Well I can't argue against CCers having more training.
The bias in this ABC report is overwhelming, yet reporters put themselves forward as the arbiters of truth. The sad thing is that most viewers will blindly accept the sugar coated views of the reporter as wisdom.
Which room would you rather be in when the criminal enters and starts firing - the one in which no one has a gun or the one in which one citizen does? I'll take the one with the armed citizen.
This story reminds me of the faked Pinto gas tank explosion story. The extent to which they went to rig the outcome, in this story, the way they wanted, seems obvious - extra long t-shirt to make it hard to draw, probably no training in drawing, and I assume that the criminal knew which person had the firearm and where he was sitting.
A farce masquerading as truth.
Which room would you rather be in when the criminal enters and starts firing - the one in which no one has a gun or the one in which one citizen does? I'll take the one with the armed citizen.
This story reminds me of the faked Pinto gas tank explosion story. The extent to which they went to rig the outcome, in this story, the way they wanted, seems obvious - extra long t-shirt to make it hard to draw, probably no training in drawing, and I assume that the criminal knew which person had the firearm and where he was sitting.
A farce masquerading as truth.
Wasn't this done some time ago? Seems I've seen it long before now.
Or did they do another one where highly LEO goes against some college kids? Yea that proves a lot.
:finger:
Or did they do another one where highly LEO goes against some college kids? Yea that proves a lot.
:finger:
This is interesting but not very important - BTW in case anyone asks you, most police officers and military get the same effect depending on the circumstances as is well documented in many, many after action reports.
Let me summarize the problem the press has - they think most "gun enthusiasts" (read - hicks/bumpkins/fools and those generally unable to govern themselves) need to have dangerous toys taken away pre-emptively because we will hurt ourselves or someone else (maybe even someone that matters like...them). The attitude is so prevalent that most of the folks who hold it don't recognize it as a prejudice they simply see it as "reality". The 2nd Amendment or the reasoning behind it doesn't make a dent in their world view - they either ignore it or argue that the 2A means whatever they choose it to mean regardless of its wording or context.
Now it doesn't hurt that a certain percentage (a small percentage) are a bunch of fools - but the same can be said of licensed car drivers and pilots. I also seem to recall that a fair number of parents are lousy parents, Church goers are lousy Church goers, etc. In fact, freedom of speech is exercised (without a license) by many people who haven't the foggiest notion of the consequences of what they advocate (Occupy XXX) and speech, especially political speech, can have much more far-reaching and decidedly nasty effects than a few bullets.
OK, I probably haven't said anything most of you don't already know but maybe it will help you regard the seemingly arrogant US media elite with the pity they actually deserve. I feel sorry for anyone whose chosen career is to uncover the truthand yet who seems so wedded to a prejudiced "reality" instead.
Let me summarize the problem the press has - they think most "gun enthusiasts" (read - hicks/bumpkins/fools and those generally unable to govern themselves) need to have dangerous toys taken away pre-emptively because we will hurt ourselves or someone else (maybe even someone that matters like...them). The attitude is so prevalent that most of the folks who hold it don't recognize it as a prejudice they simply see it as "reality". The 2nd Amendment or the reasoning behind it doesn't make a dent in their world view - they either ignore it or argue that the 2A means whatever they choose it to mean regardless of its wording or context.
Now it doesn't hurt that a certain percentage (a small percentage) are a bunch of fools - but the same can be said of licensed car drivers and pilots. I also seem to recall that a fair number of parents are lousy parents, Church goers are lousy Church goers, etc. In fact, freedom of speech is exercised (without a license) by many people who haven't the foggiest notion of the consequences of what they advocate (Occupy XXX) and speech, especially political speech, can have much more far-reaching and decidedly nasty effects than a few bullets.
OK, I probably haven't said anything most of you don't already know but maybe it will help you regard the seemingly arrogant US media elite with the pity they actually deserve. I feel sorry for anyone whose chosen career is to uncover the truthand yet who seems so wedded to a prejudiced "reality" instead.
After watching this I couldn't put my feelings into words without hateful things to say about the people that rigged this. Yes...if you set up a scenario where the ccw'er will have another "bad guy" two seats down knowing that he will focus on the other "bad guy"...no ****. The ccw'er will get shot. But when things are rigged to go only one way what do you expect to happen....oh yea. And the oversized t shirts and sitting him in the most vulnerable spot in the room everytime really does good for a fair outcome...
I say put me in that room with a paint marker gun.. ill take cover and get my arse outta there. Polly wont even need to use a gun to defend myself. But guess what...ill have it and will use it accordingly. Not just stand straight up and blast away like the duke nuke em character.
I would really like to see a semi legitimate test. You know average guy off the street (not a cop or ccw instructor or anything like that) vs another average guy. Now in the class they would need to be doing something to distract the "good guy". Let them choose where to sit and let the bad guy choose where and when to enter. I think many people might be surprised of the outcome. Each time the bad guy enters the room everyone has the same basic chance of being the first person attacked. I could be because you have a beard and the guy hates beards. It could be because you are closest to him, it could be because you are next to his target and he misses. Being armed increases your chances after first contact. Being smart increases your chances even more.
I think this show was called "If I only had a gun". The scenarios seemed unrealistic as the "bad guy" already knew which student was carrying the pistol before entering the classroom. If I remember correctly none of the students had concealed carry licenses and no real training outside of shooting static targets.
That deal was so bias, and they went directly to the CCW guy every time.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ninth Circuit: Felon Has ‘Right to Possess Firearm for Self-Defense’- Latest: OneMoreEvan
-
-
-
-
-
-
