20/20 Did a special that shows concealed handgun owner couldn't stop shootings.


Thirteen people were killed last week in Binghamton, N.Y., when a gunman, identified by authorities as 41-year-old Jiverly Wong, executed a mass shooting at the American Civic Association. The aftermath of that bloodshed has raised many questions, including whether armed, everyday citizens could take down such a gunman and save lives. Could you protect yourself if you only had a gun?


http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=7298996&page=1

So, If I prove that having fire extinguishers in the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 wouldn't have stopped the buildings from collapsing, does that mean that skyscrapers shouldn't have fire extinguishers?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2009 08:21PM by trogdor!.

If everybody carried fire extinguishers there would be no more fires!

Fireman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If everybody carried fire extinguishers there
> would be no more fires!

And if matches were banned, there'd be no more arson.

And if murder was banned, no one would kill each other

Listen to some of the stuff in teh article:


"And remember that cell phone in your pocket? It might be the best weapon you have for survival."
"But there were people that survived: the ones that played dead. The ones that, you know, went through a window. The ones that hid behind a desk. The ones that got on the phone and called in 911"


Thats some excellent BS they got right there

Everyone knows the media is biased anyways



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2009 08:55PM by KeepOnTruckin.

20/20 piece produced by a bunch of lesbians in Manhattan who hate the 2nd amendment.

Total piece of trash journalism not worth a piss.

ABC News is into advocacy jourbalism just like NBC, Time, and Newsweek.

They all should be taken out back and horse-whipped.

I'll take my chances WITH a gun.

lol, same here. Anyone who doesn't want to carry one is allowed to do so.

DG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 20/20 piece produced by a bunch of lesbians in
> Manhattan who hate the 2nd amendment.
>
> Total piece of trash journalism not worth a piss.
>
> ABC News is into advocacy jourbalism just like
> NBC, Time, and Newsweek.
>
> They all should be taken out back and
> horse-whipped.

I only read the news that the NRA puts out. The rest of the media is so slanted.

Fireman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If everybody carried fire extinguishers there
> would be no more fires!


lol, fuckin A right.

And flies cause garbage.

There is no integrity at 20/20 except for John Stossel.

PresaCanario Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And flies cause garbage.
>
> There is no integrity at 20/20 except for John
> Stossel.


John Stossel is an uber-douche, he has just as much agenda as anyone else at 20/20. give me a break! (see what i did there???)

Kenny_Powers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John Stossel is an uber-douche, he has just as
> much agenda as anyone else at 20/20. give me a
> break! (see what i did there???)


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Attachments:

Was their special really that a concealed handgun couldn't stop shootings? Well, um, yeah. If you have a concealed handgun and you have to use it, well, um, don't guns, I dunno, shoot bullets when you use them?

As for their claim that you can't stop a murder with one, I hate to inject some facts here, but if at least one person uses a concealed handgun to prevent a murder then their entire bullshit special is negated.

They've also been used to stop rapes, kidnappings, and assault.

20/20 fuckers. I bet there is some anti-gun bill in congress moving towards a vote.

Did anyone except the OP actually see the program? I think that the key point being made is that simply giving someone a handgun does not automatically mean that they can use it effectively in a stressful situation and that there is a big difference between that and having accuracy at the range. There is a lot of physiology that you need to overcome in order to be effective in a live fire environment which is why SWAT teams, FBI, US Marshalls, Secret Service spend significant time in CQB training.

While an armed student in the classroom at VT may have killed the shooter sooner, it is just as likely that others may have been caught in the crossfire. My cousin is a firearms instructor at Quantico and his recommendation for personal self defense in the home is a shotgun. Not a great option when walking around Fairfax Corner, but you have a better chance of hitting something with a pump action 12 gauge.

DG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 20/20 piece produced by a bunch of lesbians in
> Manhattan who hate the 2nd amendment.
>
> Total piece of trash journalism not worth a piss.
>
> ABC News is into advocacy jourbalism just like
> NBC, Time, and Newsweek.
>
> They all should be taken out back and
> horse-whipped.


And all the NRA and other gun lovers are doing is making money...blood money on the sale of guns. They wrap themselves on the weakest of arguments that some how guns defend our freedoms...what a lie!

The NRA likes to point to the rare occasion when someone actually stops a shooter because they are carrying a concealed weapon. At the same time, they ignore the thousands of people killed every year by firearms in the house that are used to "settle" domestic disputes and fights between neighbors...murders that probably would not occur if firearms weren't so readily available in the home.

It should also be noted that there was an armed security guard at Columbine during the mass murder there and the guy could not do shit about it.

Richard McBeef Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The NRA likes to point to the rare occasion when
> someone actually stops a shooter because they are
> carrying a concealed weapon. At the same time,
> they ignore the thousands of people killed every
> year by firearms in the house that are used to
> "settle" domestic disputes and fights between
> neighbors...murders that probably would not occur
> if firearms weren't so readily available in the
> home.
>
> It should also be noted that there was an armed
> security guard at Columbine during the mass murder
> there and the guy could not do shit about it.


Thats becuase he was Shitting his pants

Richard McBeef Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The NRA likes to point to the rare occasion when
> someone actually stops a shooter because they are
> carrying a concealed weapon. At the same time,
> they ignore the thousands of people killed every
> year by firearms in the house that are used to
> "settle" domestic disputes and fights between
> neighbors...murders that probably would not occur
> if firearms weren't so readily available in the
> home.
>
> It should also be noted that there was an armed
> security guard at Columbine during the mass murder
> there and the guy could not do shit about it.



sooo... if guns werent in homes, every single person who was killed in a domestic violence situation would be alive? is that what ur saying?

in staying with domestic violence theme, can u show me some stats that say guns are the by far predominent weapon used in domvio situations? that knives and blunt objects and good old fashioned closed fists arent viable threats? hell, guns in domvio is super rare, are you telling me that the thousands of women and men who are beat up everyday in their homes by their spouses, are just pistol whipped all day and then shot? what happened to walking into door

how do you stop a crazed gunman who doesnt and has no intention of shooting himself? whats the response?

Richard McBeef Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It should also be noted that there was an armed
> security guard at Columbine during the mass murder
> there and the guy could not do shit about it.


Well, there are tens of thousands of armed police officers in this country, and they "could not do shit" about all the crime on our streets. That's exactly the point: The police (or armed guard) can't be everywhere.

But maybe you're right - Guns are the problem. So let's get rid of them all, and we can go back to that perfect, violence-free utopia that existed before firearms were invented.

When seconds count cops are only minutes away.

Yeah, guns should be outlawed entirely! Everyone knows that Governments never harm their own citizens. Oh wait, I think the European Jews might have appreciated a few guns back in the 1940's......But really, all they had t do was ask, real nice, if Hitler would stop murderin them "Pwiddy pwiddy pwease Mr. Hitler, would you pwease stop slaughterin us?". The very same approach would probably have worked on Josef Stalin, and Idi Amin and Pol Pot too....

20/20 does a hatchet job on guns and the Second Amendment. Tomorrow morning
Michael Bloomberg (NYC Mayor) will be at the Crystal City Marriott to launch
an tv ad campaign in Virginia to try and outlaw gun shows and personal
transactions involving all firearms. Looks to me like the mainstream media
is trying/CONSPIRING to fuel the fire before Congress launches H. R. 45.
MARXIST CRAP!!!

ok just to play devils advocate lets say someone or more than one person had concealed handgun. They realize that something is happening and take out their guns and prepare for action. Now lets say the gunman/men are going about their business and in the heat of the moment and confusion the armed citizen shoots the other armed civilian thinking that he was the bad guy. OR the police, seeing Mr armed civilian shoots HIM and distracts them, law enforcement from the actual perpetrator? Not a sermon just a thought.

Lord Fairfax Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Richard McBeef Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The NRA likes to point to the rare occasion
> when
> > someone actually stops a shooter because they
> are
> > carrying a concealed weapon. At the same time,
> > they ignore the thousands of people killed
> every
> > year by firearms in the house that are used to
> > "settle" domestic disputes and fights between
> > neighbors...murders that probably would not
> occur
> > if firearms weren't so readily available in the
> > home.
> >
> > It should also be noted that there was an armed
> > security guard at Columbine during the mass
> murder
> > there and the guy could not do shit about it.
>
>
>
> sooo... if guns werent in homes, every single
> person who was killed in a domestic violence
> situation would be alive? is that what ur saying?
>

This is a total non-sequitar response. Mr. McBeef's point appears to be that while the NRA is advocating that mass shootings wouldn't happen if more people had guns, Mr. McBeef is saying that the NRA ignore the downside, namely that the presence of guns escalates non-deadly situations into deadly ones.

> in staying with domestic violence theme, can u
> show me some stats that say guns are the by far
> predominent weapon used in domvio situations? that
> knives and blunt objects and good old fashioned
> closed fists arent viable threats?

I would venture to guess that guns are the overwhelming weapon of choice in "lethal" domestic assaults. Do you have figures on the total number of women who have been beaten enough to end up in hospitals? Now add a gun to that situation and guess the outcome.

> hell, guns in
> domvio is super rare, are you telling me that the
> thousands of women and men who are beat up
> everyday in their homes by their spouses, are just
> pistol whipped all day and then shot? what
> happened to walking into door
>
How the fuck do you define "super rare?" Point to some stats, or shut up.

> how do you stop a crazed gunman who doesnt and has
> no intention of shooting himself? whats the
> response?


Ask the dead cops in Pittsburgh and Oakland. Obviously being heavily armed wasn't enough for them.

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ok just to play devils advocate lets say someone
> or more than one person had concealed handgun.
> They realize that something is happening and take
> out their guns and prepare for action. Now lets
> say the gunman/men are going about their business
> and in the heat of the moment and confusion the
> armed citizen shoots the other armed civilian
> thinking that he was the bad guy. OR the police,
> seeing Mr armed civilian shoots HIM and distracts
> them, law enforcement from the actual perpetrator?
> Not a sermon just a thought.

This is along the lines of what was presented in the 20/20 piece. Among the other points made was how difficult it can be to simply get your weapon out of the holster and ready to fire. I guess that this might be easier with open vs. concealed carry, but reacting under stressful conditions is not necessarily what you find during training. Most people just do not have complete control over their fight-or-flight response. Carrying a weapon may give you more confidence, but the ability to use it safely and effectively is a completely different story.

There is not enough real-world evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness or lack thereof from having citizens armed in everyday situations, but I see a lot more downside to this than upside.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lord Fairfax Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Richard McBeef Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
> > how do you stop a crazed gunman who doesnt and
> has
> > no intention of shooting himself? whats the
> > response?
>
>
> Ask the dead cops in Pittsburgh and Oakland.
> Obviously being heavily armed wasn't enough for
> them.



Exactly proves the point, having police does not stop crime.

If you are unarmed you are just waiting to be slaughtered. You are all a bunch pussies waiting for someone else to protect you, take care of you. That is the core of what is wrong with our country. No one takes personal responsibility. We used to be the country that had our citizens going west and conquering the wilderness. WTF happened? Come try and take my gun.

Oh, and 20/20 sucks ass.

Bailey's Resident Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are unarmed you are just waiting to be slaughtered

So, are you suggesting that everyone should just carry a handgun and proactively take out the criminal element in society? I just don't see that many violent thugs hanging around Fairfax, so the real risk seems to be from the unstable crazy guy who seems pretty normal day to day. How do you suggest that we identify these people so that they can be eliminated as a threat?

> Come try and take my gun.

FWIW, the 20/20 story had nothing to do with gun ownership. IMO you should be able to own as many as you want as long as you keep them secured.

Bet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, guns should be outlawed entirely! Everyone
> knows that Governments never harm their own
> citizens. Oh wait, I think the European Jews might
> have appreciated a few guns back in the
> 1940's......But really, all they had t do was ask,
> real nice, if Hitler would stop murderin them
> "Pwiddy pwiddy pwease Mr. Hitler, would you pwease
> stop slaughterin us?". The very same approach
> would probably have worked on Josef Stalin, and
> Idi Amin and Pol Pot too....

"The majority falls prey to the delusion — popular in some circles — that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth — born of experience — is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people... A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble. All too many of the other great tragedies of history — Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few — were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. ... If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars."

- Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski

Good article on our "gun culture" and safety in America.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7359513.stm

In the 20/20 program the expert marksman high school girl who knew the shooter was entering the room, grabbed her gun got three shots off before she was shot. First shot missed, second shot barely missed a student running in front of her and the third shot grazed the arm of the shooter, before he turned and shot her dead.

The police officers interviewed said they never would advise a person to buy a gun for protection. That even trained, it is not only difficult to hit the shooter but to make the correct the decisions in split seconds.

Most of the officers said they train constantly to be prepared and still have trouble on when to fire. That's why officers get killed.

60 Minutes' Leslie Stahl was doing a better job at demonizing gun nuts!

Gun Nutz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Most of the officers said they train constantly to
> be prepared and still have trouble on when to
> fire. That's why officers get killed.

Just goes to show, you cant trust cops to protect you.

"You know, would anybody think to get in a car and drive during a rainstorm if they didn't have a license?" Stanton asked. "Would anybody get behind a wheel of an airplane without any flying lessons, you know? While this isn't as dangerous, it's pretty close."

Coming from the department that let off 41 rounds at an unarmed, stationary man.

And only hit him 19 times.

True Dat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> "The majority falls prey to the delusion — popular
> in some circles — that ordinary people are too
> careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be
> far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of
> professionals on the government payroll. But the
> simple truth — born of experience — is that
> tyranny thrives best where government need not
> fear the wrath of an armed people... A revolt by
> Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks
> could be put down without much difficulty; one by
> four million armed blacks would have meant big
> trouble. All too many of the other great tragedies
> of history — Stalin’s atrocities, the killing
> fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a
> few — were perpetrated by armed troops against
> unarmed populations. Many could well have been
> avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known
> their intended victims were equipped with a rifle
> and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act
> required here. ... If a few hundred Jewish
> fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the
> Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful
> of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles
> could not so easily have been herded into cattle
> cars."
>
> - Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski

Awesome quote! Now how do you and the judge explain the 26 million well-armed Soviets killed by the Nazis?

Bailey's Resident Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are unarmed you are just waiting to be
> slaughtered. You are all a bunch pussies waiting
> for someone else to protect you, take care of you.
> That is the core of what is wrong with our
> country. No one takes personal responsibility.
> We used to be the country that had our citizens
> going west and conquering the wilderness. WTF
> happened? Come try and take my gun.
>
> Oh, and 20/20 sucks ass.


The idea of the "independent" American is a a farce. We are/were no more or less dependent on others then any other society.

Your "come and get me" mentality is a danger to society and someone should take your guns away.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Awesome quote! Now how do you and the judge
> explain the 26 million well-armed Soviets killed
> by the Nazis?

Superior training/equipment by the Germans, combined with the insistence of inadequately-prepared counterattacks and poorly trained personnel from the Soviets? Maybe you can help me fully understand the correlation you're trying to make.

Let me google that for you:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=defensive+gun+uses

Vince(1) Wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------
> Your "come and get me" mentality is a danger to
> society and someone should take your guns away.

I fail to see how somebody stating if you enter his/her house without their permission they will shoot you as being a danger to society. Not like our nation wasn't born out of armed resistance or anything.

I'm just thankful our founding fathers weren't a bunch of naive, self-capitulating NOVA pussies. I'm from NY and you guys give gullible yuppies a bad name.

I think those that defeated the Axis Powers, ya know like the Allied armies, had a few guns with which ti kill the Nazis. I'm pretty sure anyway....

True Dat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ---
> > Your "come and get me" mentality is a danger to
> > society and someone should take your guns away.
>
> I'm just thankful our founding fathers weren't a
> bunch of naive, self-capitulating NOVA pussies.
> I'm from NY and you guys give gullible yuppies a
> bad name.

Our founding fathers could of cared less about gun control, they just didn't want to pay upsurb taxes to the British.

People who are afraid are easy to control. It matters not how many guns they possess.

Gun Nutz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> The police officers interviewed said they never
> would advise a person to buy a gun for protection.
>

Yeah, and they used to tell airline passengers to just sit quietly and cooperate with hijackers, too.

History Buff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True Dat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vince(1) Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > ---
> > > Your "come and get me" mentality is a danger
> to
> > > society and someone should take your guns
> away.
> >
> > I'm just thankful our founding fathers weren't
> a
> > bunch of naive, self-capitulating NOVA pussies.
> > I'm from NY and you guys give gullible yuppies
> a
> > bad name.
>
> Our founding fathers could of cared less about gun
> control, they just didn't want to pay upsurb taxes
> to the British.

Not true. The British confiscated the armories first. The founding fathers made sure each and every citizen could arm themselves and keep those arms in their possession to ensure their freedom.

Many anti-gun Americans are so complacent with an 'it can't happen here' attitude. You would think it'd be different after 9/11, but no, they're still out there.

History Buff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True Dat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vince(1) Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > ---
> > > Your "come and get me" mentality is a danger
> to
> > > society and someone should take your guns
> away.
> >
> > I'm just thankful our founding fathers weren't
> a
> > bunch of naive, self-capitulating NOVA pussies.
> > I'm from NY and you guys give gullible yuppies
> a
> > bad name.
>
> Our founding fathers could of cared less about gun
> control, they just didn't want to pay upsurb taxes
> to the British.

And how should they have gone about putting that to an end? Continue to petition the King?

In 1775, the colonists had roughly the same firepower as the British regulars. Heck, many towns even had a cannon or two that were brought out for militia training.

The purpose of the Amendment seems to be the formation of an effective and *well-regulated* militia. So -- what non-health related conditions prevented someone from joining the militia?

I suspect for some of the moderates here, it's not so much guns that bother them, it's gun owners. But, I could be wrong.

Shadow Wrote:
>
> Many anti-gun Americans are so complacent with an
> 'it can't happen here' attitude. You would think
> it'd be different after 9/11, but no, they're
> still out there.

So..let me get it straight. You think that at some point in time..due to some circumstance it is your right to raise arms against the Government of the US?

The definition of that act is called treason.

formerhick76 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In 1775, the colonists had roughly the same
> firepower as the British regulars. Heck, many
> towns even had a cannon or two that were brought
> out for militia training.
>
> The purpose of the Amendment seems to be the
> formation of an effective and *well-regulated*
> militia. So -- what non-health related conditions
> prevented someone from joining the militia?
>
> I suspect for some of the moderates here, it's not
> so much guns that bother them, it's gun owners.
> But, I could be wrong.

Very true, it seems that most people who own guns are radical ego trippers who see themselves as urban cowboys that are going to rid the World of crime. Their hope is to some day be on the news for stopping a crime some place. Please! Go join the cops if that's what you want. I'm sick of hearing "The cops can't be everywhere so I'm there instead."

Gun Nutz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Very true, it seems that most people who own guns
> are radical ego trippers who see themselves as
> urban cowboys that are going to rid the World of
> crime. Their hope is to some day be on the news
> for stopping a crime some place. Please! Go join
> the cops if that's what you want. I'm sick of
> hearing "The cops can't be everywhere so I'm there
> instead."

The ironic thing is, for all their complaining about crime, is that it's at multi-decade lows.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/26/AR2008082602413.html

"In 2006, the last year for which comparable data are available, Fairfax had about 1,683 crimes per 100,000 residents. Arlington County had more than 2,200 crimes per 100,000 residents in 2006, Alexandria and Montgomery County each had more than 2,600, and Prince George's County had more than 5,200.

The number of crimes in Fairfax in 2006 was the lowest recorded by Fairfax police dating to 1970, when the county's population was about 500,000. More than 1 million people now live in the county."

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shadow Wrote:
> >
> > Many anti-gun Americans are so complacent with
> an
> > 'it can't happen here' attitude. You would
> think
> > it'd be different after 9/11, but no, they're
> > still out there.
>
> So..let me get it straight. You think that at
> some point in time..due to some circumstance it is
> your right to raise arms against the Government of
> the US?
>
> The definition of that act is called treason.

Yes, actually you are correct. It's exactly what the founding fathers of this country did. Treason.

And if some nutjob gets into power and tries to change our government and constitution drastically enough, you're damn right I'd raise arms against them. That's why we are a government "By the People" and "For the People" When someone comes along, and they will, and tries to take over for their own benefit then yes, I and many other Americans will raise arms against them. I believe in the constitution and everything it stands for and I will die to protect and preserve it.

Shadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And if some nutjob gets into power and tries to
> change our government and constitution drastically
> enough, you're damn right I'd raise arms against
> them. That's why we are a government "By the
> People" and "For the People" When someone comes
> along, and they will, and tries to take over for
> their own benefit then yes, I and many other
> Americans will raise arms against them. I believe
> in the constitution and everything it stands for
> and I will die to protect and preserve it.


OK, I will give you that, but I think that the issue here is run of the mill criminal activity and whether having citizens carry sidearms is going to be a positive or negative. There have been a number of bank robberies around here over the past few months...not sure if the suspects were armed, but if they did not threaten anyone with a weapon would it have been a good (just?) thing for a customer waiting in line witnessing the event to shoot the robber proactively? That sounds like assault with a deadly weapon. What happens when the "simple" armed robbery turns into a hostage situation or ends with the suspect AND multiple innocent bystanders shot and killed? Personally, I don't believe that you can make an effective collateral damage argument here.

Well said Shadow, well said.

"And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?" - Thomas Jefferson

And to address Tom Madison's post, the justification for lethal force varies by state. In some states, it's only justified against a fleeing felon. In others, the fleeing felon must post an imminent danger to the people around him (i.e. firing at people as he runs). And yet in some places, it's to stop anyone simply committing a felony, regardless if he's threatening anyone. If people have an issue with Virginia's definition of the term, they should work to have it revised.

Or move.

That works too.

From VCDL:

As predicted, ABC's 20/20 show last night was a propaganda piece on guns. Except for work done by John Stossel, 20/20 has a history of wearing their agenda on their sleeve and they don't even pretend to be unbiased. 20/20 clearly had their conclusion before they started, they only needed to make their story match that desired conclusion.

So let the fun begin:

20/20 asks children what President Obama should do about guns. While the kids were cute, implying that little kids have the maturity to determine our country's policies on freedom is just plain, er, childish. But the anti-gun modus operandi is to use emotion and not logical thought when it comes to guns and 20/20 didn't break out of the mold.

They played up the "gun show loophole" myth during the show, never mentioning that there is nothing you can do at legally at a gun show that you can't do legally outside a gun show. Nope, why confuse people with key information like that?

And then there was a segment where they gave Omar Samaha, whose sister was murdered at Virginia Tech, $5000 and an hour to buy guns at the Richmond gun show.

The first gun that Omar purchased, from someone standing in line, was a Glock. 20/20 then says that it was chilling that he was sold that gun, since one like it was used to kill his sister.

A Glock? That's probably one of the most common handguns in America.
Gee, what were the odds?

He then proceeded to buy various rifles and shotguns over that hour.

Image the horror - here was an adult buying legal products and in quantity! Guess 20/20 never shops at Costco.

20/20 completely missed the point that criminals are always going to get guns and gun control laws aren't even going to slow them down.

20/20 also did a segment where a shooter opens fire in a college class room with an airsoft gun. They have one or two students in the classroom who are armed and get to fire back. The scenarios they showed always had their "expert" being the shooter and never the student.

While they made an attempt to simulate a real situation, I wasn't impressed. In real life, return fire from good guys would have disrupted and thrown the shooter off balance as he tried to avoid getting shot himself.

Everyone in the classroom started running in panic. However, shootings at Virginia Tech and other schools show that students don't tend to run in panic, but to hunker down in place. Also the students don't seem to offer any resistance to the shooter in real life.

The shooter was just too unconcerned to be believable. I'm sure that was largely because he knew he wasn't really going to die if he was hit with an airsoft projectile.

While 20/20 pointed out that the students with guns didn't seek cover, but just stood up and started shooting in place, a person's instincts to get to cover would be different if someone is shooting a real gun at at them.

And MOST IMPORTANTLY, 20/20 conveniently didn't point out just how many students would have survived because of the major distraction the armed students provided for the shooter. That was HUGE. But 20/20 didn't even bring it up.

Instead 20/20 concluded that since the armed students might not have survived this surprise attack or there might have been some collateral damage, that everyone would be better off unarmed and trying to flee or playing dead. The "I'm unarmed, please don't hurt me" technique of self defense.

Yeah - we saw how well that technique worked at Virginia Tech.

One other aspect 20/20 didn't touch on: at many of the school shootings, people in classrooms could hear gun shots from other rooms. With armed students that would provide time to setup an ambush for the bad guy as soon as he walks into the classroom.

Jack Rumbah, with Suarez International, ran just such a scenario last year in a classroom using airsoft guns. The result was the bad guy got creamed every time, with little or no harm to the students in the classroom.

I wonder why 20/20 didn't use data already available from Suarez International or another professional self-defense entity rather than
setting up their own test with something they have no expertise in?
Surely a "news" organization wasn't trying to ensure in advance that there was only one possible conclusion?

I would like to have seen what would have happened if 20/20 would have let one of the regular students be the shooter and let 20/20's expert be a student sitting in the classroom. That is every bit as likely a scenario as the one 20/20 used and probably would have been a really bad scenario for the shooter. But 20/20 wouldn't have liked the outcome vis-a-vis their desired conclusion.

We're better of unarmed and helpless? Sorry 20/20, you go right ahead and follow your own foolish advice, but I'll take my chances with a gun in my hand.

Shadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> And if some nutjob gets into power and tries to
> change our government and constitution drastically
> enough, you're damn right I'd raise arms against
> them. That's why we are a government "By the
> People" and "For the People" When someone comes
> along, and they will, and tries to take over for
> their own benefit then yes, I and many other
> Americans will raise arms against them. I believe
> in the constitution and everything it stands for
> and I will die to protect and preserve it.

If some nutjob takes over the US government what good are handguns are going to do. The new regime is going to have tanks, F17's and aircraft carriers. You think your handgun is going count?

True Dat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And to address Tom Madison's post, the
> justification for lethal force varies by state. In
> some states, it's only justified against a fleeing
> felon. In others, the fleeing felon must post an
> imminent danger to the people around him (i.e.
> firing at people as he runs). And yet in some
> places, it's to stop anyone simply committing a
> felony, regardless if he's threatening anyone. If
> people have an issue with Virginia's definition of
> the term, they should work to have it revised.


How is this defined in Virginia? Is there a distinction between lethal force by LE versus a civilian? If I discover that someone has broken into my house and I use lethal force to stop the threat do I simply get a pat on the back from the police? What if they hear me and, as they run out the front door and across the lawn, I shoot them? Assume that they have a weapon, but I surprise them as they are walking through the house and I was never faced with a gun/knife/machete/baseball bat. What happens if a drunk guy walks into my house by mistake and I kill him, suspecting that he is a burglar?

Constitution Pro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shadow Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vince(1) Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > And if some nutjob gets into power and tries to
> > change our government and constitution
> drastically
> > enough, you're damn right I'd raise arms
> against
> > them. That's why we are a government "By the
> > People" and "For the People" When someone comes
> > along, and they will, and tries to take over
> for
> > their own benefit then yes, I and many other
> > Americans will raise arms against them. I
> believe
> > in the constitution and everything it stands
> for
> > and I will die to protect and preserve it.
>
> If some nutjob takes over the US government what
> good are handguns are going to do. The new regime
> is going to have tanks, F17's and aircraft
> carriers. You think your handgun is going count?


If the Federal Government has to resort to using tanks and fighter jets against its own populace, then we have ALREADY WON.





And in other news...

Who is responsible for your safety? Someone please answer me that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2009 11:33AM by boristhebulletdodger.

Constitution Pro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If some nutjob takes over the US government what
> good are handguns are going to do. The new regime
> is going to have tanks, F17's and aircraft
> carriers. You think your handgun is going count?

Are you familar with with the Warsaw Ghetto uprising in 1943? The Jewish fighters had pistols, some captured German rifles, and made some molotovs. They managed to hold the Wehrmacht off for a month. Why? Because they knew the terrain and had the will to fight. The Germans basically had to level the place to re-capture it. And that was against a largely unarmed populace. Imagine how hard it would be to occupy this country, where every neighborhood is a potential ambush. It won't be as easy as you think.

True Dat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you familar with with the Warsaw Ghetto
> uprising in 1943? The Jewish fighters had pistols,
> some captured German rifles, and made some
> molotovs. They managed to hold the Wehrmacht off
> for a month. Why? Because they knew the terrain
> and had the will to fight. The Germans basically
> had to level the place to re-capture it. And that
> was against a largely unarmed populace. Imagine
> how hard it would be to occupy this country, where
> every neighborhood is a potential ambush. It won't
> be as easy as you think.

Yeah Waco was a big success too! LMAO

[WWW.CRAIGSLIST.ORG]

Lisop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True Dat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Are you familar with with the Warsaw Ghetto
> > uprising in 1943? The Jewish fighters had
> pistols,
> > some captured German rifles, and made some
> > molotovs. They managed to hold the Wehrmacht
> off
> > for a month. Why? Because they knew the terrain
> > and had the will to fight. The Germans
> basically
> > had to level the place to re-capture it. And
> that
> > was against a largely unarmed populace. Imagine
> > how hard it would be to occupy this country,
> where
> > every neighborhood is a potential ambush. It
> won't
> > be as easy as you think.
>
> Yeah Waco was a big success too! LMAO

I wouldn't call needing 2 helicopters, 2 surveillance aircraft, dozens of tanks, and hundreds of federal agents and national guard to take out 150 whackjobs holed up in a building a resounding success either.

Very true, it seems that most people who don't own guns are radical ego trippers who see themselves as urban Ghandis that are going to rid the World of crime. Their hope is to some day be on the news for stopping a crime some place. Please! Go join the Pacifists if that's what you want. I'm sick of hearing "The Pacifists can't be everywhere so I'm there instead."

LOL that show was so biased. I got pissed off and switched channels. That study that they did in a classroom study set the armed student up for failure in so many ways.

Who is responsible for your safety?

Anyone???

im responsible for my own safety. But I dont need a gun.
Attachments:

TomMadison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shadow Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> OK, I will give you that, but I think that the
> issue here is run of the mill criminal activity
> and whether having citizens carry sidearms is
> going to be a positive or negative. There have
> been a number of bank robberies around here over
> the past few months...not sure if the suspects
> were armed, but if they did not threaten anyone
> with a weapon would it have been a good (just?)
> thing for a customer waiting in line witnessing
> the event to shoot the robber proactively? That
> sounds like assault with a deadly weapon. What
> happens when the "simple" armed robbery turns into
> a hostage situation or ends with the suspect AND
> multiple innocent bystanders shot and killed?
> Personally, I don't believe that you can make an
> effective collateral damage argument here.

most banks around here prohibit customers from bringing in guns, concealed carry or not. Just think how many bank robberies we would be having if banks allowed anyone to carry a gun in.

LOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL that show was so biased. I got pissed off and
> switched channels. That study that they did in a
> classroom study set the armed student up for
> failure in so many ways.

Bias? A shooter runs in the classroom door and the student tries to shoot them.

Please enlighten us where the bias was? The paint was the wrong color on the wall? The only way the student could of had more of an advantage is to have the gun in hand pointed at the door when the shooter ran in. LMAO

most mass-murdering dictators throughout history prohibited citizens from having guns, concealed carry or not. Just think how many dead mass-murdering dictators we would have had if dictators allowed anyone to carry a gun around.

Baised Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please enlighten us where the bias was?

Maybe it was the fact that the "shooter" was a police instructor, who after taking out the teacher, went straight for the person with the planted gun. Last I checked, these college shootings aren't committed by tactical and close-quarters experts (who also apparently have telepathy), they're done by deranged students.

.
Attachments:

KeepOnTruckin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TomMadison Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Shadow Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > OK, I will give you that, but I think that the
> > issue here is run of the mill criminal activity
> > and whether having citizens carry sidearms is
> > going to be a positive or negative. There have
> > been a number of bank robberies around here
> over
> > the past few months...not sure if the suspects
> > were armed, but if they did not threaten anyone
> > with a weapon would it have been a good (just?)
> > thing for a customer waiting in line witnessing
> > the event to shoot the robber proactively?
> That
> > sounds like assault with a deadly weapon. What
> > happens when the "simple" armed robbery turns
> into
> > a hostage situation or ends with the suspect
> AND
> > multiple innocent bystanders shot and killed?
> > Personally, I don't believe that you can make
> an
> > effective collateral damage argument here.
>
> most banks around here prohibit customers from
> bringing in guns, concealed carry or not. Just
> think how many bank robberies we would be having
> if banks allowed anyone to carry a gun in.

Alright, you asked. You are about to be proved very, very wrong. From Phillip Van Cleave:

As predicted, ABC's 20/20 show last night was a propaganda piece on guns. Except for work done by John Stossel, 20/20 has a history of wearing their agenda on their sleeve and they don't even pretend to be unbiased. 20/20 clearly had their conclusion before they started, they only needed to make their story match that desired conclusion.

So let the fun begin:

20/20 asks children what President Obama should do about guns. While the kids were cute, implying that little kids have the maturity to determine our country's policies on freedom is just plain, er, childish. But the anti-gun modus operandi is to use emotion and not logical thought when it comes to guns and 20/20 didn't break out of the mold.

They played up the "gun show loophole" myth during the show, never mentioning that there is nothing you can do at legally at a gun show that you can't do legally outside a gun show. Nope, why confuse people with key information like that?

And then there was a segment where they gave Omar Samaha, whose sister was murdered at Virginia Tech, $5000 and an hour to buy guns at the Richmond gun show.

The first gun that Omar purchased, from someone standing in line, was a Glock. 20/20 then says that it was chilling that he was sold that gun, since one like it was used to kill his sister.

A Glock? That's probably one of the most common handguns in America. Gee, what were the odds?

He then proceeded to buy various rifles and shotguns over that hour.

Image the horror - here was an adult buying legal products and in quantity! Guess 20/20 never shops at Costco.

20/20 completely missed the point that criminals are always going to get guns and gun control laws aren't even going to slow them down.

20/20 also did a segment where a shooter opens fire in a college class room with an airsoft gun. They have one or two students in the classroom who are armed and get to fire back. The scenarios they showed always had their "expert" being the shooter and never the student.

While they made an attempt to simulate a real situation, I wasn't impressed. In real life, return fire from good guys would have disrupted and thrown the shooter off balance as he tried to avoid getting shot himself.

Everyone in the classroom started running in panic. However, shootings at Virginia Tech and other schools show that students don't tend to run in panic, but to hunker down in place. Also the students don't seem to offer any resistance to the shooter in real life.

The shooter was just too unconcerned to be believable. I'm sure that was largely because he knew he wasn't really going to die if he was hit with an airsoft projectile.

While 20/20 pointed out that the students with guns didn't seek cover, but just stood up and started shooting in place, a person's instincts to get to cover would be different if someone is shooting a real gun at at them.

And MOST IMPORTANTLY, 20/20 conveniently didn't point out just how many students would have survived because of the major distraction the armed students provided for the shooter. That was HUGE. But 20/20 didn't even bring it up.

Instead 20/20 concluded that since the armed students might not have survived this surprise attack or there might have been some collateral damage, that everyone would be better off unarmed and trying to flee or playing dead. The "I'm unarmed, please don't hurt me" technique of self defense.

Yeah - we saw how well that technique worked at Virginia Tech.

One other aspect 20/20 didn't touch on: at many of the school shootings, people in classrooms could hear gun shots from other rooms. With armed students that would provide time to setup an ambush for the bad guy as soon as he walks into the classroom.

Jack Rumbah, with Suarez International, ran just such a scenario last year in a classroom using airsoft guns. The result was the bad guy got creamed every time, with little or no harm to the students in the classroom.

I wonder why 20/20 didn't use data already available from Suarez International or another professional self-defense entity rather than setting up their own test with something they have no expertise in? Surely a "news" organization wasn't trying to ensure in advance that there was only one possible conclusion?

I would like to have seen what would have happened if 20/20 would have let one of the regular students be the shooter and let 20/20's expert be a student sitting in the classroom. That is every bit as likely a scenario as the one 20/20 used and probably would have been a really bad scenario for the shooter. But 20/20 wouldn't have liked the outcome vis-a-vis their desired conclusion.

We're better of unarmed and helpless? Sorry 20/20, you go right ahead and follow your own foolish advice, but I'll take my chances with a gun in my hand.

I quoted the wrong poster in the above post. I meant to quote the poster named "baised."

Okay we all agree that we must put dwn our weapons; you first.

Constitution Pro Wrote:
> If some nutjob takes over the US government what
> good are handguns are going to do. The new regime
> is going to have tanks, F17's and aircraft
> carriers. You think your handgun is going count?


hell yea it will... why do you think the war in vietnam was lost, tanks and F17s are no match for will and gorilla warfare. Its also the reason that we didnt have a "mission complete" in iraq

Funny that, folks with a anti-gun control agenda set up experiments in which 'responsible self-defenders' save everyone's lives w/o collateral damage. I also like how they rely on lots of hypotheticals. Here's some more.

An otherwise non-lethal incidents in which armed students take a life during an argument.

An incident in which an armed confrontation leads to a shootout where multiple armed students start firing at each other and/or the 'real killer.'

An incident in which a gun goes off accidentally, injuring and/or killing the armed student or another random student.

Again, my problem is not so much with guns as it is with the more aggressive type of gun owner, the sort that throws around terms like 'pussy,' 'sheep,' and 'helpless' in such an easy manner online that it makes me wonder how they handle offline anger moments.

A responsible gun owner should be someone who you don't even know is armed or not.

The NRA and Gun Owners of America (for those who think the NRA are soft) is always going to be in panic mode. They're never, ever, EVER going to send out a letter saying, 'Good job, we've elected solid pro-gun majorities in Congress and even our Democratic President is now unwilling to move against our right to keep and bear arms. So why don't we just relax for a year or so and we'll write you again if President Obama tries to disrupt our right to keep and bear arms.'

Instead we have hysterical 'libertarians' (i.e. Republicans afraid to admit their President was in office between 2001 and 2008) coming up with all sorts of hypothetical situations.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2009 07:23AM by formerhick76.

True Dat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Baised Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Please enlighten us where the bias was?
>
> Maybe it was the fact that the "shooter" was a
> police instructor, who after taking out the
> teacher, went straight for the person with the
> planted gun. Last I checked, these college
> shootings aren't committed by tactical and
> close-quarters experts (who also apparently have
> telepathy), they're done by deranged students.

I get it now. The shooter should of been a terrible shot so the students could of had more chances? Perhaps allow the students more time and the chance to reload their guns after missing?

For the record Cho and many deranged students and psycho gunmen almost allows plan and hit the range a couple of times before their shootings. Cho and the VA sniper practiced all the time.

Propts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For the record Cho and many deranged students and
> psycho gunmen almost allows plan and hit the range
> a couple of times before their shootings. Cho and
> the VA sniper practiced all the time.

Not having somebody who's profession is shooting would have been a good start. Do you seriously fail to see the difference between an enraged college student and an experienced firearms instructor who knows at worst he might get shot with an airsoft gun?

Are you implying that range time = marksmanship in a high-stress situation? That pretty much debunks the whole point of this report. Face it, re-creating a situation that would accurately prove who can and can't stop a deranged shooter is impossible.

I'm not saying college students are the best people to be carrying guns, most are inexperienced and mentally haven't "settled down" yet. But if it there's a choice between somebody barging into a room and opening fire, I rather have a 19 year old throwing some rounds in the other direction than nobody at all.

OMAR SAMAHA IS A LIAR!

He was on both 20/20 and 60 Minutes last weekend talking about his little trip to the Richmond gun show. In one show he said a man told him he could purchase a gun without ID if he paid an extra $50, but then on the other show he said the amount was $100. I could tell he was lying, and this little slip up proves it.

DON'T TRUST THESE ANTI-GUN FOOLS!

LIAR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OMAR SAMAHA IS A LIAR!
>
> He was on both 20/20 and 60 Minutes last weekend
> talking about his little trip to the Richmond gun
> show. In one show he said a man told him he could
> purchase a gun without ID if he paid an extra $50,
> but then on the other show he said the amount was
> $100. I could tell he was lying, and this little
> slip up proves it.
>
> DON'T TRUST THESE ANTI-GUN FOOLS!

Maybe you should of watched the entire interview. The guy bought about 15 guns, not one. People qouted him a variety of prices. No ID is usually $100 more at gun shows.

The gun show loop hole does still exist in Va!

LoopHole Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The gun show loop hole does still exist in Va!


When are you going to understand that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LOOPHOLE!!!! There is nothing against private sales in Virginia! So make it illegal to have a private transfer at a gun show...Then we'll just go out into the parking lot and make the transfer, lol.

LoopHole Wrote:
> The gun show loop hole does still exist in Va!

I believe you are looking for the "glory hole" thread,
which is to the left, please.