20/20 Mocks Use of Guns for Self-Defense
Last week’s programming on ABC was full of commercials aimed at drawing viewers to a special April 10 edition of 20/20 titled “If I Only Had a Gun.” The promotions described how gun sales were skyrocketing in and around areas where recent mass shootings had occurred, therefore giving the appearance of an honest documentary. But the real premise of the show was 20/20′s contention that private citizens with guns aren’t capable of using those guns effectively, thus 20/20′s website headline: “Carrying a Gun Wouldn’t Necessarily Get You Out of a Shooting.”
In other words, before you get too self-reliant, please give Diane Sawyer 20 minutes to convince you that you’re not capable of defending your own life.
20/20′s hit piece began with various videos of mass public shootings, overlaid with Sawyer describing “rampages in the past few months” which took place “in a mall, in a church, [and] in a home in Pittsburgh where a shooter [fired] off 98 shots in under two minutes.” “No wonder more and more ordinary people are talking about getting a gun to protect themselves,” she added. “But police are saying think about it before you do.”
To back up her assertion that we might not be able to defend ourselves with a gun, Sawyer had two policemen agree to provide firearms training to six university students who had volunteered for it. According to Sawyer, the pre-training “gun experience [of the six ranged] from none at all to more than 100 hours.” Sawyer, an obvious gun novice, included hours spent shooting plastic pellets from Air Soft brand toy guns in her calculations for “gun experience.”
After the students were trained to a level that exceeded what half the states require before issuing a concealed carry license, according to Sawyer, some of the students were unknowingly placed in situations where they had to draw a gun to defend their lives. Joey, the student who had “spent countless hours firing an … Air Soft gun,” was asked to wear his holstered pistol to class to become acquainted with carrying it on his person. Once his class was under way, a gunman barged in and began firing a pistol loaded with paintball bullets at Joey and others in the class.
The video cameras in the classroom showed Joey struggling to get his gun out from under his shirt as Sawyer narrated: “The room is under attack, the instructor is down, a student hit, Joey struggles to get his gun out but it’s stuck in his shirt. He can’t even get it out to aim it.” She was strangely silent on the fact that they had positioned Joey’s holster so that his gun was sitting awkwardly in between his pants and the center of his belly, and that he was wearing an extremely long shirt in order to cover carrying the gun in a place so difficult to conceal.
Undaunted by such details, Sawyer added: “Had this event been real, Joey would have been killed in the first five seconds or there’s the chance the bad guy would have simply taken the gun from him.” How does she know this? Is she omniscient?
The left misses the real deterrent value of our second amendment rights. The real value is not really the actual act of self defense using a firearm. The real value in the second amendment (in places like Texas where it actually exists) is the public knowledge that potential crime victims may well be armed.
In New York or DC, the likelihood that a potential crime victim is armed is almost zero. Bad guys know that. A crook with a gun is omnipotent. An armed bad guy entering a home in New York or DC almost certainly has the unchallenged power of life and death over all inside and he knows that in advance.
An armed bad guy entering a home in Texas faces the significant possibility of meeting superior fire power. Armed home invasion there is likely suicide. And here is the key folks – it doesn’t matter whether or not it is actually true. Our hypothetical Texas home is protected by the fact that the owner MIGHT be armed more than by the actual use of a weapon in the defense of the home.
Bad guys will ALWAYS be armed. Gun control laws only disarm and restrict the law abiding – and they do so in a way that publicly announces to bad guys that the government has made it open season on the newly disarmed populace.
To summarize – you are protected by your right to own a firearm (in places where it exists) even if you personally choose not to.
i’ve carried a gun, privately and professionally for many years, and have experience with a wide variety of handguns, modern and antique, from a late 19th century .450 webley “metropolitan police” revolver to modern police/military sidearms, i’d like to show ms. sawyer what a civilian shooter can do with a pistol. i agree with the writer, “paintball” time does not count, nor do i carry my pistol where i have to dig nder layers of clothing to get at it.
I wonder if Diane speculated how many of those students would have even had a chance to survive without a gun? The bottom line, a gun will not always save lives, but it at least gives you a chance … a much greater chance than those same students without a gun at all. Here are a few other points that slanted the show:
1. What if the gunman was going from classroom to classroom and the student with the gun had a chance to hide and wait for him to enter?
2. What if 4 students had a gun what would be the chance that one of them would have stopped the gunman?
3. The gunman always went for the one student with the gun right at the beginning. What if he didn’t and that student got a shot on him while he was facing in another direction?
4. The show pointed out the mistakes the students made, but the gunman was perfect. Not pointing out in real life that the gunman would also make similar type mistakes which makes things more balanced.
Sawyer and her liberal friends understand and value freedom, just not someone else’s. If you cannot afford to live in a gated community and have armed bodyguards, you are just too stupid to have a firearm. Basically, the Democrat party position, freedom is for your betters, not for you.
Except when I was in the military, I have never carried a gun and probably would not do so even if my state (Iowa) adopted concealed carry legislation. But I have no fear of my fellow law-abiding citizens carrying guns. I know the criminals already have guns and it would be reassuring to know that at least some non-criminals other that police officers had guns, too, both for the right of actual self-defense and the more important idea that a criminal will not be able to safely assume his victim is unarmed.
First familiarize yourself with the weapon of choice and it doesn’t matter what it is, if you are unfamiliar firing it, handling it, using it you will not do well. That means you should have a few days of just shooting the weapon, then drawing and aiming, then drawing/aiming/shooting… and any drawbacks of your choice will become apparent. Put a few hundred rounds through your firing platform and you will know how it acts, reacts, feels and learn to respond to it.
CCW is about changing the equation of a criminal seeing an unarmed victim to now having the potential of a hole showing up on their own body. Strangely enough, it doesn’t matter what size the hole is… the equation change is a deterrent to getting shot. That means, for most, small, concealable, snag-free… and practice, practice, practice. For the physical parts there are many weapons that are designed to be snag-free (Seecamp, NAA, Kel-Tec, Kahr, small frame Glocks) and if you can get to a store carrying a variety (good luck!) and get a feel for each, you can help determine hand size to grip, weight and then expected recoil.
Then there is practicing, did I mention that? Most important!
Defending yourself is a positive liberty granted by the Law of Nature that is a positive boon to society as it gives you the right to defend yourself from being enslaved or merely killed by those who do not care about your rights or liberty. Learning to exercise any liberty, be it speech, firearms or transactions with others, requires due diligence and learning about what it is you are going to do and how to safely do so without endangering yourself, others or society. That is your responsibility as a citizen and a person. Telling others to disarm in the face of threats is being imprisoned to one’s fears… and that iron grip makes you a subject, not a citizen.
Maybe Ms. Sawyer should have perused the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog if she wanted to be objective (big if).
http://claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
OK, I am going to sell my guns and just call Dianne if I get into trouble. I feel much better now.
Guess those 2.3 million gun owners that use a firearm to stop a violent crime EVERY YEAR must be wrong…..
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html
Yah…I saw that hit piece too. In every case, within seconds, the gunman went straight at the person in the class who was wearing the gun. Afterall, random crazed killers always go directly to those carrying a concealed weapon.
Its the typical leftist argument: If it isn’t perfect its worthless. Guns don’t admit a bulletproof energy shield to protect you from harm so they’re worthless in self defense. A person new to self defense with a pistol makes defense therefore guns are worthless because they aren’t foolproof.
I guess that’s why they ignore all of the problems in their own ideas.
Besides, if a gunman barges into a room shooting and killing people he’s likely to try to kill you anyways, gun or not. The weapon at least gives you a chance to take him out. Otherwise you can either jump out a window to save yourself or make a suicidal charge with the hope that you and the others can subdue him before you die of blood loss.
That was funny. The second scenario perfectly illustrated what the stats Sawyer left out prove: guns in the hands of private citizens are more often used to prevent crime. How does junk like that get called journalism?
Unfortunately Sawyer is winning the cultural debate because the Left owns and dominates every cultural center of power. I just had this conversation with a good friend who is a card carrying leftist hippie. She just doesn’t understand the mindset. She is decent enough to admit that my point of view has more facts and reason behind it, but she thinks the “evolution” of society is moving us away from the independent armed citizen. She was also honest enough to admit that this is not what the Founders wanted for America, but it what she wants and where our culture is moving.
Mrs Sawyer’s premise seems to be that carrying a gun won’t prevent violent crime. If she’s right then why do the police carry weapons? Correctional officers? The military?
I’d personally rather have some form of opportunity to defend myself than to be at the mercy of somebody else.
Liberals are idiots! They make the best victims, too!
regards
A free people? You’re free to agree. Free to disarm. Free to lie down and put your head between your knees. What the heck more do you want?
After my home was broken into and items were stolen, I told the police officers that I was buying a gun. I will shoot first then ask questions. All three officers told me that it was a good idea, that they believe in gun ownership for self defense. I was told that if the intruder turned to leave I couldn’t shoot them in the back!
I wonder how many police officers Ms. Sawyer went through before she found the ones that disagreed with private gun ownership.
I [by the grace of GOD] got my phone call into C-Span Washington Journal this morning and gave them a small piece of my mind.
The 9/11 terrorists used box-cutters and NOT GUNS. REMEMBER.
If the Pilots had owned guns…they could have saved so many lives.
GUNS CAN SAVE.
People who are criminals will get guns no matter how many gun laws are employed. REMEMBER.
What Diane did not do was arm ALL of the students. Then, if one missed, all the others would be able to take a shot. Knowing that, the shooter might think twice about entering the room. That part of the equation doesn’t seem to matter to liberals. Really, has any one every entered, shot up, and gone on to the next room in a room full of armed cops? No? Gee, why not?
After 9/11, when they were taking nail files off teenage girls in order to keep the skies “safe”, I wondered why they didn’t just give every passenger a taser. That would seriously stop another event in its’ tracks. And I wonder if disarming citizens isn’t a violation of our civil rights when it keeps us from our right to “life”.
TO: AWR Hawkins, et al.
RE: Heh
“Carrying a Gun Wouldn’t Necessarily Get You Out of a Shooting.” — ABC 20/20, as cited by AWR Hawkings
It’s not supposed to. Rather, it’s supposed (1) to put you on equal or superior footing with a potential assailant or (2) make a potential assailant think twice or even three times about assaulting you in the first place….you might have a gun.
As the saying goes….
God made men. Colt made men equal.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Once the shooting starts, you are either a combatant or you are a pop-up target. -- CBPelto]
Ack, made some grammar mistakes and left out words.
should be: Guns don’t emit bulletproof energy shields
and: A person new to self defense makes mistakes
They are angered by the fact that we’re self reliant, it’s as simple as that. Sawyer and company want us to rely upon the government. But why should I rely on them when I can simply carry a defense pistol and rely upon myself?
Another example of gun use as a deterent would be Samoli pirates! How many ships would be hijacked if they knew they might face an armed crew? Let’s see, take a very large container ship worth hundreds of millions of dollars, staff it with less than a hundred unarmed sailors, float it past a nation of criminals, and gee, what could go wrong?
Arm the ships with AK 47s, and you would need only 2 or 3 of the crew to be able to protect them, and I’m betting we see less and less pirates.
Hawkins is right on. I saw the 20/20 episode and these kids could do no right in Sawyer’s eyes. Yet she gets a pass over equating toy guns with real ones? The anti-gun agenda of that show was sickening.
Diane Sawyer “reporting”? There’s the first problem.
One more reason that validates my choice to have stopped watching 20/20 20 years ago.
It is time to admit the real reason for the bias against guns by the left. The primary reason for the 2nd Amendment is so “We the People” can prevent our own government from trashing the constitution and replacing our freedom with tyranny. The guns of private citizens is a variable that cannot be calculated by anyone who wishes to oppress. Remember, the framers of the constitution had just thrown off an oppressive government and did it primarily with privately owned guns intially. Therefore, they gave every American the right to bear arms.
I noticed that they never ran the scenario with no guns in the room – against the obviously well trained SWAT cop doing the shooting. How many get away alive in that case?
HLH said “They are angered by the fact that we’re self reliant, it’s as simple as that.” HLH, I think they believe that evil is a product of wrong institutions and not a potential inherent to human nature. I think they don’t even know or believe there is such a thing as human nature, but if only the right institutions are created, populated and directed by the right people, then the world will be a magic place of safety and beer for rain water. Some of what I am saying owes a lot to Thomas Sowell and his book, A Conflict of Visions.
Diana Sawyer unlike most Americans can afford a private security man armed to the teeth to protect her.
If SHE the PUBLIC FIGURE is in Danger the police WILL rush to protect HER.
Out here in flyover country and the land of the gun totin’ redneck we cannot hire guards, rely on the police who are at best thirty minutes away and may just not find your address.
WE cannot just sit around being raped, robbed, tortured and killed just because Diane Sawyer has a leftist anti gun agenda.
Anyone who has needed a policman and the police came three hours later understands just what the meaning of helpless is.
I’ll keep my evil guns if you don’t mind Diane at least I can protect my family that way.
What Swayer also fails to consider is that a person with some experience in carrying a firearm would likely select a position of strategy when entering the classroom.
Diane Sawyer simply has not lived in Israel. Many people carry concealed weapons there and have saved countless lives by the use of their weapons. All the “tractor” terrorists were brought down by private citizens. Attacks on hikers have been minimized in their number and effects by the use of private weapons. No group of school children ever leaves on an outdoor excursion without very well armed guards and parents who are toting.
Warfare rarely provides a perfect outcome for either side, but unarmed civilians have no chance at all. Any other conclusion is so stupid as to beggar intelligence.
I remember an ABC expose on GMC truck gas tanks that would explode in flames in a crash. Nice film of pickups burning.
Turns out they had to get an FX guy to put a squib in the tank to light the fuel off and get the film they “needed”. Public apologies and promises only to report the facts, ma’am, just the facts. After they were caught.
Any reenactment of a shooting on TV by definition has some level of fakery…they aren’t using live rounds and everyone knows a guy is coming through the door with a weapon. Just a little more fakery and poof! Everyone is totally helpless.
71% of those polled think Obama is going to “fix” the economy. He’ll fix it, for sure, but I don’t think he has the same plan in mind as those polled. More fakery, and I expect more than a few didn’t give any thought counsel of the oracle Sawyer.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Mrs Sawyer has the right to her beliefs. Mrs Sawyer has the right to believe, erroneously, that the police are obligated to protect her. Myself, I can just imagine being one of those unarmed victims in Binghamton with the door blocked. There was no place to run, no place to hide, and no way to fight back. The cops only waited outside for an hour before entering the building…
I’ll take care of myself, thanks, sweetie. How much you want to bet that Mrs Sawyer, like so many other “important” people, has a bodyguard.
Her life is more important than yours. If you are stupid enough to believe that, you may be stupid enough to follow her advice.
This exemplifies the condescending elitism of the Old Media. How in the hell do they know if I am capable of carrying and effectively using a concealed handgun? How dare they presume that I might not need to have a concealed weapon for protection because of my job, my neigborhood, or whatever?
This is why so many Americans HATE the Old Media. Elitist scum!
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
What ABC News pointedly didn’t run is what I would dub the “Virginia Tech” scenario.
Have a student with a concealed weapons hear shots in another classroom, draw his weapon, and cover the door. Then tell me how far the shooter gets through the door.
Alternately, think about the possible reaction of CCH to seeing an agitated man pull a weapon or enter the hallway brandishing the weapon on the way to a classroom. Frankly, if I was a student or faculty member with a CCH and saw an agitated man pull a weapon as he entered a class room in front of me, my immediate reaction would be to draw my sidearm and draw a bead on the back of his skull and close the distance.
It isn’t always that the CCH closest to the threat is immediately on top of it, or that in a mass shooting, the perp will always have the element of surprise on his side.
I’m sure a lot of you right-wing clingers to religion, guns, and the Constitution will now do the correct thing, if you haven’t already, and join the NRA. I did yesterday. Thanks CBS and Mmmmmsssssss Sawyer. We were always accused during the election of saying that they would come to try to take away our right to effectively defend ourselves. Well, here they come.
Gene Pitney sang Liberty Valance: “But the point of a gun is the only law, Liberty understood,when it came to shooting straight and fast, he was mighty good.” When “the point of a gun is the only law somebody understands…the point of a gun is the only remedy. Why is that so hard to understand?
Helllooooooo!
I agree with this assessment of part 1, what why didn’t you say anything about the 2nd part where they gave a kid some cash at a gun show and he came out with a veritable arsenal? No background check, not even an ID check, no problem.
I didn’t see the show, AP, but if CBS gave a kid some money to buy jewelry at a jewelry store, wouldn’t the kid come out with a bag of jewelry, a veritable sack of jewelry?
There is only one thing these nitwits understand: Ratings. If we would just stop watching tv and spend more time with our kids on activities, blowhards like diane would vanish. The media is totally subservient to the democratic party. if the 53 million of us who did not vote for the messiah just turn off the boob tube, they would get the message. Otherwise, they will keep getting funding to put crap like this on the tube.
Jerry at 30:
Good point. If the media in this country worked with facts instead of assumptions . . . aw what’s the use: it’s all about social engineering with them, isn’t it?
So Sawyer would have hid like children when the shooting starts? Should we scream while scampering for cover or would Sawyer also have us take our punishment quietly? The anti-gun bias of this show is crazy! Who in their right mind would leave off carrying a gun for self-defense just because Diane Sawyer says so? I will continue to carry my Springfield XD Sub Compact throughout my day (as I have carried a gun of some sort for self-defense for 14 years now), following the credo: “It’s better to have a gun and not need it than need it and not have it.”
At the end, there was a comment that they had been unable to find any study relating positive effects of owning or using a gun.
What a crock!
All they had to do was obtain any copy of the NRA monthly magazine “American Rifleman”. There are at least a half-dozen stories each month about how private citizens successfully used a gun to defend themselves or others.
I carry a pistol, a cop is just too heavy. Besides, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.
There is a very real reason why your weapon and hoslter should be as idiot proof as they can be. When Sh*t hits, your IQ drops 75 points.
That being said, and pay very freaking close attention here children ( with my favorite Chuck as an exception ), IF YOU DON”T TRAIN IN THAT FRAME OF MIND, WHEN THE TIME COMES YOU WILL FAIL.
Now, put someone in who has, and he/she will blast the crap out of who ever, every…. single …. time.
Thank me, I just saved your life with that advice.
PS:
The police are there to arrest the person doing the shooting, not get killed to save your sorry unarmed ass. They are under ZERO obligation to die or get shot for you. Ooooohhhhh….. so much for feeling all snuggly warm and safe now, huh?
TO: HLH
RE: Maybe….
….Not.
Pardon my combat-arms-training-cum-military-intelligence-’preparation of the battlefield’ ‘paranoia’, but today there’s that report out from the Homeland Security folks, mimicking the MIAC’s statements of February on how anyone who disagrees with the Federal government is a potential home-grown ‘terrorist’ and a threat to national security.
20/20′s argument could be viewed as, what we in Army would call, a supporting attack, i.e., ‘Don’t own a gun!’, [as it might get in the way of the government]. We saw this ploy used in Germany in the mid-to-late 1930s.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[I believe in coincidence. I just don't trust it. -- Garrick, ST:DS9, Cardacian tailor/tinker/soldier/spy]
TO: Old Soldier
RE: Another ‘Scenario’….
….should have been run that had half of the classroom equipped with weapons. As well as the instructor and any assistants.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns. -- Marine Corps Rules for Gunfighting]
44. Dark Helmet
You are welcome. Unfortunately, advise is generally worth what you pay for it [grin].
Now … if you could spare 33 cents for an extra round of 40 S&W, I will get back to working on my sight picture.
–The UnPatriot
Will work for ammo.
I used to be a leftist, on some issues, and a Democrat. 9/11 started me down a path of thinking, and everything changed.
The left is very nervous about the general population being armed for one big unspoken reason. Oh, many of them are being honest when they fear having so many citizens with guns creates more opportunities for gun violence. And actually this is true. More guns out there probably mean more guns will be used, for good and ill.
But the big unspoken reason in liberals’ seamy little hearts is they believe it’s quite possible one day the people may tire of overtaxation, taxation without representation, abridgment of property rights, open borders, gang warfare in our cities’ ghettos, continual overstepping by the federal government, disrespect for traditional values, and the current socialistic drive that will mean less freedom for us all. And how will they, the leftist government, control the revolt that follows if the people have guns? That’s the unspoken possibility they really fear.
Let’s just cut to the distilled litmus test:
Hate the 2nd Amendment, fascist? Put your money where your fat mouth is-Post a sign by your door that reads “Gun-free home.”
Then have your neighbor put an NRA sticker on his front door.
Who gets robbed first?
The defense rests.
Ronnie, my thoughts exactly. Without being armed, the students in the class had virtually no chance. The armed student might not have been successful and prevented the attack from occurring but at least they had the CAPACITY to try.
Diane Sawyer’s piece is essentially saying, you can’t succeed so why bother trying? Think how far we would have come if the human race used that logic in all their decisions.
Wasn’t 60 Minutes the objective organization that staged the leaking/exploding Chevy pickup gas tank piece?
What Diane Sawyer and ABC fail to realize is how many of us do not care, and do not pay any attention to anything they broadcast, think, or believe. Everyday they become less important and less relevant to more and more people. The last time I watched ABC (or CBS or NBC for that matter) was a couple of years ago. It has been so liberating and so satisfying!
We have been around this block many times in the past. The liberals want us to be like Europe and now we have an administration that agrees with them. They want to get rid of (register guns as Pelosi says) all guns and remove any christian symbol from this nation. According to the Administration we and citizens only.
We must fight for the second amendment with all we have. If we don’t we will look like most to the European countries and not have access to guns. Sawyer however, does not report the number of crimes stopped by people that are armed.
My last work is if the balloon goes up and I need to climb into a foxhole liberals will not be welcome. They don’t have our back.
UnPatriot (?)
Sometimes the best advice is in fact, free. Here’s another unsolicited tip. Picture yourself in a dark room, with someone else there about to murder your child. You have one chance and one shot or they will die. Now pull your weapon and fire.
46 Chuck
Heard about the new “threat” this morning.
They can peel the constitution from my cold, dead hands.
–The Unpatriot
This indoctrination is just part of the overall enslavement of America that is founded on government ‘education’. Of course the cops don’t want their inmates to have guns. We ought to know our place and drop this ‘citizen’ bull.
As to #38, you have clearly been subject to the indoctrination because your default assumption is that people don’t need and shouldn’t have guns. Google “The Gun IS Civilization” for an enlightening essay. Until the last couple of generations, guns have been as prevalent as shoes. They’re useful tools. You teach (well, YOU don’t… I’ll say “We teach”) our kids to read as soon as they’re able. Why not tools? Of course it’s a powerful tool and takes care to teach properly. Driving a car is prevalent. You have no problem putting a 16 year old with friends and a cell phone behind the wheel of a 2,000 pound semi-guided missile, but guns are EEEEEEEEEVVVVIIIIIILLLLLL? Gimme a break. Citizens don’t fear their neighbors. Only inmates do.
I have had a great laugh today given by the superior logic of my gun totin’ friends.
We’ll keep our guns and freedom, the lefties can have the “Change”.
Sawyer also fails (or is unwilling) to recognize the hard truth of John Lott’s book “More Guns, Less Crime.” In virtually EVERY instance where local government eased restrictions on private carry permits, rates of violent crime went down, substantially and immediately. Perps are simply not as willing to perpetrate crime upon a potentially armed citizenry. Another case of crackerjack reporting by a broadcast network news operation. It wasn’t enough to get all these Dems elected– now they feel compelled to champion their totalitarian policies.
TO: Dark Helmet, et al.
RE: Why….
…am I suddenly reminded of the FBI guy in Clancy’s Executive Orders who pictures a similar scenario before he ‘draws and fires’ at the practice range?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Whereas Joey had learned how to fire. He had not been taught how to (1) carry and (2) draw.
I stopped watching Sawyer and basically all MSM TV years ago.
So I would like to send along a comment of appreciation to all of the valiant pro-constituionists that will suffer through reading and watching left wing extremists like Sawyer in order to provide us information on what they say.
54. Dark Helmet:
“Sometimes the best advice is in fact, free. Here’s another unsolicited tip. Picture yourself in a dark room, with someone else there about to murder your child. You have one chance and one shot or they will die. Now pull your weapon and fire.”
Except that I have at least two shots since I was able to purchase the extra round from the discount you kindly provided.
–The UnPatriot
More tea anyone?
After reading this article and understanding just how offensive my guns are to the Left I’ve made a decision: I’m carrying two guns today instead of one.
There is no question or a sliver of doubt now Obama and the Media (same – same )and far his left Wing are going to go after our Guns .
I suspect many of us will only have them taken away after we lose a Fire Fight or run out of ammo but never before ….
Remember every single radical Dictator , Socialist and Marxist regimes took their Countrymen’s Guns before they could rule Completely with a Iron bloody hand .
38. AP wrote:
I agree with this assessment of part 1, what why didn’t you say anything about the 2nd part where they gave a kid some cash at a gun show and he came out with a veritable arsenal? No background check, not even an ID check, no problem.
39. Fred Beloit responded:
I didn’t see the show, AP, but if CBS gave a kid some money to buy jewelry at a jewelry store, wouldn’t the kid come out with a bag of jewelry, a veritable sack of jewelry?
Peter remarks: I sisn’t have the displeasure of watching 20/20 either, but anyone care to bet that even if any kind of ID or background check did occur, it was probably edited out of the broadcast? Because I find it highly unlikely, given the info I have been told about gun shows (never been to one myself), that NO ID or background check would be performed at all. I understand that a licensed gun dealer’s license to sell is on the line of they do not follow the regs.
Note that one of the last points made by Sawyer is that a civilian with a gun attempting to take down an armed attacker may harm an innocent bystander by mistake.
Somehow, this is an unacceptable risk when trying to stop a gunman who is shooting innocent bystanders on purpose.
I treasure my concealed carry gun because it is a tool that provides me with a chance of defending myself against me stronger than me or in a group, who are intent on taking my life or the life of my family. To mock such a tool (and that’s all handguns are – they are a tool) is to mock the lives that tool can be used to save.
Complete honesty on the part of 20/20 would have been to film the class with NO guns to see if their unarmed students would have survived if an unopposed gunman entered the classroom and could take his time making sure to get everyone, then show the same classroom with EVERYONE armed to see the difference. Sure, with the element of surprise, there would be some victims, but if everyone was armed, the chances of the shooter getting all of the students would go down to nothing. Lefties just can’t face reality.
I did not see the show – I do not watch MSM news and their “news documentaries. I understand “60 Minutes” (another show I stopped watching years ago)had a segment about gun-buying during the past year. Combined with bills and threatened bills in Congress right now, I think it should be obvious to those who follow this issue what is about to happen. Obama’s handlers have decided to bypass Congressional debate about these bills and try to build public sympathy for their position – in order to put pressure on Democrats in Congress who are balking at what is being proposed.
This tells me that they are quite aware that they own the media, as well as education. It sounds as if the show was slickly put together and targeted for the younger audience. Obama and his handlers are trying to get their legislative attacks on the 2nd Amendment leveraged by their base of support.
One of the least talked about things they want to include in their legislation is to make it a felony if you do not report your gun as being stolen, lost, or bequeathed to someone else (gifted). That will be part and parcel of the requirement to register all guns – all firearms. So, you have to register them and then when their goons come a calling to get them if you say the dog ate them they will arrest you. They know that people will cache their weapons and ammunition and then tell the goons they lost them or they were stolen.
Make no mistake about it: this crowd believes the Constitution to be a deeply flawed document. They don’t respect it, and they would like to be done with it as soon as they can effect that end. They know that what stands between their goals and your love for liberty is the 2nd Amendment and an armed populace that will revolt.
The dickering around with the self-defense issue is a canard. It’s kicking sand in your eyes so that support for the 2nd Amendment will be eroded. They want to convince you that you are unworthy of being a free people who are capable of defending yourselves. But what they don’t want to reveal are their true motives behind this obfuscation.
This 20/20 anti-gun point of view isn’t for the American gun owner like us, it’s meant for the millions of sheeple people. This is the beginning of a setup to ban and restrict fire arms for the citizens at large in the United States of America. This is an in your face movement with the MSM (not FOX, I will explain later) and our newly elected government to soften the public to an out right ban.
1. The newly elected government classified used brass from the military classified as surplus needed to be destroyed and not sold to manufactures for the civilian market causing a shortage of remanufactured ammo of some calibers. Note this was very quickly reversed and the brass was flowing to the manufactures again after about 30 dry days costing millions in lost sales. Sneaky stuff right no ammo no bang from your gun and no protection from the bad guys.
2. 90% of all illegal guns used in the Mexico come from the United States and the Obama/Holder/Hillary administration wants the general public to believe this BS. Bill Press a nationally syndicated commentator had a write up on this vary subject, my baby African Grey needs lessons from this guy he was parroting the party line very well.
Ok I had enough and emailed Bill Press a reply to the B.S and Carbon Copied the Glen Beck show. Never received a response from Bill Press, ‘SURPRISE’ but I did get a basic email from the Beck show. You know the one; we get lots of emails and may not reply. Well four days after sending the email FOX News did a good job exposing this for what it is BS. This is part of the email that I sent below I left out the Bill of Rights part I think we know that part here. Enjoy
Sent: Mon 3/30/2009 7:15 AM
Dear Bill Press,
I know that you as a Liberal person sees the Constitution and the bill of rights as an obstruction to your beliefs however maybe you should read it sometime just for laughs and giggles. I’ve pasted a copy of the Bill of Rights for your perusal hoping that you may be more informed on Civil rights not just Amendment I. You do believe in Civil Rights Bill don’t you?
Furthermore your ignorance of what an assault weapon really, confounds millions of our simple minds could you please expand on your misinformed definition of an assault weapon. I have a great Idea Bill and it’s free this time but google over to the BAFT web site and search for it. A journalist researching and reporting on facts and not emotions is a novel idea wouldn’t you agree Bill. Facts make the best venue for informed decisions and you sir don’t have a clue on facts concerning firearms in my opinion.
Your article in WND speaks volumes of firearm ignorance.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92987
If you have been able to read this far I’ll give you a couple of facts, the Mexican Drug cartels don’t use civilian semi-automatic weapons per-sea they use American and Russian military grade full-auto weapons supplied by stealing from the Mexican government armories or buying from South American countries and not going to the gun store or gun show and filling out the paper work with the NICS check, remember they have lot’s of money from illegal DRUG sales.
The ban on assault weapons that you and others want will do nothing to help or save the lives of the American people or the Mexican people from the murderous drug cartels and that’s a FACT you choose to ignore Bill check the crime stats from the FBI.
Time to be an American first Bill and not afraid of what made this country great.
Take care,
54. Dark Helmet wrote:
Picture yourself in a dark room, with someone else there about to murder your child. You have one chance and one shot or they will die. Now pull your weapon and fire.
Peter writes: Hey, helemtman, how about a realistic scenario, because any trained gun owner is going to know better than to shoot a weapon in a dark room. You must have the target in your sights before pulling the trigger.
A more likely scenario: Picture yourself in a dark room, with someone else there about to murder your child. You have one chance and one shot or they will die. You are wearing night-vision goggles. NOW pull your weapon and fire.
I do not know if this point has been raised, but it is highly improbable that a crazed killer is going to have the skills of the “perp” in the 20/20 series, and quite probable that a CCW holder will have enough hours and rounds to make a big difference. If I had been at V-Tech, with my .357 and within 21 feet of the shooter, (and could have gained composure}, I could have brought down that “perp” with a head or torso shot. I have been shooting for over 50 years.
I did see the tail end of the show and dismissed most of what I remember because it is the MSM.
The tests were rigged in a way that didn’t reflect typical situations. In the tests the shooter is a law enforcement officer and firearms instructor. In most cases the shooter would be someone with little or no training and poor accuracy whose strategy would either be “spray and pray” or walking around the room shooting the people closest to him.
The test would have been vastly more realistic had one of the newly trained students been the shooter going up against other students. In that scenario I suspect the defending students would have had much better luck and the outcome would have been very different. No doubt that is precisely why that scenario was not offered.
Thanks Diane Saywer…you cemented my belief that ABC is hopelessly out of touch with most “thinking” Americans. Your so called “report” was a farce…many others have already pointed out the obvious….the “report” was extremly biased and full of wrong assumptions. I have my CCL and excercise my 2nd Admendment rights daily…..I feel it my duty as a citizen to do so……GOT SIG???….If not,I urge you to do so…we need more good Americans armed.
The MSM and our left leaning government just wants complete controll over every aspect of our lives. What better way than to advance fear of private citizens owning guns and using them to defend home and family. Only government can do that.
TBranin / Big Jim:
I’ve viewed the video. The “perp” was a SWAT cop who made a perfect dynamic entry. He moves through the door fast, he scans from the long-wall to the left for the one set-up kid he knows is there. He doesn’t stop moving while he’s shooting. I bet he had to stop himself from shouting “clear” after taking out the kid with the gun. Excellent technique – total B.S. test.
Here in Indiana there has been a glut of applications for concealed carry permits. It took me 8 weeks to receive mine rather than the usual 4. This started the day after Obambi got elected.
I say speak for yourself Diane,we’ll be the judge of that. Part of gun training is safety,so if you don’t know what you’re talking about,shut up.
I haven’t liked Diane Sawyer ever since her 1993 interview with Marge Schott.
This was the dumbest bit ever. A police officer sitting in the first row probably would have been shot too. A civil engineer may know how to design or fix a bridge. But if he’s on the middle of one and it collapses, what good is it going to do him.
Bubblehead has it right. Show two scenarios in a home, both being broken into by a convicted serial rapist. Both familes consist of a husband, wife, and 2 daughters. In one family, they own a gun and one of the parents is trained. The other family does not own a gun. Heck, make Diane the wife of family #2.
Then ask her how she likes the 2nd Amendment.
If I am ever caught in a situation with a mad shooter, I will be grateful for any and every law abiding citizen packing.
Diane Sawyer is just another establishnebt liberal hack(hag),desperately trying to raise her ratings,in a declining media. Only liberals will take her anti-gun propaganda seriously. The NRA has won the intellectualand political arguments about gun ownwership.Lte the hag keep ranting away her remaining credibility.
I am now a proud owner of a CPL. I give thanks to the new Congress who have pushed me to signing up. I am disgusted with the left telling me how to live my life. I live by the rules and receieve nothing for my conservative lifestyle. Diana doesn’t live in the same communities that have the gang, drug, illegals running wild in the streets. Protecting myself and others is a great gift given to us by our founding fathers who were much wiser that the jerks in Congress.
TO: All
RE: Another ‘Turn of the [Proverbial] Screw’
I’m seeing this item as an adjunct of the report issued by the DHS on 7 Apr 09, in which they apparently state that anyone who disagrees with the federal government is a potential threat to national security.
Here’s the ‘critical’ paragraph….
My point here is that, based on this paragraph of the report, ANYONE who disagrees with Roe v. Wade, or even Reynolds v. Simms (1964) is a threat to the federal government.
This ties in closely with the idea that the so-called ‘mainstream media’ should begin a new campaign that peopel should not own weapons.
Am I a ‘radical threat’ to my country?
I asked that of my Congressional Delegation.
I’ve yet to hear back from them. But I’ll give them 48 hours from now to respond. If they fail that. They fail an important test.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. -- Abraham Lincoln]
Interestingly, Sawyer’s libertarian colleague John Stossel already did several reports on gun rights. I wonder how he will respond.
P.S. As I’ve stated in other threads on this venue….
….the Obama administration has less than two years to implement their ‘plan’…..whatever that may be. Come November 2010, there will be another election. And, if that election is a fair one, the odds are that we’ll see some party other than the Democrats in control of Congress.
Therefore, whatever plan Obama has, if nefarious in nature, MUST be in operation before that occurs.
I see this ABC report and the report from DHS as possibly being integral parts of such a plan.
Time will tell…..
65. Henry Lynton:
Note that one of the last points made by Sawyer is that a civilian with a gun attempting to take down an armed attacker may harm an innocent bystander by mistake.
Somehow, this is an unacceptable risk when trying to stop a gunman who is shooting innocent bystanders on purpose.
Classic!!!
TO: Ms. Attitude
RE: Obviously….
…..Diane Sawyers wants US all to ‘take counsel of our fears’.
The proverbial problem becuse which fear should we assess as being more horrific.
And she plants in our minds what SHE thinks….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Confusion, indecision, fear: these are my weapons. -- Adolf Hitler]
P.S. Diane Sawyers is apparently a student of that fellow…..
I was in LA during the Rodney King riots, and I will never forget how many gobs of Hollywood scum went on a desperate search for guns for their own protection. If this twit, Diane Sawyer, ever found herself in a Va Tech situation, she would realize immediately how stupid she is. But you see, that’s the thing with these people: they don’t believe that they will ever find themselves in such a yucky situation with those yucky Wal Mart shoppers.
Beneath contempt: that’s what you are to her.
Hey Diane: same here.
Who are the advertisers who supported this show? I want to un-support companies who hate the Bill of Rights.
Gun control= the ability to hit a perp five times in the head, before he hits the floor, and if you can’t do that, practice, practice, practice!
It is not the bad guys I am worried about but the right wing nuts with guns who are a danger to their families and neighbors
HA!
Ms. Sawyer and the people that set this up are soooooo full of “stuff”.
A trained person (such as an NRA PPITH or PPOTH student)wouldn’t put themselves where the “defender” was placed. Nor would they have their pistol in such a tactically unsound position.
Yeah, ABC and 0/20 set this up for a fail. Reminds me of the “exploding pick up truck” from a few years back…
Here’s hoping that Wayne Lapierre of the NRA gets interviewed by ABC and calls them out like he did to CNN.
And no. That was not a spelling mistake.
I intented it to be 0/20…as in Zero/Twenty vision.
TO: Alice Smythe, et al.
RE: REEEEAaaally….
….want to have a ‘personal impact’ on television?
Disconnect.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Save yourselves. Kill your television.]
TO: All
RE: The Shadow….
…doesn’t have a ‘ghost’ of a chance in the real world.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. If he/she REALLY believes in what they stated here, they’d be living somewhere MILES away from any other human being.
Kevin wrote: “One more reason that validates my choice to have stopped watching 20/20 20 years ago.”
Wait, that’s overkill. 20/20 is the only TV news show that I DO watch. But only for John Stossel’s segments. My DVR records the show for me, and I skip directly to Stossel’s part. If he’s not on the show that week, I just delete the recording.
Actually, I may not need to do that anymore. I’ve just discovered that I can watch all of his segments here:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/stossel
Take a look and you’ll see why he’s one of the two or three journalists I actually respect.
20/20 is STILL on the air?
Who effin’ knew?
Didn’t it used to follow “Dynasty” or something?
The ABC special showed a gun toting average citizen couldn’t use the firearm in time, and was more risk to himself and everyone else than the shooter. That seems to have upset a lot of people commenting here, who insist it was “staged”, that a “trained” citizen would have “reacted differently” etc.
But the kid was trained and had more experience than most states require. He was startled just as any average person would be. He fumbled as an average person would, unless he had some special shoulder hoslter like James bond. England may have more break ins, but the streets are safer and there are no more knife attacks than here. Guns are for government only and ought to be taken away from people that they belong in a classroom.
The comments here are unbelievable: one guy Chuck Pelton, compares Diane Sawyer to Hitler and tells someone else to kill their TV (meaning “disconnestc” but look at his angry words). Another mr cgnightmare says a “trained” person would have sat in a different seat etc. Just what we need: “I’m sorry I need that seat so I can draw on anyone that comes in.” Mr. Rocketeer thinks everyone in the classroom ought to be armed. An old saloon had a better “no guns” policy than you guys want. Twinerkilo says he can hit a “perp five times in the head before he hits the floor.” Ohhhhh, tough man. Are you guys for real? Do any of you have children? Or a girlfriend? Where do you live–the backwoods of Idaho? No woman would ever tolerate this macho bs from any boyfriend or husband.
I don’t want sweaty, itchy-fingered, tractor-driving red-necks, or knit cap wearing charles broson wanna be’s in a classroom with guns. Period. That inlcudes most of the people commenting here.
20/20 has long degraded into a more tabloid-like show. I stopped watching it years ago & this is a perfect example why.
I was training w/ some Karate Guys at the PD range and they were teaching how to disarm a man w/ a gun when they asked me to “volunteer”. So, I loaded my pistol and assumed the position they requested. Funny, they passed on the demo on me to the rest of the class! Maybe, they should use a similar situation and let me hide in the class!
White Helmet, I dunno, “sweaty, itchy-fingered, tractor-driving rednecks” are my kind of guys, esp. when some armed nutcase is looking for his 15 minutes of fame as the latest serial killer on the news. I agree with you about the “knit cap wearing Charles Bronson wanna be’s” in the classroom, they are a little obvious and may attract a 15-min-fame-type or two.
Hi Chuck,
As you well know sir, you will fight the way you train.
You have to mean it.
I mean this, I’m glad you’re on our side.
DH
White helmet:Listen poltroon: I don’t want to live in a country, where effete, lily -livered,ignorant castrates such as you,look down on those courageous enough to defend themselves from lethal violence with guns.However, that’s the price I pay for living in a free country. That guns save more innocent lives than they take is an incontrovertible fact,that the Sawyer agitprop tried to disprove with a staged presentation aimed at wimps .Change your handle to “White Flag”, paint a yellow stripe down your back,bend over,and wait for a thug to give you what cowards like you deserve;and stop wasting our time!
#90 SHADOW: SHADOW OF WHAT? A BRAIN? Those “right wing nuts” will prove a useful corrective to the ACORN goons when Obama turns them loose in the national guard armories,so that they can intimidate voters,and make Obama the Chavez of the USA.
SO:
(1) You’ve just put on a “protective facemask”, wearing an overlong Tshirt and have your new gun in a thumbreak holster that you’ve never really had a chance to get familiar with in a position you wouldn’t carry it…
and (2) A gunman, who happens to be an extremely well trained marksman, instead of a lunatic or gangbanger, knowingly goes to shoot you in condition (1) above…
Hell, of course it is next to impossible to react properly. You can’t even move, much less breathe or see.
The “experiment” fails. Try again when the person is in a classroom wearing what he or she would wear, carry as they’d carry. I think you’d see a BIG difference. BTW, were the students all over 21, the age when you able to “Concealed Carry” in Virginia?
Nothing in that Diane Sawyer show addresses the FACT that no Constitutionally-required process has been started by the opponents of the Second Amendment for its repeal. There is clear thinking extant on the Founders’ reasons and thinking about why a free people must be allowed to own weapons. It does not matter that a nervous and non-military trained college kid was cherry picked to demonstrate firearms incompetence, because the fix was in. No such requirement for firearms competence is to be found in the Founders’ thinking.
The opponents of the 2nd Amendment are trying to attach conditions to weapons’ ownership, setting the bar so to speak, in ways that will help make the case for legislative or judicial fiat that effectively nullifies the amendment.
Let me toss in my two cents’ worth about the episode in question. Even though I did not watch it, I can tell you, based on my experience with weapons and people (I am a veteran): some people, even if armed, are not able to calm themselves enough in a crisis so as to make the best use of their available tools. Some people panic easily. Some people are able to keep their heads, draw their weapons confidently, and proceed to prudently seize the best opportunity to use it.
Look, if I were armed (I don’t yet have a Concealed Carry License)I would carry my 9mm or 45mm in a holster which I am comfortable with and could withdraw the weapon from smoothly. Even before getting the license to carry, I would understand that this weapon has to feel like a seamless part of me.
Next, if I were a person who knew myself to be someone who panics easily under stress (and being attacked by gunmen or terrorists is about as stressful as it gets) I may be wise to decide that I’m not psychologically suited to strap it on and go into battle. Some guys are not cut out for this. Ask military veterans of combat. They’ll tell you that a guy either can do it or he just isn’t made for it. If you are a kid who has no experience of guns and who actually fears them or is ambivalent about them, no amount of training with a pistol or a rifle may overcome your psychological profile.
Lastly, when in a situation where the metal meets the meat, the best first instinct is to take cover. Whatever cover you can gain. THEN, you smoothly draw your weapon and assess your opportunity to take down the gunman. This is where training takes over. You have to have rehearsed this moment many, many times. Your best chance, when a terrorist gunman bursts into a classroom, for taking him down is for you to have the element of surprise in your favor and you have a low profile and some kind of cover. And you must have absolutely no ambiguity in your mind about drawing a weapon to kill another man.
The Founders of this nation had the honor of living in a time when life was considered sacred and the protection of your life and those of other innocents was not something you had angst about. We live in times when many people have less moral clarity about these things. It creates an atmosphere where people agonize overly much about whether or not thugs and terrorists need killin’.
But none of my above musings about the situation portrayed on that show in any way attach conditions to the exercise of the 2nd Amendment by a free people.
I don’t believe, either among the people or their elected representatives, that the Left has the votes to abrogate the 2nd Amendment. And they know it too, which is why they have to use subtle and sly approaches to try to disarm us.
As soon as I saw that show was Diane Sawyer and not John Stossel, I knew what was coming. Twenty minutes in, my husband agreed with me and the show went off.
I really hated the 20/20 police’s advice to not own a gun. Seems odd. The cop I know, when I approached him about help selecting a gun, was most enthusiastic. He pulled out his entire pistol collection, measured my grip, and is ready to take me to the gun shop and then the shooting range, whenever I’m ready to purchase. He tells me the cops he knows in person and online are pretty much of the same opinion: that more armed honest citizens will help to deter crime and make their jobs easier.
I do think that responsible gun ownership should be encouraged: that is, that prospective gun owners should get some minimal training and be required to maintain it over time. Our founding fathers probably never conceived of a world where we did not have to carry guns for hunting and protection on a regular basis, and where learning about guns was not part of a young man’s (let alone young woman’s) normal growing-up experience.
And just one more thing: when I do carry a concealed gun, I’ll do it sensibly: in my friggin’ purse, in a separate compartment, so I can drop and draw quickly. What was up with the long-johns they made the gun carriers wear? I’d have trouble going to the bathroom in that getup. You notice that in order to draw the gun, the students HAD to stand up, presenting a lovely clear and nonmoving target? There would be no way to draw from a sitting or crouching position.
All of you should come out to California so you wouldn’t have to worry about gun laws. In this State only the bad guys are allowed to have and carry guns. Its against the law to defend yourself here.
Diane Sawyer might not like it but I own a gun for protection against my government as much as for protection against criminals.
The MSM is a willing partner in the propaganda war against Liberty and for our submission to an all-powerful central government.
If the recent DHS hit piece against Conservatives proves anything it’s that Big Brother is afraid of We the People and the military which is made up mostly Conservative men and women who know how to use weapons. They know that if it ever did come down to armed conflict (ludricrous) they wouldn’t stand a chance.
I saw 20/20, Diane Sawyer, and read the first paragraph. Whatever!
Hey Diane…I’m willing to put a sign in my front yard that says “I’m a gun owner” if you’re willing to put one in yours that says “I’m against guns and have none.”
The libs will beg for protection some day.
Deguelleo, I have always heard that guys that lusted after guns had physical deficiencies they were trying to compensate for, but your fixation on bending over and castration makes it even more obvious. The majority of US citizens do not want men with size issues swaggering into a classroom or a mall with the metal means to compensate with the rest of us around. Can’t you just get a date like normal guys? And wouldn’t it be better if we just didn’t have any guns for nuts to bring into the classroom in the first place?
I was a police officer for thirty plus years. The real value of our constitutional right to bear arms is the fact that the police are very careful and abide by the law before entering a home because everyone is armed. Even so many honest mistakes are made by the police. Just imagine how the government could intimidate a totally unarmed populace.
I love Texas. Don’t mess with Texas isn’t just about littering, you know. It’s sound life advice.
Didn’t work – I am going to buy mine tomorrow.
Don’t feed the trolls. You know who I’m talking about. The guy who is drawn towards phallic imagery comparing it to guns. We need not fear him putting it to our wives. They know something his kind don’t understand or know. Let him work his charms on stupid coeds where he goes to college.
“20/20 Mocks Use of Guns for Self-Defense”
Mock away. I’ll ignore it…just like I ignore the idiotic gun control laws.
I was a cop for 25 years, if an armed person enters your home, school, or workplace, and starts shooting, the police are only a phone call away. Of course, the shooter is right there, but we would be happy to investigate your murder. It puts our investigative skills in the public view.
Diane Sawyer may be right, most of you might not get the shooter but, as her own show demonstrates (Daneille), some of you will. What is that worth to our community and it’s families? Liberals fundamentally fear the power of the people, and want the government to have sole use of legitimate force, even it it costs you your life. You don’t need machine guns, tanks, or combat aircraft, but a pistol, rifle, or shotgun could save your family. Get one, and let the criminals and nuts sweat for once.
Obama always uses a teleprompter when he gives a speech, so he reads a carefully-prepared text. He means what he says and says what he means. That raises questions.
Watch this video clip (it’s only 20 seconds) and hear Obama say:
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
Why? What’s the mission of this proposed force? What are the national security objectives “we” have set?
Are there any statistics to suggest that the “assault rifle” ban was helpful when it was in effect, or that the nation suffered when it expired? The AG wants to reinstate it. Why?
Now ABC wants you to believe you are better off unarmed, when it’s not true. Why?
TO: All
RE: I’ll Wager….
….that the students and Virginia Tech, the people at that mall in Salt Lake City, 2000+ people at what used to be the World Trade Center ALL WISH that someone with a gun handy had taken down the perps.
And if you doubt that, remember how the congregation at New Life Church in Colorado Springs appreciated the armed person who disabled the murderous person who started shooting up their church.
White Helmet is your classic idiot. And I’ll wager all the talk about a lack of manliness is classic projection as well. And not merely in terms of size of organs, but also in the gonads that provide the testosterone that gives men that extra ‘boost’ to be men.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. I wonder what White Helmet has ever done for US in his time on this ball of dirt. Any time in the military? Doing something particularly ‘interesting’?
How come in this mockup the criminal immediately
attacks the classroom with the concealed weapon.
In a real life situation is there going to be
a sign saying-Attack that room first because
there is a concealed permit holder in it.
Secondly I guess with their scenario it makes
no sense to train car drivers as well since if
in a mockup a car suddenly appeared in your lane
head on at 100 miles an hour 98% of drivers would
end up in an accident.
Guns scare liberals because they make people
equal. A 90 pound woman armed is equal to
a 300 pound gang member. The rich liberal
likes a situation where the unarmed rabble is
separated from his/her world by privilege,
armed bodyguards and fences and to hell with
the rest of you.
Suppose there were three students in the class with concealed weapons? The perp would never know. Puts Ms Sawyer’s objection in a different light, doesn’t it?
States that “shall issue” are seeing a decrease in violent crime. But why let facts hit you in the helmet?
The Binghamton shooter was pretty confident that he’d find what he found – a building full of unarmed victims.
“White Helmet is your classic idiot. And I’ll wager all the talk about a lack of manliness is classic projection as well. And not merely in terms of size of organs, but also in the gonads that provide the testosterone that gives men that extra ‘boost’ to be men.”
So I am a “classic idiot,” but you are the one that wants to solve gun violence with – - more guns in the hands of more untrained people who will be selecting seats based as if the classroom is the firing range? What next sir? Giving out 6 packs on Friday night to equalize drunk drivers? Hand out knives at high schools to equalize the fights?
And Mr. Pelton, it was your ally duegelleo first ranted about bending over etc., (of course you didn’t say anything to him about that), and then another of your group, Fred, that worried aloud “We need not fear him putting it to our wives.” (No one had mentioned it, so it must be his secret fear. His wife falling for some younger man that showers and isn’t down in the basement reading back issues of Guns magazine). You didn’t say anything to him about that either. Now you throw size and “extra boost” into the mix. Nothing say could illustrate the classic compensation issue more clearly. You sound like someone in the dark trying to re assure themselves. Don’t worry: I’m not so old I need any extra boost like the couch commandos here worrying about their wives and extra “boost.”
And what have I done for US on this ball? (ah, not the earth, but this “ball”). Trying to deter the likes of you might be one. No time in the military–I leave that to the pros, not the basement commandos who want to flood the country with guns to sove the problems of too many nuts having access to them now.
These are the dynamics of the test as I see them, I’d love some feedback on this analysis to see if I’m correct.
1). PROFESSIONAL SHOOTERS ARE NOT CRAZED GUNMEN:
A professional shooter is sent into a room. This shooter has been trained through repetition and experience how to keep his calm and control his “fight or flight” mechanism to coolly select and hit his chosen targets quickly.
This trained professional, accustomed to using live ammunition to make lethal shots is seen by 20/20 as a fair analog to the typical “crazed gunman”, on an emotional rampage to rack up a body count.
2). ARMED ASSAILANTS ARE AFFECTED BY THE SAME PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES AS DEFENDANTS:
The “fight or flight” mechanism in 20/20′s view only affects the defendant, and not the assailant. In their carefully constructed “experiment”, an assailant on an armed rampage will be professionally trained and will have no such similar tunnel vision, adrenaline response, or less than perfect control of a firearm allowing for the potential escape of unarmed defendants or the lethal response from an equally armed albeit equally untrained defendant.
No, in their eyes, the defendant within the situation will always be outclassed by a shooter who will undoubtedly be unfazed by similar physiological responses to stress.
3). THE DEFENDANT WAS INSTRUCTED TO BEHAVE DEFENSIVELY WITHIN A RESULTS ORIENTED, RATHER THAN SURVIVAL ORIENTED NON-LETHAL ENVIRONMENT:
In 20/20′s view, the use of untrained defendants being put into a situation where they knew THEY COULD NOT ACTUALLY DIE should garner no large contrast with how they behave in a situation in which they could.
Similarly, they had instructed the student that they would need to USE their weapon in a defensive situation at some point during the day. This suggestion, however, certainly would not alter what their own personal reaction to either run or protect others might have been in a legitimately LETHAL situation. And certainly the presence of cameras within the room would not alter their natural desire to perform admirably before millions of people in the way suggested (their job being to use the gun against an assailant).
The student with the internal suggestion that it is his job to kill an armed assailant is, in 20/20′s view, comparable to a student who sees their first responsibility as survival of self and others. No large difference in behavior between the two would likely be seen.
4). THE SHOOTER BEHAVED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH A NON-LETHAL ENVIRONMENT:
Despite the use of convenience store footage of armed assailants shooting blindly while fleeing for their own lives from an armed response, we can be confident that a shooter in the “real world” would have no such concern for the protection of their own life and would not only be expertly trained, but would also be perfectly content to trade bullets when an unexpected armed response was offered.
Instead, in 20/20′s view, the fact we should really take from convenience store footage is not that when an armed response is given, the shooter will likely flee, lose desire to trade shots and lose their own life, or will at least have a similar problem hitting their target due to fear and surprise; no the fact that 20/20 wishes you to take away from the convenience store footage is how in an armed response, you probably won’t hit your target anyway. You should ignore the fact that the assailant in the security video did not wish to die either. Instead, you should look to the PROFESSIONALLY trained and informed assailant from their classroom experiment to determine how happy an armed assailant would be to trade blows with live ammunition with no possible impact to their performance as a shooter.
5). IF ALL ASSAILANTS WILL ALWAYS BE AS LETHALLY TRAINED AND EMOTIONALLY COOL AS 20/20′S PROFESSIONAL SHOOTER, AND ALL DEFENDANTS WILL BE EQUALLY IGNORANT AND UNDISCIPLINED – ABLE TO RELY ON NO HEROICS OR HELP FROM ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES, A TRAINING PROGRAM, STARTING IMMEDIATELY FOR ALL SCHOOL AGET CHILDREN AND STUDENTS FOR HOW TO RESPOND TO AN ARMED GUNMAN WOULD BE AS REASONABLE AND PRACTICAL AS A FIRE DRILL.
IF THEY THINK THAT OCCURRENCES LIKE THESE WILL BECOME INCREASINGLY COMMON AND THEY SEE A LACK OF PREPAREDNESS ON THE PART OF EVERYONE INVOLVED EXCEPT AN EXPERT SHOOTER, THEN RESPONSIBILITY CALLS US TO MAKE THE UNPREPARED – PREPARED.
In 20/20′s view…
No one will be trained on how to use a gun correctly but the assailant.
No one’s ability to fire a gun accurately or think clearly will be affected but the defendants’.
No one without a gun will act heroically or offer any risk to their own life
Those with a gun will be first concerned with killing the bad guy in a stand-up duel-style shootout
Assailants will have no fight or flight response to requited force
The answer to unpreparedness is to ensure complete unpreparedness so that the prepared ones can come and protect you
After all, it’s only the prepared ones that are qualified to protect you and you could not possibly be the prepared one, because you don’t have the training.
SO…
So rather than offer the training, we’d rather make sure you stay completely unprepared rather than risk you being only slightly prepared because being slightly prepared is far more dangerous than being completely unprepared so those someone else thinks has the training can come and protect you (or clean up afterwards at least)
Do I have this right?
white helmet ” Are you guys for real? Do any of you have children? Or a girlfriend? Where do you live–the backwoods of Idaho? No woman would ever tolerate this macho bs from any boyfriend or husband.
I don’t want sweaty, itchy-fingered, tractor-driving red-necks, or knit cap wearing charles broson wanna be’s in a classroom with guns. Period. That inlcudes most of the people commenting here.”
Ha — that is so funny. Keep thinking in those stereotypes and you’ll never recognize what’s happening when when a 51-year old, 5′, 100-pound woman driving a John Deere can take you out when you’re way up at the front gate and she saw you coming through an IP surveillance system. And no fellow “red-neck” that is hot enough to sweat would be wearing a wool cap in Texas.
Besides, why do you assume that people carrying guns are “untrained”? Gun owners aren’t out to “solve gun violence” — just keep themselves from being a victim of it. And occasionally take out a feral pig from destroying the yard…
“20/20’s website also warned: “Only six states … require any kind of training before issuing a routine permit to own a gun.” These sorry leftists miss the fact that Americans are offended that even six state legislatures “require” their citizens to ask permission to own a gun.”
You REALLY should fact check these stories before repeating their lies. Only TWO states require a permit to “own” a gun, and only 12 require a permit to purchase a firearm/handgun.
Bob:
We here (Iowa) do have carry conceal… at least in Polk County
joe bloe:
exsactly, ther is a difference between permit to purchase and background check
Notice, Folks, that White Helmet thinks of everyone who owns a firearm as a nutcase. As long as he lumps the criminals in with the decent folks, he’ll never see the logic of the concealed carry permit. His words: the good people who want firearms for self-defense are “…basement commandos who want to flood the country with guns to sove the problems of too many nuts having access to them now.”
That’s a mindset that can’t be won over with reason and facts. Ignore White Helmet.
Bret 122, you are absolutely correct in every detail. Nice job.
97. White Helmet:
You don’t understand how women think. Most women prefer a man that is a real man. Why do you think women go crazy over a man in a uniform? Whether it be military or police. It’s something deep down inside of us that really likes to feel protected. I have a date with a retired Army Police Lt who is going to teach me how to carry, draw and shoot.
When the poor people that Obama promised to help realize that he lied and they riot and come after the middle class, because the elite liberals have taught them that we are the cause of their problems…I hope YOU have a way to defend yourself!
#128: Ms. Attitude: Maybe where you live: Most women go crazy over slimly built rock stars, pony-tailed directors, silicon valley investors or until recently, NY money managers with money to buy a house where the uniformed men are butlers. Sure there are always women that like the band members in high school, but I’m talking about the hot ones.
The riots won’t bother me: when’s the last time a riot burned down a college?.
#127 Benson: I wouldn’t let decent drunk drivers go on their way any more than I’d let mean ones with past DUI records: they’re both menaces.
The left misses the real deterrent value of our second amendment rights. The real value is not really the actual act of self defense using a firearm. The real value in the second amendment (in places like Texas where it actually exists) is the public knowledge that potential crime victims may well be armed.
Your subsequent sentences do not establish your first one. Rather, I suggest that the Left knows full well the deterrent value of those rights — and that is why they seek to eliminate them.
What better way to habituate [people] to abandoning trust in their peers (and themselves) than to create an atmosphere of constant low-level stress and danger, relief from which is only available by appeal to authority? And many times not even then!
– John Taylor Gatto, discussing the nature and purpose of the socialized education system.
The troll must be forgiven. He makes the very common and very false assumptions about gun owners and who they are. They do actually include lawyers, dentists, engineers, school teachers, bankers, IT professionals, college students, pharmacists, magazine copy writers, editors, university professors, software developers, NY money managers, and, oh yes, several rock and roll stars and jazz musicians.
–The UnPatriot
White Helmet:
You don’t have any idea how wrong you are. I used to run a magazine for firearms enthusiasts. In Manhattan, no less. We needed advertising from a woman who was, well, who was just like you (except she was an actual woman.) So a colleague of mine suggested we take her shooting at a gun club in lower Manhattan (didn’t know there was one, did you?) Well, to make a long story short, after two hours we had to pry her sweaty little manicured hands off the Sig 9MM and beg her to go to lunch with us so we could pitch her on ad space.
My colleague ended up marrying her, and she hates water-drinking metros to this day. So you never know what horror is lurking right down the hall from you. Do you, metro boy?
james #132: so the magazine had the circulation of “charismatic republican quarterly,” and the fiscal health of the New York Times (which may be in bad shape, but it doesn’t need 2 people to blow a day for one ad).
But I didn’t say there aren’t women that like guns, tractor pulls, hod carrying contests and beer guzzling rind munching guys. Just not my type. (You did have the good taste to use a SIG though.)
Diane is right about one thing- untrained people shouldn’t be carrying guns. That is why everyone who purchases a gun for the first time should be required to enroll immediately in a firearms training course, unless they have been previously trained by the military or the police.
TO: All
RE: White Helmet, ‘Stupid’
He don’t know vewy well. Do he.
I thought his projection about people in basements quite an interesting indicator of where he is coming from.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[God is alive....and airborne-ranger qualified.]
90. The Shadow wrote:
It is not the bad guys I am worried about but the right wing nuts with guns who are a danger to their families and neighbors
Peter writes: Then you are a sad, sorry little person who does not deserve the rights that real patriotic Americans fought and bled to give to you.
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” ~John Stuart Mill
97. White Helmet:
Peter writes: Looks to me like Darky Helmetman has a buddy. Or more likely a clone.
Who is Diane Sawyer? An optometrist? Somebody should give her an Aimpoint for her birthday. Aimpoints are ideal for the really old gunners.
http://www.aimpoint.com/
Like the ad says, “just place the dot on the target and squeeeeeze the trigger”. Even dried up old hags can do that.
Most anti-gunners are anti-gunners because they cannot hit a barn standing inside it. Teach them to shoot and most figure out that a firearm is just another tool, not Satan in Steel.
My apologies to Dark Helmet for my post at #137. I mistyped and was thinking of someone else.
TO: All
RE: Too Bad….
…that one cannot point out how someone’s obsession with ‘sex’ can account for their form of ‘debate’ in this venue.
PJM has decided that my pointing out such vis-a-vis White Helmet does not ‘qualify’ as a legit argument.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Good think I capture such posts before PJM deletes them. Makes for good evidence in some future discussion on ‘political correctness’ in the so-called ‘media’…..
Personally, I am as far left as you can get on some issues, but I respect and appreciate the role of guns in our society. “An armed society is a polite society.” That’s my motto! And I am all for bearing arms, just not arming bears.
I don’t think that the decision to want to be armed has anything to do with being left or right: it is a matter of personal experience and choice (same thing goes for abortion, the death penalty, same-sex marriage, immigration, etc., if you ask me).
I feel that the recent spate of public shootings would not have been so protracted and deadly if more Americans did carry guns. And if someone is mowing down your family or classmates or co-workers, you should to kill. “Praise the Lord, and pass the bullets!” I say.
That being said, EVERYONE who wants to carry a gun should have mandatory training in the safe and proper usage of his or her firearms. What would be any excuse for not attending these courses? Too busy? Too skilled with a gun already? Conflict with Rumba lessons on Thursdays? Poppycock! You want the gun, you do the training! And maybe it is just fine to say that you should not be able to carry a gun if you have been convicted of a felony. Doesn’t bother me at all that known criminals cannot carry legally! And how about the fact that you do not need an AK-47 to protect your house, your person or to hunt deer. Nope, you don’t need to take down Bambi’s mother with a hand-held GE M134 minigun. Sheesh!
I don’t believe that guns kill people (that would be a reification – look it up!), people kill people and they don’t NEED guns to do it. People are just kinda sick, stupid and evil sometimes. And telling someone not to arm because you think they will just get hurt or lose the weapon is just like telling your daughter not to fight off a 6-foot 250 lbs. rapist because she is just going to be raped anyway. I would tell my daughter to fight him off AND put a bullet between his eyes!!!
Let’s start being realistic here about the issues instead of boiling things down to the “left said this” or the “right wants that.” Frankly, for some of the people who have posted on here, whining about the left (again, I am LEFT and proud of it), it just makes you look like morons when you otherwise are making GREAT points about how we do have an unalienable right to protect ourselves at all times.
‘Nuff Said.
P.P.S. Let’s see if the comment at 140 ‘stands’….as well as this one….
TO: All
RE: That’s Better
PJM’s ‘moderator’ apparently allowed my last two comments to not become members of the ‘disappeared’. Unlike the previous one that pointed out that White Helmet’s obsession with ‘sex’ could be an indication of ‘orientation’ and how it plays such a ‘big part’ of their args here, e.g., accusing others who disagree with him of having a ‘small part’ in life.
Maybe it has something to do with ‘gun envy’.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Gay is a one-word oxymoron.]
TO: Lefty Gun Lovr
RE: Just Wait
I’ll wager dollars to donuts that your other Lefty ‘friends’ will hate you for saying people should be allowed to have guns.
I remember a neighborhood association meeting a couple months ago where some big-mouth went off so proudly that she doesn’t have any guns in her house. The implication being that anyone who owned a gun was an ‘enemy’.
I’d like to run an experiment with her. A BIG banner on her house touting her ‘pride’….”Gun-free Household”…..
Let’s see who gets ‘hit’ first’…..
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. How many of your Lefty ‘friends’ know of your ‘bad attitude’?
P.S. About ‘targeting’ and your daughter….
…I counsel going for the groin.
to Chuck: good point about the groin shot. i totally agree!
as to my “lefty” friends, it is just “my friends”…and, yes, they (both the hawks and the doves) know that i believe in the right to bear arms and the death penalty and workfare instead of welfare. i even tell them that my solution to some wars is to unload all of the jails and drop them off with guns in the middle of the countries we don’t like. i am all for those things. AND I am still LEFT!!!!
and i do not frankly care what others (especially neighbors – i refuse to mow my lawn for weeks, don’t you hate me) think, but you would be surprised how many lefties want to protect their families just as much as you want to protect yours. human is as human does, left or right.
unfortunately, there are some nut jobs on both sides who take natural human reactions (fear, love, worship, disgust, etc.) too far. they forget that they are each their own individual person instead of a puppet who has to buy into the mob mentality (on either side).
in my case, i have had a couple of dear friends who were victims of gun violence, and in those cases, if they had access to guns and had been trained in the safe and proficient use of them, they MIGHT be alive today. i would love to be able to go back in time and put a gun in their hands at that right moment. but even without those tragedies, i think that i would have to say that being armed is just good policy (not a “bad attitude”).
and for some people who talk about how loved ones get killed accidentally with these guns. well, i don’t think it was an ACCIDENT in most cases. wife catches her husband cheating and kills him…hmmm, inappropriate use of the gun because her life was not in danger at the moment, but that is no accident and she needs to deal with the consequences of her behavior. or that thing in Mass where the dad let his 8-year-old fire that submachine gun at the weapons expo and the kid blew his head off when the force of the gun cocked it back. Tragedy. But the father (and to a lesser extent the range attendant) are responsible for that death, not the maker of the gun. Why would you let your kid fire that weapon? Duh. or at least not be behind him steadying his arms if you JUST HAD TO HAVE HIM SHOOT? but yeah, bad idea leads to bad outcome. No accident there.
personally, i don’t think that obama is going to take our guns away. call me naive, if you wish. but when you hear about the guy in pittsburgh who killed those cops because he felt that our guns were in danger (plus the host of other problems he had way before obama came along), you have to wonder what message that is sending about the issue. what are we are doing to screen people to get and maintain guns??? And as much as D Sawyer gives us lefties a bad name (although i don’t think she speaks for me), this pittsburgh guy gives gun enthusiasts a bad name. a really bad name if he is killing cops. and the devil hasn’t even finished building the circle of hell for the cop killers. bas-turds.
however, that soundbyte where obama talked about people who clung to their guns and religion…that has been blown way out of proportion. guns are cool and Jesus is EVEN COOLER, but i am bright enough to understand that either is not the sole answer to every ill that is facing our society today. so “worship” either in your own way, but keep an open mind to the reality of each situation. first off, Jesus helps those who help themselves and 2) a gun would not have done you d*** if you were in the twin towers on that truly horrible day.
i don’t own a gun currently, but i have fired a variety of guns and i like shooting at ranges. i don’t know if i would get one because that is a personal arguement i have to have with my wife who just doesn’t like them. but rental-wise, i believe i have a right – and enjoyment – to do that as a safe sport. i don’t hunt – because i would not eat that particular meat and i don’t know how to perpare it anyway – but if YOU want to hunt with your buddies, i ain’t stopping ya. just be careful and be trained for safety. is that too much to ask of anyone?
people need to put away the whole left/right rhetoric and thought process (myself included) because it gets in the way of us individuals, us Americans, getting what we truly want to be happy and keep our families safe and happy.
again, just my thoughts.
Well, it’s official. The DHS has declared itself an enemy of the United States. Arm yourselves. With everything that you will need to survive without assistance.
In the mean time, understand this. This is our nation. We don’t have to tear each other apart, we have to remove the corrupt, communist false leasders. By every means afforded us in our Constitution.
That kids is the real reason for the 2nd. Not all this other conjecture. Mr. Pelto, you know this. Our ability to defend ourselves relies completely on our ability to be offensive in doing so.
God bless America. And may He damn those who would remove His name.
That says it all.
AS for you you piss ant want to be copy cat ‘white helmet’, try getting an original thought before you get into the ring. If you could think for yourself, you might just find yourself in agreement with most of the people here that will be the ones saving your sorry ass.
You’re right about one thing, no one will riot and burn your ‘ elite school’. That’s because none of them stand up for what’s right and appease those who hate this nation. So Go F*ck your self.
DARK HELMET
TO: Lefty Gun Lovr
RE: A State of ‘Being’
Being an airborne-ranger is a ‘state of being’. Once you’ve done it, you are always one. Same with Marines, as I suspect.
‘Lefty’ or ‘Righty’? Not really. Try not to ‘kling’ to something has gone rotten.
RE: Obama’s ‘Comments’
Give it some time and watch the actions as opposed to the words. As my former regiment’s motto read….
Deeds. Not Words. — Motto 22d Infantry Regiment
RE: What Other’s ‘Think’
Good on you that you don’t care overly much what your ‘neighbors’ think of you. However, based on what I’ve observed over the last 20 years, the current brood of ‘lefties’, insist on political purity. If you dont’ agree with them in every aspect, they’ll turn on you like a pack of rabid dogs.
As for not mowing your lawn….I’m not familiar with your city ordinances. However, I’m reminded of the approach a company commander in my battalion of paratroopers took with such a neighbor as you….he took a page from Benjamin Franklin and posted a satrical sign in his neighbors lawn….
Free hay!
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S…..
Better start looking for something…..otherwise, you could become (1) a ‘true believer’ in The One or (2) an Ex-Lefty Gun Lovr…..
TO: Dark Helmet
RE: Not So Sure….
….sure about the basis of your statement. Please provide a URL.
As for “enemy’ of the United States, would it be more apropos to say, “Enemy of the Constitution”? But that remains upon your URL supporting evidence.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. -- Abraham Lincoln]
TO: All
RE: Supporting Evidence
And if you think that White Helmet is alone in this shoddy form of arg, get aload of THIS!
The point here is that if they can’t provide solid evidence to support their claims, they’ll go for the ‘sexual’.
So are all these people ‘odd’?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Maybe they can only resort to the third option of the Lawyers’ Rule….
No one wants to need a gun.
But anyone who has ever needed a gun, knows the value of having one.
It might seam weird or strange to have one and never need it.
But when you need it, nothing else will do.
White Helmet:
Circulation of 800,000. Sold it for 50 million. Went to Ivy League. Think you’re a typical condescending liberal. The most honorable man I know is someone you wouldn’t have in your house. Tractor pull. Up yours.
“”But the real premise of the show was 20/20’s contention that private citizens with guns aren’t capable of using those guns effectively”"
Citizens do use guns to protect home and self effectively every day-Diane Sawyer should talk to a few thousand of them. But that would not fit her agenda. But I will admit I would not trust Diane Sawyer with a gun, word processor or microphone.
The Appalachian School of Law shooting occurred on January 16, 2002 and was stopped by armed citizens long before the police arrived.
You know what you call a plane-load of un-armed passengers?
VICTIMS
I hate to get on commercial airlines, because I know I am unarmed and everyone else knows it too.
P.S. How much security does Ms. Sawyer have around her at all times? I guess, like all other high-profile Leftists, they just pay someone else to do the dirty work for them.
Dear Chuck,
To a simple person such as myself, the constitution is the United States.
DH
The Left wants all the guns. Period. The rest of us chumps gotta give ‘em up.
Their bodyguards and security details can have all the best weapons. But we knuckledraggin’ hayseeds out there across the country are deemed unfit for the 2nd Amendment.
Come off it. The world won’t end if the US gets some sensible gun control laws. You people can’t see the woods for the trees. Do you think there is no connection between the sheer number of gun-related offenses in the US and the easy availibility of guns?
I love American and Americans and I think the US is the last best hope of the world, but you good folk have a blind spot on this issue.
I caught part of that show, it was good for a laugh or two. Figured it was rigged when they emphasized that one women took karate. I’m not sure how that proves she should be better with firearms, but apparently it made sense to the producers. I had to laugh when she stood straight up to fire without any attempt to find cover. So civilians can’t figure out they’re safer from bullets if they’re behind something without advanced training? Did they also “prove” how unarmed people are safer when being shot at than those who are armed? If so, I was laughing so hard by then I missed it. Hopefully, they warned that woman she should stay away from martial arts too, after all MA training only makes you more likely to be hurt by an attacker, right?
TO: All
RE: lefroy vs. History
I’ll wager that the Nazis used that argument when they passed their ‘sensible gun control’ laws in the mid-to-late 1930s.
And we all saw what happened to Germans and others who disagreed with their governance after that. They were sent off to ‘spas’ with names like Dachau and Auschwitz.
Actually, we see the forest of history a LOT better than poorly educated or brain addled lefroy does.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[First you disarm them and then you kill them.]
Chuck, I’m not sure that there is a PJM censor. AFAIK, PJM is a bunch of other blogs that are cross-linked. So in this case, AWR HAWKINS might or might not have his own blog which is cross wired to PJM. So you might think you are posting on PJM when you are actually posting on a different blog that is duplicated on PJM for this article. So your post would show up at AWR HAWKINS’s blog AND PJM.
I think that is how it works. I had a stroke a while back and my left hand refuses to relearn typing. So it can take me a long time to hunt and peck my way thru a post. When one vanishes, I’m out and hour or so that I’ll never get back and resent losing. So I asked one of the ‘editors’ (?regulars?) here about it after I took half a day to type up and cross reference a theory that homosexuality should be compared to arson as a social issue and had it vanish. It was explained to me that the original blog that produced the content has all of their original editorial control, that a reply posted at PJM appears on the original blog and is seen by people that frequent that blog and seldom show up on PJM.
Since the left runs off dogma and has trouble mustering facts to back their arguments, it is always easier to shoot the messenger then to counter a fact based argument. So they do. Notice White Helmet. Heavy on rhetoric, light on facts.
All sorts of silly excuses are offered, AFTER the messenger is dead.
Captain Brown shaved his moustache.
The Lilies are in the vase.
Chuck Pelto:
“I’ll wager that the Nazis used that argument when they passed their ’sensible gun control’ laws in the mid-to-late 1930s. And we all saw what happened to Germans and others who disagreed with their governance after that. They were sent off to ’spas’ with names like Dachau and Auschwitz.”
Ah yes. If the German populace had had guns, they would have risen up against Hitler instead of rapturously and blindly supporting him. Of course. How silly of me.
And Chuck accuses me of being “poorly educated”! And “brain addled” . . well, trust a gun lobbyist to resort – immediately – to the ad hominem attack, rather than argument.
157. lefroy wrote:
Come off it. The world won’t end if the US gets some sensible gun control laws.
Peter writes: The US already has sensible gun control laws. In the opinion of some, it has too many gun control laws. The biggest problem is lack of enforcement. Enforce the laws that are already on the books, the ones that should be able to take the illegal guns away from the people who definitely should NOT have them, before you go writing all new laws that start taking guns away from responsible gun owners.
161. lefroy wrote:
Ah yes. If the German populace had had guns, they would have risen up against Hitler instead of rapturously and blindly supporting him. Of course. How silly of me.
Peter writes: Whether or not the German people would have risen up is the subject for science-fiction writers, but the fact remains, Hitler disarmed his populus before he showed his true colors to those that were not paying attention, and Obama and his administration of tax-cheats and appeasers seem to be trying to do the same thing.
TO: All
RE: As I Was Saying….
….it is blatantly obvious to the educated individual that this character has no idea what he/she is talking about. The bill the Nazis ran through their legislature took all firearms away from the Jews in Germany.
And I’m certain that even someone as obtuse as lefroy remembers what happened after that.
’nuff said.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth. -- George Washington]
P.S. I wonder if this character ‘respects’ George Washington? I wonder if they even realize what a role firearms played in this country being established? Does he/she think we won our freedom by waving signs at the Hessians?
TO: typos_R_us
RE: [OT] Secret Messages
The long sobs of autumn’s violins;
wound my heart with a monotonous languor.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[A backward poet writes inverse.]
P.S. Wasn’t it….
“John has a long moustache”?
in response to 20/20, keep stocking up on 30-30…….
TO: hawkeye, et al.
RE: Yeah…..
….and don’t forget your sidearms as well.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Never bring a sidearm to a gunfight whose first digit is less than "4". -- Marine Corps Rules for Gunfighting]
I was out in a town in Colorado a few years ago and needed to mail a package. Well, I walked into the most secure post office in the country. Unlike my Staten Island, NY, post office, with its sliding ‘bullet proof’ panels between me and the clerks, I just handed my box over the counter, with a bunch of locals in line, some with their handguns or rifles with them and the local gun shop just down the road.
NOONE was going to go ‘postal’ for long in that post office! Thank!
I remember a Robert Heinlein sci-fi novel, where all citizens (who had requirements to pass, not just being born there) were REQUIRED to carry a weapon. Very civil society.
Read some early Heinlein and wish for a free society as he espoused.
Re: jo ann: A woman who has read Heinlein? Are you married? LOL I don’t remember which book it was from but I’ve never forgotten the quote: “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” – RAH. I think it was Richard Ames who said it in the book.
TO: All
RE: A Good Bumper Sticker
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Criminals do not die by the hands of the law; they die by the hands of other men. -- George Bernard Shaw]
Perhaps Ms. Sawyer can teach college kids how to boil Top Ramen and a few days later place them as an opponent against chef’s on Food Network’s, ‘The Iron Chef’?
How about issuing a driver’s license to a 16 year old and soon afterward enter them as a driver in the Pike’s Peak Hill Climb?
Better yet, enroll these same kids in acting classes for a few hours or days and soon afterward place them in Shakespearian-type rolls.
As mentioned, wear the gun. Find a holster that is comfortable and quite accessible. Become familiar, comfortable with firing and confident with the results. Practice often.
Diane Sawyer.. ineptness at its finest.
Chuck Pelto:
“P.S. I wonder if this character [me] ‘respects’ George Washington?”
I haven’t really thought much about George Washington. Should I have?
TO: All
RE: lefroy & ‘Education’
“I haven’t really thought much about George Washington. Should I have?” — lefroy
Convicted by their own fingers.
’nuff said.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
I thank the vaunted American public education system for giving US lefroy…..if they’re an American in the first place…..
Reminds me of the “unbiased reporting oped piece done on Chevy truck thet caught fire in accidents, where the news team had to resort to
putting remote explosive devices under the vehicle to get the trucks to catch fire. Just another typical case of poor fiction portrayed as news journalism.
Chuck Pelto:
“I thank the vaunted American public education system for giving US lefroy…..if they’re an American in the first place…..”
You’ve got it Chuck. I’m not American. How typical of you to assume that I am American, and that I should know everything there is to be knowed about George Washington. Still, I suppose the third world begins when you leave the shores of the US, doesn’t it?
This is getting tedious, but before I check out, let me repeat for your benefit what I said in my first post:
“I love American and Americans and I think the US is the last best hope of the world”
I meant it.
Over and out.
‘Still, I suppose the third world begins when you leave the shores of the US, doesn’t it?’
It’s pretty much always when we have to leave our shores that our best and brightest die because of a severe lack of courage to keep liberty. So yes, third world pretty much starts at our borders.
TO: lefroy
RE: It Figures….
“You’ve got it Chuck. I’m not American. How typical of you to assume that I am American….” — lefroy
…your more poorly educated than I had suspected in the first place. But that’s why I put in that last phrase. I sensed a stench….
Thanks,
Chuck(le)
P.S. IF….
“I love American and Americans and I think the US is the last best hope of the world” — elfroy
…you truly believed that you wouldn’t have said what you said later.
See what I mean by being ‘poorly educated’?
How’s that? No-one can admire America (as I do) unless they agree with your point of view about guns? You’re an idiot.
And cut out this “poorly educated” stuff, until you learn the difference between “your” and “you’re” (as in, “your more poorly educated than I had suspected in the first place”).
And what “stench” would that be, BTW? Do non-US citizens smell? And is everywhere else really the third world? I didn’t know there were people like this. It’s hilarious.
You gun people aren’t true conservatives. You’re just fringe wingnuts.
TO: lefroy
RE: [OT] Idiot? Moi?
Show me your Mensa membership ID number, buckie.
Talk about ‘projection’…..
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. And about how much you love ‘America’…..
If you love it so much, why haven’t you immigrated? And, if you REALLY love it, why haven’t you sworn to lay your life on the line for it? Like I did for 27 years in the US Army as an infantryman?
As you haven’t, in either instance, you don’t love it as much as you claim and you are therefore a liar.
Mensa? Rubbish. You’re barking mad.
117. BENSON says:
“Obama always uses a teleprompter when he gives a speech, so he reads a carefully-prepared text. He means what he says and says what he means. That raises questions.
Watch this video clip (it’s only 20 seconds) and hear Obama say:
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
Why? What’s the mission of this proposed force? What are the national security objectives “we” have set?”
In the Bible Revelation Chapter 13 Verse 16 says: “And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free man and the slave, to be given a mark on their right hand, or on their forehead, (Verse 17) and he provides that no one should be able to sell or to buy , except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.” then in Chapter 14 Verse 9 it states: “And another angel, a third one, followed them , saying” if anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark in his forehead or his hand (Verse 10)he also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presents of the Lamb.”
He who has wisdom listen…. Die before you take the mark. You’re a gonner forever if you do. The question is, should I die fighting or let the existing “government” lead you away and chop your head off? David fought back and killed the giant bad guy with a sling and rock. If he had had a BAR he could have done it quicker and with less danger to himself. On the other hand it’s God’s fight and we don’t have to worry about the final outcome. I intend to go down fighting evil with every device I have at my disposal.
Apr 15, 2009 – 4:24 am
Ron,
Do not take up arms against your own. We are the people that make up this nation. This traitor will not succeed. It is not his country to destroy.
Keep this thought in mind, the devil was God’s best angel. The greatest thing He ever made. The only fault of evil is that it turns away from love. If you truly want to overcome, love your self, your family and mostly your country. No matter what.
Never look for the day when Americans take up arms against one another. Never.
ps: Samson was a descendent of Goliath. Things work themselves out, we just have to stay strong.
Lefroy – I possibly missed some of your posts and wasn’t planning to jump into your exchange, but since you called every pro second amendment person here a “fringe wingnut,” myself included, I feel the door’s been opened.
First off, you don’t know everyone in here, quite possibly you don’t know anyone in here so making a sweeping generalization on what kind of people we all are is just moronic.
Second, since this discussion was in response to a ridiculously slanted feature by an American “journalist,” on an American show, shown on an American network, it’s hardly “Ameri-centric” (in PC English) to assume people taking part would be American. While you didn’t say it, the implication of your “How typical…” statement was obvious. While everyone is welcome to voice their opinion, the bottom line is this is an internal issue that really isn’t your any of your business if you aren’t a citizen. If I’m on the BBC site, I avoid making statements telling citizens of the UK what laws they should have for that very reason.
Since you aren’t American, which is fine – I’m not xenophobic, how is it that you think you know conditions and politics in our country better than those that live here? Unless you have lived in the US extensively, it’s beyond arrogant. Even if you have lived here it’s highly doubtful you have a complete picture. It’s highly likely that the picture you have formed comes from a limited amount of information.
Earlier you stated the world wouldn’t end if we got some sensible gun control laws. How exactly do you as a non-citizen know what is “sensible” for our country? What works well where you’re from might have the opposite effect here. What knowledge and experience are you basing this sensibility on? If it’s based on the mainstream media, I’m afraid there’s a few serious flaws.
While you probably think a blind wingnut like myself should just bow to your superior logic without questioning it’s validity, I have a slight problem with that. See, while I don’t have Chuck’s almost three decades (27 years?! Hu-ah Chuck!) of infantry experience, I am basing my opinions on something; namely, about twelve years of serving on the streets. I see the unfiltered news up close and personal, in real time, without stock footage or sound bites. I’m sure that pales next to your experience of course. So please, wow me with your war stories and knowledge of gun related offenses in my country. If you’re in the US, maybe I can get you an instructor gig at one of the academies.
TO: All
RE: Brainless lefroy and Truisms
What can I say. Other than classic ‘projection’.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The cowards revenge for being intimidated, is hatred.]
Op4
Ask him how that whole life will be fine once you’ve given up your ability to defend your self thing has gone over there in eurabia. As some may still be able to remember, England took the guns away and now, the muslims own them.
Just as it is here now, weakness invites attack.
P.S. About that “barking mad” business….
I don’t ‘bark’. I bellow. So loud I can communicate effectively throughout the fuselage of a C130, over the roar of four turbo-prop engines with the doors open, so that the 63 other paratroopers who have trusted me with their very lives ALL understand that we’re about to put ‘our knees in the breeze’.
Out of curiosity, how many almost ‘total strangers’ would trust YOU with their very lives?
#161 Silly LIBTARD! I mean silly LEFTROID: I see, German Communists Jews,and others, would NOT have fought the Nazis had they possessed the means to so:did you ever hear of The Warsaw Ghetto? Leftroid’s irrational hatred of armed self defense,is typical of the lib who hungers for a police state.
#161 BTW LEFTROID,You are not an american;in fact, you’re not even a human being;totalitarinas like you are threats to freedom, reason, and the life and liberty of real men and women.Look what your kind did in Russia and is doing in Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. Your existence is made possible by a tolerant,corrupt,culture, modern sanitation, and modern medicine. People like you would not have survived facing the character building challenges of earlier ages.That’s why you need the oppressive laws of a totalitarian state to coddle you and shield you from the unpleasant realities of existence.As Nietzsche said, the state is created for the many 0′s of life.You time is coming: Do you really expect the police and the military;both of which libtards like you have trashed for decades to protect you from the consevative resistance? Of course not,that’s why you want to take away our weapons.Keep trying,but when we turn back the clock,and smash the state,where will you go to cringe?
Please send this to everybody on your list… this is Obama gun control by secrecy.
Have you got this in your scope?
Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House.
This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009.
Even shop owners didn’t know about this because it is flying under the radar.
To find out about this – go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information.
Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm – any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:
It is registered
You are fingerprinted
You supply a current Driver’s License
You supply your Social Security #
You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing
Each update – change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 – Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.
There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18.
They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.
If you think this is a joke – go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family – pass this along.
This is just a “termite” approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense – chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it. (Did Obama promise transparency? It seems his motives are more and more transparent while his methods are hidden in back rooms.)
This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not.
If you take my gun, only the criminal will have one to use against me. HR 45 only makes me/us less safe. After working with convicts for 26 years I know this bill, if passed, would make them happy and in less danger from their victims.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45 :
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45
Please…copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA.
My last post in this cesspit. What began (initially) as a mild and friendly attempt to engage with the issue in this thread is met with Chuck’s bizarre stream of non-sequiturs and furious abuse.
The only rational response I have met with is that of Op4. His was reasoned and I take on board his criticisms. I don’t think he is a “wingnut” and apologise to him. It was a response to being called a “liar” etc, a moronic and absurd charge which I don’t expect Chuck to retract.
The accusation that infuriates me more than any other is being called a liberal!! I am anything but.
The idiocy of some of the posters in this thread is about to be demonstrated when someone weighs in and tell me that I must be a liberal if I don’t agree with them about guns.
Godspeed.
TO: Anonymouse
RE: Is….
…that a promise?
Say again all after, “The accusation that infuriates me more than any other…..”
You’re coming across garbled and stupid. Or is that supposed to be ‘progressive’?
Reards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. TO: All….
Why do I get the distinct impression that somewhere, somehow, something I said touched a ‘nerve’ with this character? Which ‘nerve’ it is will require some thought, if we care to waste our time with that.
As for Anonymouse’s non-sequituer rants, well….we’ll just have to let them go on with their little tirades. But I do get the impression that Anonymouse is really lefroy. As he/she is the only one here who started getting ‘down-and-dirty’ vis-a-vis this discussion with me.
So, to lefroy-cum-anonymouse….vaya con Dios. And don’t let the screen door hit you in your fourth-point-of-contact on the way out…..
#192 ANONYMOUS:I would NEVER call you liberal because of the gun issue;stupid, yes,liberal,not necessarily.Don’t project the contents of your skull onto PJM.The only cesspit is between your ears.MOLON LABE!
The “anonymous” post was mine – it came from a computer that didn’t have my name in the box.
“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? PATRICK HENRY, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169