Yes, you'll fumble with a gun and get yourself killed in five seconds. But somehow you'll have plenty of time to draw a phone, dial 911 with your fine motor control intact, and calmly chat with a dispatcher while waiting 10 or 20 minutes for authorities to arrive, set up a base of operations, and try to figure out how to save you without getting themselves killed.
Did Sawyer talk to anyone who thought carrying a gun was a good idea? No. Did she consider any statistics about how often ordinary people defend themselves with a gun? No. Did she get a statement from the NRA, a police officer, an instructor, or a citizen with even a hint that a gun might possibly give you an advantage? No. She didn't even bother to talk to John Stossel, a fellow reporter whose office is down the hall at ABC, reports for 20/20, and has debunked anti-gun propaganda on many occasions.
What should we conclude? Was this a deliberate attempt to hide the truth? Or was it yet another display of ignorance on the part of the elite media? Does it matter? It was a poorly executed experiment that delivered a half truth at best, a lie at worst.
Do I think it's a good idea to be armed during a mass shooting? Yes. Because even if I make every mistake in the book under stress, I'd rather have a small chance than no chance. And frankly, if I'm going to get killed, I don't want it to be for lack of shooting back.
And maybe - just maybe - if the media stopped telling people that passivity is a survival strategy and started telling people that aggressive resistance might save you, perhaps we'd see fewer mass shootings. Why? For the same reason mass shootings seldom happen in police stations. The sick, cowardly lunatics who do these shootings want soft targets and a high body count. The fewer soft targets, the fewer mass shootings.
Carrying a gun sure beats hiding under a desk and waiting for the shooter to work his way down the line. Thats what happened in the VT incident.
A room with three or four armed “victims” will level the playing field even more. In fact, knowing there might be several armed “victims” could very well squash the entire event from happening in the first place.
Yes—no one has ever successfully defended themselves with a gun before. Ever. [/sarc]
Leave it to the MSM to rig an experiment when there are thousands of real life examples of Gun owners using their guns to save lives and property that they could have used.
Yeah, if I’m the mass murderer, I’m shooting the guy in the *protective* gear first.
The shooter shot the lecturer first, then turned directly to the young man and began firing. How convenient it was for the shooter to know who was armed and where he was sitting so he could quickly take out the one and only threat in the room.
The shooter knew he could be fired at, but showed no surprise at the sight of a gun. The experiment was repeated with other "victims" under the same circumstances and not once did the shooter react in surprise. In real life, a shooter won't expect any resistance and is likely to react when shot at. The shooter was a professional firearm instructor and a good shot under stress. Not exactly realistic, since real mass murderers are usually just insane people with guns.
In other words, this experiment was rigged. The armed student was set up to fail.
I knew from the first promo that it would be a blatantly unbalanced piece (I've seen that footage of the kids pointing the empty guns at each other and staring down the barrel before), but I was not prepared for the way the subjects were set up like bowling pins in that "live" demonstration.
The author of the article failed to note that the shooter in the demonstrations knew exactly which of the people in the room were going to attempt to shoot back; with the exception of one volunteer and one other designated person seated in the conference room, all the others were law enforcement officers whose instructions were to take cover rather than attempt to engage the shooter. On top of that, when one of the volunteers landed a round on the shooter's left arm, it was minimized: 'It was just a graze. You're supposed to be shooting at the head...'
At the end, Sawyer said she really, really wished she could have had an opposing point of view, but that they couldn't find any that weren't contradictory. Unbelievable (in every sense of the word).
Diane should read the NRA magazines where, every month, there are stories of armed Americans who have defended themselves with their guns, including senior citizens.
I saw the video. My first reaction was “so Sawyer & ABC think all mass killers are well trained policemen” because instead of using a student to barge in and and attempt to shoot people, they used a trained police officer.
Anyone who fell for the MSM propaganda should just roll over and die if they should ever get in that horrible situation.
I wonder how a trained instructor would fare this time against a trained gun owner without the benefit of critical intelligence.
HOW SOON WE FORGET.
POSTED: 1:26 pm MST December 9, 2007
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14808321/detail.html
Two church members were shot to death and three others were injured after a gunman opened fire outside the New Life Church in Colorado Springs as Sunday services were wrapping up.
The gunman was shot by a church female security officer and was found dead when police arrived at the scene, said Colorado Springs Police Chief Richard Myers.
Police did not release the name of the security guard but said she “probably saved many lives today.”
“It’s a tragedy that could have been much worse than it was,” the police chief admitted.
Even if an armed victim isn’t a champion marksman, having his gunfire returned would surely have an effect on the attacker, putting him on the defensive, no?
These guys are never going to do anything honestly. It will always be lie after lie after lie. No chance of teaching responsibility or accountability from them. It’s all about them knowing better when they know nothing.
Look, folks. The Left is just shutting down all "dialog" and lives in a My Little Pony world where they speak a language developed adults outgrow around puberty. They don't get to define my opinion or the definition for terms and they can take their tantrums elsewhere.
Unless I somewhere down deep suspect they are right when they accuse me of being "the old man shouting at the kids to get off his lawn" (what's wrong with that, BTW) than I am immune from reacting to those taunts.
You might as well be trying to be polite to a gang of hooligans harassing you on a city side walk.
There is another obvious point to be made. Which is that if you’re in a room with a Va Tech type gunman - if you don’t have a gun you’re going to get killed. If you do have a gun you may get killed. Which would she prefer? All simulations aside about the likelihood or lack thereof of getting the gun out of the holster, you’re dead meat just by virtue of being in that situation.
Ok one more point. In her “simulation” there is one armed student. What if there were 2 or 3 or more? While the gunman is dealing with armed citizen 1, doesn’t that allow armed citizen 2 or 3 a more or less free shot?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.