"One of the worst hatchet jobs ever perpetrated on the viewing public"

[unixronin]

That’s just the beginning of what Massad Ayoob had to say about ABC’s 20/20 special “If I Only Had A Gun”:

To make the point that an armed citizen would stand no chance against a single psycho gunman, the show engineered a totally “set ‘em up to fail” scenario in which some college kids were outfitted with Simunitions™ Glocks, which fired paintballs.  After limited familiarization, which apparently did not include drawing the guns from concealment, the kids were outfitted with safety-strap and SERPA security holsters that they obviously hadn’t adequately learned how to draw from.  These were then concealed under long white T-shirts that went down below their backsides, and clung tightly to the holstered pistols.  When a trained firearms instructor playing the role of the psycho entered the classroom and started shooting, the kids in the good guy role might as well have been wearing strait jackets.  The “gunman” also seemed to know before hand who would have the concealed weapons, because he zoomed right in on them.  They didn’t have a chance.

(Nonetheless, one bad guy role-player, an honest cop, was hit by a female student’s paintball bullet and went down.  She had obviously stopped the killing.  However, in the subsequent interview and reconstruction, Ms. Sawyer managed to spin this into the armed rescuer being killed and the bad guy only wounded.)

[...]

Kudos to Leslie Stahl, “60 Minutes,” and CBS for having the integrity to show both sides of a complicated issue.  By contrast, ABC’s latest “20/20” outing with Diane Sawyer should be used in journalism school to show the students how degrading it is to their profession to disguise blatantly deceptive propaganda as an impartial news program.

Comments

[perspicuity.livejournal.com]

he's my hero ;)

and he's local :)

#

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Indeed. I hope to be able to afford to go take some of his courses at some point before he retires from teaching.

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

I didn't see either of these shows (rarely watch TV). I'd say that the 20/20 special does go along with something I will whole-heartedly endorse: It doesn't matter how well armed you are, if you aren't trained in how to use your weapon.

An unarmed but very well-trained person can even take down an armed, untrained gunman -- as happened two years ago in Las Vegas (http://retardzone.com/2007/07/09/iraq-vet-tackled-and-stopped-shooter-in-las-vegas-shooting/) when an unarmed (and slightly inebriated!) reservist just back from Iraq tackled a crazed shooter in a Las Vegas casino.

Giving untrained people weapons doesn't help nearly so much.

[lonewolf545.livejournal.com]

Actually, the security guard at Columbine was a notoriously bad shot, but his attempts to engage the two shooters there caused them to focus their attentions on him, allowing more students to escape. It does NOT take a lot of training to use a handgun effectively in those situations, especially not if you have the advantage of surprise, which the "students" in the ABC scenarios did not have (in fact, it goes further than what Ayoob mentions - the "armed students" were all placed in the center of the front row, right in front of the instructor). ABC specifically stacked the deck, requiring the students to use retention holsters which require specific practice to use (hint - I have multiple handguns and have been licensed to carry one for 17 years, and have been using them for over twenty years, and have NEVER used a retention holster), dressing them in clothes that precluded a rapid draw, etc...

And I train in martial arts, it is NOT easy to take down an armed person, you have to get your timing down very well, and you have the disadvantage of range.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That's rather stating the obvious.

20/20 was trying to take advantage of that (plus advance knowledge on the part of their "crazed shooter", plus a few other handicaps) to try to convince people that being armed won't help ANYONE, EVER. Even when one of their three victims did disable the "crazed shooter", they still spun that as a failure.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

That is why you must have training in order to go armed. (At least, if you want to do it legally.)

Tackling a shooter is silly! Most people have pretty bad handgun aim after about 20 feet, especially in a tense situation. Getting closer dramatically increases their aim.

The 20/20 "journalism" was simply propaganda. It was worthy of the Iraq information minister. I think that level of behavior should call into question press credentials. If you want to run a video blog, stop calling it news. (Even a blog needs to incorporate truth if it wants to remain relevant.)

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

Tackling a shooter is silly

I remember an interview with the hero of the story, the young reservist recently back from Iraq. The reporter asked what had given him the courage to tackle the crazed gunman. The answer? "Well, I'd had too many beers..."

Certainly it would have been even better if Our Hero had been armed. My point, though, is that even without a weapon a well-trained and experienced person is better able to defend himself than an untrained person who does have a weapon.

My worry is that too many people who buy guns for protection have minimal training. Even those who do have training often don't keep it up to date. It's a danger, allowing people to become complaisant.