i watched it. I think it leaves a lot of food for thought on how we think we would react to an incident. I don't think most people would react any different. I also think if you do carry a gun you better go to a range more then once a month to practice things like drawing from a holster and drawing from a holster under a layer of clothing. A lot of things to think about in a very short period of time. With all that said I think if you can train yourself to keep your wits about yourself I would rather be one with a gun then with out one.
Last edited by Bklk; 04-11-2009 at 01:20 PM.
This program should have been required to have a disclaimer before it:
"The following episode of 20/20 provides no balanced counterpoint reporting and is intended solely to support our corporate editorial position that individuals should not be allowed to posses personal protection firearms."
This purports to be a "realistic scenario" and then belies the whole premise by having an expert marksman, that trains continuously, attack the class. When, if we choose to believe their assertions, the "attacker" would most likely have lesser skills than the defender, since he would not be able to practice and could very well be under the influence of drugs/alcohol which would further detract from his shooting "skills".
Also, one of the key factors, is that the attacker counts on the victims to be in a "gun free zone" and thus the likelihood of someone actually having the means to defend themselves is next to nothing. This so-called "attacker" not only KNOWS that there is someone armed in the class, he knows who it is! There are no allowances for the surprise that the "attacker" would have upon finding that someone is armed and shooting back, thus forcing him to take cover as well.
Then, it is implied that your best defense/weapon is to lie on the floor & "play dead" / try to call 911. Great! Just the message that we need to send any potential shooters! There will be no resistance and you'll be able to take your time while walking around the room to shoot anyone you choose. What about the people who were able to make it out of the room unharmed while the defender is drawing fire? 20/20's focus? Well she 'almost' shot someone!
Finally, they state they could not find ANY studies regarding the effective use of protection firearms. All they would have had to do is pick up 1 issue of American Rifleman or American Hunter magazine and they could have had at least 12 -20 instances where people successfully defend themselves, loved ones or property with a legally owned firearm, some w/o firing a single shot. But that wouldn't have fit into their propaganda campaign for the soon-to-be coming restrictions/ban legislation.
The bias in this report was palpable. Good thing the "Fairness Doctrine" isn't applicable!
Last edited by BrianW; 04-11-2009 at 01:27 PM.
"It's not that government is inherently stupid, although that's a debatable question."
Rand Paul CPAC speech 2011
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791
Proud partner of (HR) WR SR Brian's 44Magnum Monster
co-owned by HR Rianne's 2nd Chance Hurricane Rebel
The three broadcast networks are as biased against guns as they were against the previous occupant of the White House. Thats why when I watch news I watch Fox.
They put the students in the same seat each time. The shooter know how to go after.
This was so biased to anti gun figures. They were set up for disaster.