"If I Only Had A Gun" on ABC 4/10/09 WATCH IT!

[Japle]

It took a while, but I sent the following email to all the sponsors:

After watching ABC’s episode of “20/20” titled “If I Only Had a Gun”, I can only conclude that ABC aired the piece in order to advance a specific, anti-gun political agenda and that your company supports that agenda. There was no attempt at all to present both sides of the issue. The show was a deliberate insult to the significant percentage of your customers who own guns and value their 2nd Amendment right to do so.

Company name has every right to promote any political cause you wish. I and my fellow citizens have every right to choose whom we do business with and, rest assured, many of us will choose not to do business with any company that intends to undermine our Constitutional rights.

The name of your company and the others who sponsor ABC's political agenda will be widely shared on the many Internet forums devoted to the shooting sports and legal self defense. The list will be quoted and linked to many hundreds of times over the next several years, at least. This is unlikely to have a positive effect on your sales.

Sincerely,

[Hkmp5sd]

I just wish one person would answer their "If I only had a Gun" question.

If you DO have a gun, YOU have an option in how the situation plays out.

Even if all of your firearm training equals that of Barney Fife, at least you have an some option other than simply dying.

[Slugthrower]

I monitored the 20/20 show. Living in VA, the laws concerning a legal purchase of a firearm are quite familiar. The particular part in the show where they had the "Omar" guy buying several firearms and supposedly doing so though what they called a "loop hole" is utter garbage, though I am thinking of much stronger words, and it should be made clear exactly what they were doing.

In Virginia we have to fill out the typical 4473 Form, then we are immediately given an instant background check through the Virginia State Police. The instant background check involves the state police pulling up your state records on criminal history and any court ordered psychological treatments. This is the case for all who purchase a firearm from an FFL dealer. Those dealers, in the case of a gun show here, are inside the premises, not on the outside of the building in question, as I have known these shows to be in my area of VA.

"Omar" bought his firearms from a private individual and the sale was a face to face personal transaction. This type of purchase isn't subject to the laws that govern FFL dealers and therefore no background check was involved. Although the individual selling the firearms to "Omar" might have done so for his own well being. If they were engaging in a questionable legal process, as the number of firearms that the particular individual sells is limited to a predefined number per year by federal laws, then it is the domain of the BATFE to regulate and enforce those laws. If it was in violation of the law, then they are both subject to being arrested and convicted. The lack of a prosecuting authority on the location to prevent such a potential illegal transaction is the fault of the BATFE, State Police, local police and the property owner or the property owner's managment staff to provide the needed supervision. It isn't my fault or the general public's, who are looking to buy a gun at a legal public event. Why were they not doing their jobs ?

The argument that this is a loop hole is invalid. Naturally ABC is preying on the ignorance and/or utter stupidity of the average American. They wish to twist the truth and make it seem as if this is a reasonable ascertainment of a legal problem that is best dealt with by the banning of a gun show, if they had their way.

Let's take another form of a legal transaction with an item that proves time and again to be more dangerous to the general public than a firearm. That item being an automoblie. When a common citizen buys a car and then sells it there is no need of the person selling the car to have an automobile dealers licence, so long as they are not selling more cars than the law allows in the given period of time that the law allows. Automobiles being involved in more deaths per years than firearms, it stands to reason that people shouldn't be allowed to sell their own cars, in a private transaction, and should be forced to take the car to a dealership and resell from there or to obtain an automobile dealers licence to sell their personal possession legally. This seems to be ABC's line of thought, concerning firearms, from my impression of thier little show. If they can't get gun shows banned, then limit the abilty of the individual to purchase a firearm privately.

If such a law was passed for automobiles, you can believe there would be a huge upheaval, one in which people would be outraged to find that they cannot sell a car, which they have no right to. Granted you can own one and operate it within the confines of private property, but that in no way allows it into the general public, in turn subjecting you and others about you to suffer the consequences of that operation on a public road system, should you have an accident. In addition to other regulations that are designed to limit the access to the general public for saftey concerns. Insurance and state licence plates, annual inspections and emmisions checks, personal property taxes, etc. This is what we get for the privledge to be able to have our cars carry us? Atleast we don't have to have a licence to purchase or own a car. :barf:

Now consider the repercussions of having personal gun sales banned. That was the real problem that ABC was showing to all their viewers. This would put you in line with a whole host of other possible regulations.

Take the logical conclusion that the anti's and/or government want to limit or outright end your right to bear arms. They decide to do it in a similar line to the automobile. You need a licence/permit to own/purchase a gun. In this licence you are allowed to operate and carry your gun in the general public. You must have insurance and pay an annual tax with a state inspection of your firearms and their proper storage. You can only sell a gun back to an FFL dealer. Additionally to be allowed to carry a gun in public you also need a badge/licence plate, registration card and an inspection reciept. Now a right starts looking very similar to a privledge.

Is it too far fetched to think that ABC is showing you the hand that they have in this high stakes poker game? It is bad enough that you have to have a permit to carry concealed. When does operation and/or ownership of a firearm come into question? At what point does this game end and you cash in your chips? Is this a game that any should even wish to play?

Ban the car/gun... can't do that. Ban some dealerships... working on that one. Ban the private sale of? Sounds plausable, maybe we'll try that after we get a more subtle way. Oh well, atleast we can regulate it to the point of being non existant and they won't get too mad. We might even be able to make it cost so much as to prevent the lower class citizen from being able to afford operate one. After all we have public transportation/protection to get them to the worker stations.

To be quite honest, I tire of this absurd game of bargaining for what is a right, as if it were a privledge. This incessant whining, along with media manipulation, about how bad firearms are and they must be controlled makes my blood boil.

It makes me wish that I could file for a divorce from the other half, that consistantly hinders my exercise of freedom, along with the irreconcilable differences, which have turned this marriage into a deal made in hell. It would be the civil thing to do, now wouldn't it? After all we are supposed to be in a partnership to help each other have better lives on the whole. Why then is it that the suggestion of ending this union considered to be such a taboo subject? Forget I asked that. The proposition is completely out of the question anyway.

I may not love her as when we were newlywed, but she certainly deserves to live in peace. I suppose growing old and dying a kept Man is better than having to get out and start over again...

America you were once a beautiful lady and the sun shined on all that were near to you. Why have you fallen away from that which made me love you so? You have forsaken your children to ignorance and apathy and rejected the ideas we had for our wonderous future. Instead you go about the world seeking to please others, rather than favor your household. You trade the possessions of our home for promises of praise, attention, and favors from other families. You have become calloused and cold to our crys for the freedom, which you provided us at birth and have taken away year after year. I fear you have become an addict and would sell us all into servitude to sate your hunger for influence in this world. A world that only loves you for the services that you render and would reject you when you can no longer perform those services. A world that fears you and believes it must lie to you. For those to whom we must lie we will surely grow to hate. My heart hurts to think that you may be hated by the very world that you seem to love so very much. To think you have rejected your children and husband for the empty promises of a world who only wants the clothing, we made for you in our pride to be a part of and from you... it makes the very fiber of our being wail in sorrow at what you are becoming. Please stop and think about what you are doing. Come back to us and not reject the love we have in ourselves for you.

We all know that there are far more things in this country that are going wrong, yet we also know the lynch pin is this 2nd Amendment. May the maker save us all from a tyranny of Man. The greatest gift we all have is freedom. As an American we enjoy that which only a few of us earn in our lifetimes. Keep the torch lit and hope that those among us, who are blinded, may yet see the light which shines amongst us all.

Ahhh, a little melodramatic, but it is what I see our mother doing to us in the name of protecting her children from the truth of the outside world. The Fathers had a plan for us all and it is becoming a whole different creature than it was intended to be. One can only hope that we can save this Union in the process of making her well again.

Ok enough of this. I am supposed to be a tough guy biker with a general contracting business to run. Not some sappy story teller. Sorry to have made this post so long, but it is what I do, since I post so infrequently.

[shortwave]

Had a busy morning. I`ve got a large family(6 bro and one sister). Oldest bro. is 54, youngest is 39. All married, 5 with adult children. We all have large family of our own. I`ve got 3 boys and one girl. Ages 29 to 23. Two of which have spouse`s. Since every member of our family(immediate and extended) are very pro 2nd amendment I spent this morning Emailing and talking on the phone to each of my siblings and their adult children about this anti-gun show. A list of the sponsor sent to each. I counted seven business`s that my wife and I use/shop at. Dannon, Dove, Kohl`s,Verizon,Petsmart,NTB and Papa John`s. Won`t be spending money at these business`s anymore and have the word of my large family that they will also go through the list and not do business with any of these sponsor`s. We are loyal to the Constitution of the U.S. and don`t believe in contributing to anti-American companies.

[SugarmillMan]

20/20 said last night that all of my shooting skills were gone from my head in one month of inactivity. Fine motor skills and muscle memory too.

I'm sure glad that EVERY federal, state and local police agency in the country has the budget for every officer to qualify on the firearms range each and every month!! It makes you feel so safe.

Sure thing Diane!

[GUNSITE]

I only seen the classroom clip but it hits the point. TRAINING and MORE TRAINING, everything i preach about training for CCW people comes to life in the classroom scenario. You buy a gun, you target shoot, and then you CCW with a chambered round, and you think your ready.

A conceal carry under a shirt, jacket, or coat affects your draw, your poor tactics under stress can get you killed like standing up to shoot, those individuals put themselves in the kill zone, they made themselves a target by coming out from cover.

A spontaneous lethal situation occurs… MOVE! COVER! Now, draw your weapon and shoot, staying behind cover as much as possible, gunfights are not Hollywood shootouts, you DON'T stand up and expose yourself to shoot, especially in close quarters.

The scenario in the classroom would be stressful for a trained person to handle; classrooms are passive environments as any environment can be. For a person to enter and start screaming/talking with a gun expose, and then starts shooting as people scream and running over each other fleeing... it freezes you for a moment or two, even the best trained can be effected. You tend to freeze so your brain can register...IS THIS REALLY HAPPENING...

You can't train for the unknown... because its unknown. We practice GUN tactics, and hope those skills helps us survive the unexpected unknown situation.

… And having 5-10 days of combative/tactical training at some Camp doesn't guarantee anything, instructors, police, bodyguards, swat, private security teams, and military constantly run training sessions year after year after year, and that classroom scenario (real life) would still be tuff.

Any training you get is good, even a safety course and target practicing accomplishes something, but don't fall victim to having a false sense of security. Gunfights are not COOL, and they’re not FUN... and gunfights AIN’T no VIDEO GAME.

I’m for conceal carry, but I’m for keeping people alive and preach reality to make you better. I’ve seen many of gunslinger in a class be dumb founded with fumbling mechanics when put to structure training and procedures. Close combat gun training is like karate; you train enough so your moves are a natural reaction to a action movement (blocking a punch).

Using the classroom as example, a man enters the classroom with a gun expose; your weapon is concealed under your shirt as you sit reading writing (whatever), the bad guy fire shots… YOU’RE REACTION SHOULD BE TO COVER, draw, and shoot from cover. Training body muscle memory produces good mechanics in GUN training. You ever see football linemen practice blocking drills; it becomes a natural movement, down stance to upright blocking and feet/position movement becomes automatic.

If your going to fumble a draw, fumble it while covering, not standing unraveling your shirt/jacket trying to draw your weapon while presenting yourself as a target, that will get you killed. If your standing (Classroom scenario) trying to get your weapon out, your going to shoot from the stand position because its a natural movement, it makes a good Hollywood movie, real life gunfights you’ll end up DEAD.

Your mind set (untrained) is to get your GUN out and shoot him before he shoots you, that is a natural tactic to protect yourself, not a good tactic, but psychologically/subconsciously its your only natural reaction, GET MY GUN OUT TO PROTECT MYSELF !

Pressure and stress changes everything.... AT BEST you can only default to your training, and if you have NO training what will you default too...

[Boats]

My letter going out Monday:

ABC News
David Westin, President
47 W. 68th Street
New York, NY 10023-6298


RE: 20/20: “If I Only Had A Gun,” air date 04-10-09


Dear Sir:

In 2004, you gave a speech at Harvard University in which you were quoted as saying the following:

“The more time we express our opinions, the less time we have to talk about the facts, Unfortunately, opinion is driving out facts too often in most of what we see on television today.”

In light of the full hour of “news magazine” agitprop which aired on 20/20 on April 10, 2009, one can only conclude that you do not sincerely hold the above opinion.

If yourself, or anyone else at ABC News in a position of managerial oversight of 20/20 had one shred of so-called “journalistic integrity,” Diane Sawyer would be joining Dan Rather in a richly deserved retirement. From a staged experiment worthy of Dateline NBC's rigging GM pick-up trucks with incendiary devices, to not recording the actual transactions for guns at the Virginia gun show, I don’t think I have ever taken in a more clumsily produced campaign of outright anti-gun propaganda as that put forth by Ms. Sawyer in concert with the online arm of ABC News last Friday night.

In 2007, Ms. Sawyer had this candid moment on Good Morning America:

"You know, I wanted to sit on a jury once and I was taken off the jury. And the judge said to me, 'Can, you know, can you tell the truth and be fair?' And I said, 'That's what journalists do.' And everybody in the courtroom laughed. It was the most hurtful moment I think I've ever had."

In light of your 2004 speech, and Ms. Sawyer’s lost struggle with self-awareness about her truthfulness and fairness being widely and publicly perceived as lacking, it beggars the imagination how it is that you allow her to impugn the reputation of your entire network “news” department.

Rest assured that I have just watched my last hit piece from ABC “News.” Since segments produced by your “news” programs also appear on my local affiliate, they will also be suffering from your lack of credibility. There is no reason to watch the locals rely in any way upon your completely absent sense of objectivity and fairness.

Sincerely,


Boats

cc: KATU General Manager

[Japle]

Shortwave wrote:

Had a busy morning. I`ve got a large family(6 bro and one sister). Oldest bro. is 54, youngest is 39. All married, 5 with adult children. We all have large family of our own. I`ve got 3 boys and one girl. Ages 29 to 23. Two of which have spouse`s. Since every member of our family(immediate and extended) are very pro 2nd amendment I spent this morning Emailing and talking on the phone to each of my siblings and their adult children about this anti-gun show. A list of the sponsor sent to each. I counted seven business`s that my wife and I use/shop at. Dannon, Dove, Kohl`s,Verizon,Petsmart,NTB and Papa John`s. Won`t be spending money at these business`s anymore and have the word of my large family that they will also go through the list and not do business with any of these sponsor`s. We are loyal to the Constitution of the U.S. and don`t believe in contributing to anti-American companies.

That's all good, but do the companies know you're not doing business with them? They won't notice unless you tell them.

Email or write the sponsors. Let them know they're responsible for supporting a political movement that's devoted to violating the Constitution.

Telling us doesn't help. Tell the sponsors!!

[Bud Helms]

Let them know they're responsible for supporting a political movement that's devoted to violating the Constitution.

Well said, Japle.

[Jazzninja]

Not much more I can say on the subject that hasn’t already been said. Really a lot of great responses on here; after watching yesterday, I’m glad to see that there are still some people that care about the constitution and our individual rights. I think perhaps I’ll be writing a letter to ABC as well. Thanks guys. Here is an excerpt from a response that I posted on another site.

The show was exactly what I expected, anti gun media propaganda. As others have said, the classroom experiment was absolutely not a fair test. You have a group of students who have been provided a few hours of basic firearms training, using equipment that they are not familiar with against a law enforcement firearms instructor with years of tactical training and experience. The “armed” students were all sitting front and center in the same location every time and the shooter knew in advance who the “armed” student was and where he or she would be sitting. Couple that with the obvious fact that action is always faster than reaction (all things being equal, which in this case they certainly were not, the defender is inherently at a disadvantage because he/she does not possess the initiative) and you have a flawed and biased experiment. In another conversation, I used the analogy of giving an average person four hours of boxing training and then, without any advance notice, putting him or her in the ring with a professional fighter. Would that be a valid experiment in terms of evaluating the value of self defense training?
The show never showed any responsible gun owners, as that would have been contrary to the sensationalism that they were seeking. An interview with a gun owner who stores his or her firearms in a quality gun safe, and has been shooting responsibly for years without any problems would have made for a very boring segment, yet that pretty much describes all of the gun owners that I know.

[Invalid Zero]

Anyone have a torrent link yet?

[jg0001]

Whats the NICS check. Im not familiar with any other state except NJ in terms of firearms laws. Please educate me :P

Lavid, if you've bought a hand gun in NJ, you've been subject to a NICS check. Even with the FPID card, every time you buy a hand gun (maybe a rifle too, I'm not sure), the gun store will run a NICS check.

[1-UP]

Watched it on the DVR this morning. I'm in agreement with the other posts that the production values on this one seem shoddy, especially considering how much they pumped the show during the week. Just seems like some strange editting/pacing/sequencing - amateurish, as somebody I believe mentioned.

The classroom scene was mostly a farce, but I do think the reactions the students had were good to note. Freezing up, standing up and getting out of cover, etc. Yes, they were doomed from the start with the setup, but I thought it was a good illustration on how the body reacts to a surprise like that. The initial moments were going to be the same no matter what. I thought it was a really clever idea to put them in a "Protective Gear" classroom to ensure everybody had proper safety materials on for the *ahem* test.

The kids finding the gun was sort of interesting, but it bothered me a bit that they had to stack the deck to get the results they wanted (again) by adding the "peer pressure" element. It was interesting seeing how many of them treated the gun like poison though. It was sad to see them pointing the gun at themselves.

The gunshow stuff and the neighborhood shooting piece by the "Jr Reporter" felt like filler.

Overall I doubt the piece was done well enough to sway people regardless of what its message was.

[SigfanTN]

As someone earlier pointed out, I should have taken a double dose of blood pressure meds before watching this. My wife and I watched last night from the DVR, and were very disappointed with the slanted coverage.

I got the impression that this was a direct plea to the current administration to do something to make it harder for folks to buy guns. It also was clearly geared to try to change the mind of fence-sitters or the largely uninformed part of the viewership who do not own guns. The message was clear: you cannot be trusted with a gun. Your feeble human brain is no match for the awesomeness of the responsibility.

We were hoping that they would have at least devoted one small segment to showing those individuals who have successfully used firearms to defend themselves. Their stories are out there, and 20/20 clearly failed to do any research. It is sickening to me how much media these days is so one-sided. My wife said that Diane Sawyer just made her list of "journalists" who she refuses to watch, along with Keith Olberman and Chris Mathews among others. Yes, she used to be a bit a a liberal media fan, but since she has gotten into guns, that is changing rapidly.

[Snow Fox]

I saw the 'test' of a gun man going into a class and am disgusted with the so called unbiased reporting. It was a great example of "you can make statisics prove anything." they showed you two kids with guns who were shot-one poor slob couldn't get his weapon clear of the t-shirt BUT they left out three important things.
1) how many kidsthere had guns and did not get shot?
2) if there were other kids with guns were they not shot? why? did they duck,? run what?
3) ok they showed us two kids with guns getting hit, but did not say how many of the kids without guns were also hit. was this a casde that the shooter only went for people with weapons or did he shoot others too? meaning having or not having a wepaon did not make a difference in his fate.

Utlimately they tried to say 'if you have a ugn you die' but did not given enough answers about other people. who else "died?"

ABC is clearly the anti-gun owners network. after the shooting in Bingahton the FIRST report afterward ended with the wekeend anchor asking the deeb on the scene 'are there any new anti-gun legislation pending now?"
and the dweeb on the street seemed up set that the answerr was 'no'

[shortwave]

I got the impression that this was a direct plea to the current administration to do something to make it harder for folks to buy guns.

Or maybe this current administration just using the same media platform that got them elected to drum up support for their anti-gun policies:barf:

[Stephen A. Camp]

Here is a comment I posted at 20/20's site concerning this piece of "reporting":

"This program should not have been listed under “news” but “propaganda”. It was not “balanced”, not even close. I am a retired police officer and police firearms instructor and enjoy shooting as a private citizen. That honest Americans have to keep fighting for what is supposed to be a guaranteed right is poor in my opinion.

I wonder if the ABC propagandists that did this program will be so quick to fall forked for such “liberal” aims when the First Amendment comes under fire as they now are for the Second?

I have begun contacting sponsors for the ABC trash, advising that I’ll no longer use any of their products and will try and convince anyone who’ll listen of to do the same.

Frankly, this kind of crap doesn’t belong on TV but in the toilet.

It is obvious that ABC’s goal was not to “report” but to “editorialize” and help decide what is “best” for the poor unwashed masses.

They can go straight to hell."

If you are willing to drop them a line, here's a link:

http://www.nt2099.com/J-ENT/news/ame...omment-page-1/

You can also complain about biased programs to the FCC. I did via this link and it's quite easy:

http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm

Taken from another site are these sponsors. I've contacted many of them expressing my disgust with their supporting such garbage:

1) Dannon / DanActive Yougurt http://dannon.com/contact.aspx
2) Fidelity Investments http://personal.fidelity.com/account...ing.shtml.cvsr
3) Cialis http://www.cialis.com/common_pages/ask_lilly.jsp
4) The Soloist - Movie
5) Verizon Wireless X Two http://www22.verizon.com/residential/support/contactus/
6) Extreme Makeover Home Edition
7) Abilify RX http://www.bms.com/contact/Pages/home.aspx
8) Pet Smart http://help.petsmart.com/contact-us/...orporate.shtml
9) Apple I Phone / AT&T
10) Home Goods
11) PA Dept of Health / Quit Smoking
12) Land Rover /Range Rover http://www.landroverusa.com/us/en/Co...contact-us.htm
13) Travelers Insurance Co http://www.travelers.com/corporate-i...actuspage.aspx
14) Transitions Glasses
15) ABC / Dancing With the Stars
16) DSW Shoes ( Ladies tell your friends !!) http://www.dsw.com/dsw_shoes/customer_service/index.jsp
17) Giant Food Stores
18) Geico Ins X Two http://www.geico.com/about/contactus/
19) Kohl's http://www.kohlscorporation.com/cust...vice_home.html
20) Nicoderm CQ https://www.nicodermcq.com/contact.aspx
21) Ghosts of Girlfriends Past Movie
22) Remax Real Estate http://www.remax.com/misc/contact_us/
23) Bali for Women by Hanes
24) ABC Good Morning America X Two
25) ABC Show " Castle "
26) Sprint Wireless http://www.sprint.com/contactus/?id8=vanity:contact
27) Reclast RX http://www.reclast.com/jsp/utils/con...fo/choicei.jsp
28) H&R Block https://www.hrblock.com/customer_sup...nSelected=none
29) ABC show " The Unusuals "
30) Action News @ 11pm
31) Dunkin Donuts https://www.dunkindonuts.com/aboutus/contact/
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7X2_V60YK8

Best.

[Paul B.]

Snowfox said, "ABC is clearly the anti-gun owners network. after the shooting in Bingahton the FIRST report afterward ended with the wekeend anchor asking the deeb on the scene 'are there any new anti-gun legislation pending now?"
and the dweeb on the street seemed up set that the answerr was 'no'"

Got news for you, not only ABC, but CBS and NBC are just as anti-gun.
I was so angry after seeing that garbage that night that sleep was very slow in coming so I sent them an E-nail with my complaint. My final line on the complaint was, If the government was attacking you First Amendment right to free speech the way you attack my Second Amendment right to own a firearm, you'd be squealing like scalded pigs. Your program was nothing more than liberal anti-guns bias." Maybe not very profound, but when they limit you to 500 characters, it's rough to make a point.
Paul B.

[nikdfish]

+1 on the e-complaint to the FCC regarding the show's bias. Did so myself just now & then noted the fact on ABC's comments area for the show and included the link to the FCC e-complaint app. ...

They removed it after about 30 minutes, as well as the one posted 12 minutes after mine saying that they had also filed an FCC complaint. The way the comment numbers keep going up & down they are doing quite a bit of trimming.

Nick

[Elvishead]

I'm sure the mock shooter was a trained expert shot.

Just to unique (One in a million) of a scenario to hold water on the topic.

[Chuckusaret]

As much as it sucks I kinda really like the idea of a firearms purchaser ID card. I dont like a bunch of unqualified people being able to purchase firearms. Thats just me.

Most states have just that sir, it is called a concealed weapons permit for the average guy. Do you have CCW permit? We don't need any additional ID cards or permits the states need to enforce what they have in place.

[Ardillakilla]

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4844...Only_Had_a_Gun

[novalty]

My major complaint about the show was the classroom scenario most everyone had mentioned. What another member had post about training is one of my main contentions about the scenario they showed. Some of the "students" had very little firearm experience, but even with the couple that did, they just handed them a gun that they may have never even handled before, and had them shoot a few times at a target, then through them into a scenario with a holster they weren't even familiar with, and to make things even better they gave them some nice big protective headgear. I know you can't predict when things are going to get ugly, but to have the "bad guy" specifically target the "student" immediately after shooting teacher every time, seems a extremely ignorant, as well as the "student" being in the same location. If they had placed the "student" in a different location each time, and had the "bad guy" randomly shoot other students, it would have been at least a more realistic scenario.

Paul

[GUNSITE]

The bad guy entered the classroom, as he was pointing the GUN he mumbled something and shot, if i remember correctly, the classroom then went into a panic mode (screaming/running) while the person whose was carrying stood and fumbled the draw. As the bad guy turned to the classroom he IDENTIFIED his target who pose the most threat (someone standing fast reaching for something) and easy kill from the bad guys view.

I don't agree that it proved having someone armed doesn't work so why CCW, but it did prove and i agree and is MY opinion that having a GUN on you isn't a cure all, it can be quite dangerous if the CCW person was to take action without training. (Tactical)

Yes... we can agree that having a person armed and untrained is better than having no one armed, and some can argue... people who were trying to escape may of survive because they were not a CCW person and didn't try to make a stand and got killed.

So to me it proved only that CCW people should by their own means... get some self-defense pistol training. Maybe training might of made the female if i'm not mistaken... go from cover and try to return fire... to standing and return fire, or maybe have a smoother draw from under a his shirt, or go to cover and draw while being covered.

That's why i stress... A person defaults to their training in time of lethal stressful situations... but.. if you have no training what do you default too..

I know training camps for 5,10, or 14 days is time consuming and expensive, but we need to realize our limitations during a traumatic spontaneous situation.

[zeko]

One thing I have gathered from reading the comments so far is that ABC is treating the "if I only had a gun" subject like they and their brethren treat many other "defense" subjects: if a method of defense is not GUARANTEED to work every time, with absolutely no possibility of failure, it is not worth trying (they do this with missile defense, for example). Of course it isn't guaranteed that an armed student or teacher could have stopped or reduced the carnage; of course it's possible that an armed student or teacher might have accidentally shot another student; of course many other things could have gone wrong. But if I have, say, a 50% chance of survival by fighting back and a near-zero chance of survival by not fighting, I'll take 50% every time. 100% would be nice, but that's not available . . .