An anti-gun 20/20 this friday
- Thread starter skwab
- Start date
- Status
HK G3
Member
Okay, so who has the list of advertisers for this show so I know what products NOT to buy?
I was sitting on the couch with a pen and paper ready to write down all the false bs that was going to come our way....but I can't write that damn fast or count that high. :banghead:
Remember, at the beginning she said that this wasn't a debate, it was to see if guns could be used to protect.
I saw absolutely no point to the gun in the drawer segment. What was that supposed to prove, that if they film enough people in that situation that they'll find one or two Darwin candidates?
Saw no point to showing the kid who lived in the ghetto...
Saw no point in the gunshow segment.
Saw no point in conducting a flawed experiment. She moans about how officers need tons of hours of practice per year (yeah right) but then expects these students to excel with only a couple of hours against the same "highly trained" officer with hundreds of training hours? The same officer who, immediately after shooting the professor, aims straight for the student with the gun. The same student who trained without all the BS safety equipment on.
She (sawyer) completely failed to recognize so many facts, but mainly that these mass shootings, esp VT, the students would have had significantly more time than the two seconds given to the students in her experiment. Even someone who doesn't train at all can unholster a firearm and shoot in ten seconds or more. Those mass shootings took minutes not seconds.
She couldn't find anything "reliable" to prove the point that guns save lives, but she didn't prove anything "reliable" on her part either.
Remember, at the beginning she said that this wasn't a debate, it was to see if guns could be used to protect.
I saw absolutely no point to the gun in the drawer segment. What was that supposed to prove, that if they film enough people in that situation that they'll find one or two Darwin candidates?
Saw no point to showing the kid who lived in the ghetto...
Saw no point in the gunshow segment.
Saw no point in conducting a flawed experiment. She moans about how officers need tons of hours of practice per year (yeah right) but then expects these students to excel with only a couple of hours against the same "highly trained" officer with hundreds of training hours? The same officer who, immediately after shooting the professor, aims straight for the student with the gun. The same student who trained without all the BS safety equipment on.
She (sawyer) completely failed to recognize so many facts, but mainly that these mass shootings, esp VT, the students would have had significantly more time than the two seconds given to the students in her experiment. Even someone who doesn't train at all can unholster a firearm and shoot in ten seconds or more. Those mass shootings took minutes not seconds.
She couldn't find anything "reliable" to prove the point that guns save lives, but she didn't prove anything "reliable" on her part either.
Mike_in_OC
Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2006
- Messages
- 102
I did not expect anything else from her and 20/20. Im sure they won't let John Stossel to a rebuttal show.
http://www.nt2099.com/J-ENT/news/am...c-news-2020-410/comment-page-1/#comment-51739
The above is a link to ABC's comment page on the story, at this point the comments seem to be overwhelmingly against ABC please feel free to hit it
All comments are moderated so please be on your best High road behavior
The above is a link to ABC's comment page on the story, at this point the comments seem to be overwhelmingly against ABC please feel free to hit it
All comments are moderated so please be on your best High road behavior
don't know if it's been brought up in this thread yet, but a member of ARFCOM posted this:
I've never been to the Showplace gunshow but it's set up by the same company that runs other VA shows, they all have a table set up inside the doors. Even more fishy is the fact that the gun was zip tied w/ the same orange GUNSHOW ties they use INSIDE the show. HMMMMMM.
Lots of stuff it was easy to tell was set up beforehand.
I've never been to the Showplace gunshow but it's set up by the same company that runs other VA shows, they all have a table set up inside the doors. Even more fishy is the fact that the gun was zip tied w/ the same orange GUNSHOW ties they use INSIDE the show. HMMMMMM.
Lots of stuff it was easy to tell was set up beforehand.
camslam
Member
Not only that but he claims that the guy approached him, then in his narrative, he says, "I asked the guy how much he wanted for it, and he said $450, I said I've got the cash."
20/20, ABC, and Diane Sawyer are a joke. I agree with TRGRHPY, there were too many items to keep track of regarding the false pretenses that were put out.
20/20, ABC, and Diane Sawyer are a joke. I agree with TRGRHPY, there were too many items to keep track of regarding the false pretenses that were put out.
RX-178
Member
We have the internet. There's youtube, myspace, whatnot.
What would it take to post videos debunking 20/20's simulated scenario?
Not only that, we could highlight things such as the UNTRAINED GIRL'S clean hit on the trained police 'gunman'.
Also, what would it take to recreate the same simulation and record the results? Making clear certain aspects that were changed from 20/20, such as our gunman not being informed of the CCWer's position in the room, getting people that have taken CCW classes (and at the same time describing how such classes are available to the public)...
What would it take to post videos debunking 20/20's simulated scenario?
Not only that, we could highlight things such as the UNTRAINED GIRL'S clean hit on the trained police 'gunman'.
Also, what would it take to recreate the same simulation and record the results? Making clear certain aspects that were changed from 20/20, such as our gunman not being informed of the CCWer's position in the room, getting people that have taken CCW classes (and at the same time describing how such classes are available to the public)...
Zeke/PA
Member
That show was a piece of poorly prepared crap, laced with enough commercial content to extend 15 minutes of info into 60 minutes of air time.
Westermeyer
Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2008
- Messages
- 16
I didn't watch the show, but it sounds like it would be very interesting to see how well the police officer/shooter did if they put him in the "hotseat" so to speak, with a student shooting.
Dirtbag said:
Yes indded:
But please give us some time too do it. When we are done a very logical and factual case will be laid out, along with specific information on how you can use it to best effect.
Going off in every direction while having a rant will only help ABC show that we are what they say we are, a bunch of dangerous and disorganized yahoos. Cool, hard facts and documented information will sink their ship, and we can endanger the FCC license held by each and every TV station that broadcast the show. They in turn will give 20/20 what it has coming.
Yes indded:
But please give us some time too do it. When we are done a very logical and factual case will be laid out, along with specific information on how you can use it to best effect.
Going off in every direction while having a rant will only help ABC show that we are what they say we are, a bunch of dangerous and disorganized yahoos. Cool, hard facts and documented information will sink their ship, and we can endanger the FCC license held by each and every TV station that broadcast the show. They in turn will give 20/20 what it has coming.
I'm not going to rant myself since it is all been well said in previous posts. However, why doesn't the NRA/GOA, etc have a 30 minute special why guns are a useful tool? It seems they have plenty of ammo(pun intended)to rebute the silliness of 20/20.
Because the show was broadcast last evening, and it will take time to carefully analyze the content and then make a concise and provable rebuttal. Solid facts will beat pure B.S. every time.
And if they play they’re cards right, ABC and their affiliated stations may end up having to pay for it.
cactusgeorge
Member
gun control/ 20/20 show
I have just sent ABC two VERY pointed e-mails about their "hatchet job" show and suggested that if they were at all interested in growing their market share that the other side if this issue needs to be aired. The only show I watch on ABC is DWTS, period. I have also sent VERY pointed e-mails to three sponsors advising them to RECONSIDER sponsoring any of this "hack" journalism ever again. I will send three more tomorrow and three more the next day, until all have been contacted. A concerted e-mail compaign by ALL the responsible gunowners in this country to these people should get the point across that we are truly PISSED and will not stand for these lies and distortions being put out on the air any longer.....This is war......WOLVERINES...!!!
I have just sent ABC two VERY pointed e-mails about their "hatchet job" show and suggested that if they were at all interested in growing their market share that the other side if this issue needs to be aired. The only show I watch on ABC is DWTS, period. I have also sent VERY pointed e-mails to three sponsors advising them to RECONSIDER sponsoring any of this "hack" journalism ever again. I will send three more tomorrow and three more the next day, until all have been contacted. A concerted e-mail compaign by ALL the responsible gunowners in this country to these people should get the point across that we are truly PISSED and will not stand for these lies and distortions being put out on the air any longer.....This is war......WOLVERINES...!!!
Well it’s the morning after the big 20/20 debacle, and everybody is looking for a way to hit back. 
Well folks, maybe you will feel better if you understand what the situation really is. This is not the first time a leftist, urban-based television network has pulled off something like this, and it won’t be the last. But because we know how to respond in an effective manner, the ABC Network and 20/20 may get more grief then they handed out.
Why? Because what they presented, and the way they presented it, won’t stand up to critical examination. The show consisted of contrived presentations that didn’t have circumstances that have occurred in real life.
They say for example that if an armed student was in a classroom and someone entered and started shooting the events would come out a certain way; but they can’t point to an example where it did, because so far no school shooter has ever encountered armed resistances from anyone in the room. Hasn’t happened – anywhere.
So what 20/20 showed was conjecture on their part. What we have here is pure propaganda, not news.
So can we nail ABC and 20/20? Probably not, at least directly.
But we can go to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and file formal complaints against each and every television station that is an ABC affiliate.
Follow this link to find the ABC Station in your area. http://abc.go.com/site/localstations.html
To broadcast over the public airwaves they have to have a license from the FCC, and without it they are out of business.
That license makes them (not the network) responsible for everything they send out on the airwaves, and carries an obligation to be sure it is truthful and fair to differing point of view – unless it is specifically identified to be an opinion piece or editorial. Even then it may be open to rebuttal from others.
In this context, all of the ABC affiliated stations have got a potentially serious problem this morning. If challenged, and they will be, they must convince the FCC that the pile of garbage 20/20 put out meets the Commission’s standards for news – and I don’t think they can do it. If they can’t some serious sanctions could come down on their heads.
So remember, you go after the TV station that broadcast the show, not the ABC Network or 20/20. They will get what they have coming later.
www.fcc.gov
Now do you feel better??
Well folks, maybe you will feel better if you understand what the situation really is. This is not the first time a leftist, urban-based television network has pulled off something like this, and it won’t be the last. But because we know how to respond in an effective manner, the ABC Network and 20/20 may get more grief then they handed out.
Why? Because what they presented, and the way they presented it, won’t stand up to critical examination. The show consisted of contrived presentations that didn’t have circumstances that have occurred in real life.
They say for example that if an armed student was in a classroom and someone entered and started shooting the events would come out a certain way; but they can’t point to an example where it did, because so far no school shooter has ever encountered armed resistances from anyone in the room. Hasn’t happened – anywhere.
So what 20/20 showed was conjecture on their part. What we have here is pure propaganda, not news.
So can we nail ABC and 20/20? Probably not, at least directly.
But we can go to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and file formal complaints against each and every television station that is an ABC affiliate.
Follow this link to find the ABC Station in your area. http://abc.go.com/site/localstations.html
To broadcast over the public airwaves they have to have a license from the FCC, and without it they are out of business.
That license makes them (not the network) responsible for everything they send out on the airwaves, and carries an obligation to be sure it is truthful and fair to differing point of view – unless it is specifically identified to be an opinion piece or editorial. Even then it may be open to rebuttal from others.
In this context, all of the ABC affiliated stations have got a potentially serious problem this morning. If challenged, and they will be, they must convince the FCC that the pile of garbage 20/20 put out meets the Commission’s standards for news – and I don’t think they can do it. If they can’t some serious sanctions could come down on their heads.
So remember, you go after the TV station that broadcast the show, not the ABC Network or 20/20. They will get what they have coming later.
www.fcc.gov
Now do you feel better??
Last edited:
rainbowbob
Member
Old Fuff:
The fact that there are not any "real life" examples should not preclude the possibility of obtaining meaningful results from a classroom "experiment" - IF it was conducted in a way that even remotely replicated a realistic scenario(s).
In the 20/20 "experiment" (and I use the term VERY loosely) the results were skewed by a set-up that was anything BUT realistic.
As has been pointed out by others...the "shooter" was a well-trained firearms instructor who knew exactly who he was going after and where they were sitting.
The results of that were predictable - but would only apply to a real-life situation in which the shooter was a well trained marksman with a specific target who knew exactly where that target would be sitting before entering the room. Such a real-life scenario may occur - but would not describe the most common of this type of incident.
Moreover, the target would have to be using unfamiliar gear with poorly thought-out cover garments interfering with their ability to present the weapon.
In other words - they cooked the books on this one.
If, instead, they had employed targets, in multiple replications of the experiment, who were unknown to the shooter, located randomly in the room, and who were competent and familiar with their equipment and cover garments (as any responsible gun-owner is) - I would consider the results as at least a useful indication of potential real-world outcomes.
In their case - they started with a desired outcome, and then designed an experiment that would best provide support for that outcome.
Anyone remotely familiar with the protocols for obtaining empirical evidence from well-designed experiments - even a rabid anti-gun scientist - would laugh at such nonsense!
Last edited:
CountGlockula
Member
Thank you ABC. I'm convinced. You've convinced me that I don't need anything more than a cell phone and a desk to crawl under to protect my life. I'm selling all my guns right away! I will no longer be a danger to myself or others. Thank God for 20/20!
rainbowbob
Member
Fortunately this incident in my area occurred the day before this program aired. Mr Harrell hadn't yet learned that he was more likely to shoot himself or his wife, or have the burglar turn the gun on them!
Regardless of what you or I may think of his tactics - he was able to expel an intruder with his gun. Someone who didn't know any better might have gotten the impression from 20/20 that this never happens.
Of course, WE know it happens EVERY DAY somewhere in this country of ours.
I'm sure most of us have visited this blog-site documenting news stories from around the U.S where citizens have used a firearm successfully to defend themselves, their families, their homes and their businesses:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
Regardless of what you or I may think of his tactics - he was able to expel an intruder with his gun. Someone who didn't know any better might have gotten the impression from 20/20 that this never happens.
Of course, WE know it happens EVERY DAY somewhere in this country of ours.
I'm sure most of us have visited this blog-site documenting news stories from around the U.S where citizens have used a firearm successfully to defend themselves, their families, their homes and their businesses:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
Last edited:
shaggy430
Member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 950
Here is a list of the advertisers that promoted products during the program. I apologize if anyone else has already posted this.
1) Dannon / DanActive Yougurt http://dannon.com/contact.aspx
2) Fidelity Investments http://personal.fidelity.com/account…ing.shtml.cvsr
3) Cialis http://www.cialis.com/common_pages/ask_lilly.jsp
4) The Soloist - Movie
5) Verizon Wireless X Two http://www22.verizon.com/residential/support/contactus/
6) Extreme Makeover Home Edition
7) Abilify RX http://www.bms.com/contact/Pages/home.aspx
Pet Smart http://help.petsmart.com/contact-us/…orporate.shtml
9) Apple I Phone / AT&T
10) Home Goods
11) PA Dept of Health / Quit Smoking
12) Land Rover /Range Rover http://www.landroverusa.com/us/en/Co…contact-us.htm
13) Travelers Insurance Co http://www.travelers.com/corporate-i…actuspage.aspx
14) Transitions Glasses
15) ABC / Dancing With the Stars
16) DSW Shoes ( Ladies tell your friends !!) http://www.dsw.com/dsw_shoes/customer_service/index.jsp
17) Giant Food Stores
18) Geico Ins X Two http://www.geico.com/about/contactus/
19) Kohl’s http://www.kohlscorporation.com/cust…vice_home.html
20) Nicoderm CQ https://www.nicodermcq.com/contact.aspx
21) Ghosts of Girlfriends Past Movie
22) Remax Real Estate http://www.remax.com/misc/contact_us/
23) Bali for Women by Hanes
24) ABC Good Morning America X Two
25) ABC Show ” Castle ”
26) Sprint Wireless http://www.sprint.com/contactus/?id8=vanity:contact
27) Reclast RX http://www.reclast.com/jsp/utils/con…fo/choicei.jsp
28) H&R Block https://www.hrblock.com/customer_sup…nSelected=none
29) ABC show ” The Unusuals ”
30) Action News @ 11pm
31) Dunkin Donuts https://www.dunkindonuts.com/aboutus/contact/
1) Dannon / DanActive Yougurt http://dannon.com/contact.aspx
2) Fidelity Investments http://personal.fidelity.com/account…ing.shtml.cvsr
3) Cialis http://www.cialis.com/common_pages/ask_lilly.jsp
4) The Soloist - Movie
5) Verizon Wireless X Two http://www22.verizon.com/residential/support/contactus/
6) Extreme Makeover Home Edition
7) Abilify RX http://www.bms.com/contact/Pages/home.aspx
Pet Smart http://help.petsmart.com/contact-us/…orporate.shtml
9) Apple I Phone / AT&T
10) Home Goods
11) PA Dept of Health / Quit Smoking
12) Land Rover /Range Rover http://www.landroverusa.com/us/en/Co…contact-us.htm
13) Travelers Insurance Co http://www.travelers.com/corporate-i…actuspage.aspx
14) Transitions Glasses
15) ABC / Dancing With the Stars
16) DSW Shoes ( Ladies tell your friends !!) http://www.dsw.com/dsw_shoes/customer_service/index.jsp
17) Giant Food Stores
18) Geico Ins X Two http://www.geico.com/about/contactus/
19) Kohl’s http://www.kohlscorporation.com/cust…vice_home.html
20) Nicoderm CQ https://www.nicodermcq.com/contact.aspx
21) Ghosts of Girlfriends Past Movie
22) Remax Real Estate http://www.remax.com/misc/contact_us/
23) Bali for Women by Hanes
24) ABC Good Morning America X Two
25) ABC Show ” Castle ”
26) Sprint Wireless http://www.sprint.com/contactus/?id8=vanity:contact
27) Reclast RX http://www.reclast.com/jsp/utils/con…fo/choicei.jsp
28) H&R Block https://www.hrblock.com/customer_sup…nSelected=none
29) ABC show ” The Unusuals ”
30) Action News @ 11pm
31) Dunkin Donuts https://www.dunkindonuts.com/aboutus/contact/
Sure, you can run any kind of experiments, based on any scenario you want, but the problem that ABC/20/20 is going to have is that the FCC will want them to show a correlation between their "experiment," and what would happen "with certainty" in a real-life situation. 20/20 reached a conclusion first, and set up their experiment in a way tailored to prove it, and excluded any other possibility. Now they may have to show that beyond doubt what they showed was the only possible outcome. We know that they can't do that, because contrary to their position the skill, courage and exact location of the armed person can't be determined beforehand in real life.
It is also a proven fact (in real life that is) that as soon as one of these mass killers meets meaningful resistance they stop and commit suicide. Thus nothing more then a wild shot in they’re direction might be enough to shut the killing off.
The one indisputable point is that without decisive resistance, or the appearance of such, the killer will continue to murder helpless victims until he either runs out of ammunition, or for whatever other reason decides to stop.
20/20 objects to the concept of an armed person in the classroom, but offers no viable alternative except for everyone to die. If there were other alternatives (and obviously there are) then 20/20 cannot claim that what they showed wasn’t biased in a manner to support a particular point of view.
With that in mind, we can produce a real-life incident where a woman, with her personal handgun and a CCW, stopped a mass killer in the hallway of a church in Colorado, and in so doing prevented a massacre. According to 20/20, such a person cannot exist because they don't match their stereotype, and if they did they clearly wouldn't or couldn’t have done what they did. They have taken the position that civilian CCW license holders are all uniformly incompetent, and didn’t leave themselves any wiggle room. This was a big mistake, but exactly what one would expect.
Exactly! That's why ABC and 20/20 (or more likely they're associated TV stations) are going to be in trouble.
I have another issue with that experiment that I don't think anyone else has mentioned...if it has been mentioned, my apologies.
We push for more and more people to carry, either openly or concealed. This scenario only puts one armed student in the situation. How would it turn out of 25% of the students were armed...or 50%....etc. AND if those students were positioned in seats unknown to the shooter ahead of time.
Another thing is that these school shooting move from room to room. There's no reason not to believe that an armed student in the next room that the shooter moves to, will have cover and a strategic shot at him as soon as he enters the room.
So my point is that even though they showed, through junk science, that one armed student can be eliminated, they didn't bother to show what would happen if there were multiple armed students and in different rooms if the shooter progressed.
BTW, am I the only one who pulls his shirt up and out of the way when I sit down because of this very scenario? Maybe it's easier for me since we have cc and oc, so the legality part isn't an issue. But if you don't have oc or are worried about it, can't you sit with your strong side to the wall so it's not noticed?
We push for more and more people to carry, either openly or concealed. This scenario only puts one armed student in the situation. How would it turn out of 25% of the students were armed...or 50%....etc. AND if those students were positioned in seats unknown to the shooter ahead of time.
Another thing is that these school shooting move from room to room. There's no reason not to believe that an armed student in the next room that the shooter moves to, will have cover and a strategic shot at him as soon as he enters the room.
So my point is that even though they showed, through junk science, that one armed student can be eliminated, they didn't bother to show what would happen if there were multiple armed students and in different rooms if the shooter progressed.
BTW, am I the only one who pulls his shirt up and out of the way when I sit down because of this very scenario? Maybe it's easier for me since we have cc and oc, so the legality part isn't an issue. But if you don't have oc or are worried about it, can't you sit with your strong side to the wall so it's not noticed?
rainbowbob
Member
Playing devil's advocate, the only problem I have with this example is that the woman in question was a trained LEO if I remember correctly.
Can we come up with an example where a non-professional effectively employed their concealed weapon in a mass-shooting incident?
Sure, there have been several, but of the ones I know of had to go and get their personal weapon(s) from a car, truck etc. In any case they responded before regular lawmen arrived.
But it's a moot point. The lady wasn't acting in the capacity of a LEO, and 20/20 wasn't smart enough to make an exception in their experiment for a former LEO or person with a military background. We can also show that many CCW license holders are far better trained then the average LEO. Some of them are members of this forum. Any way they turn 20/20 producers are now trapped. They can't undo what was done.
Remember it was their position that ordinary individuals with a CCW were without exception too incompentent to be able to stop a shooting.
All these posts won't matter a bit to ABC. They don't care what we think.
There's a list of sponsors on page 7 of this thread. If you want to get ABC's attention, write or email the sponsors! Let them know you won't do business with them because they're supporting a political movement that's devoted to violating the Constitution.
Posting brave words on an Internet forum is worthless. Hit the sponsors!
There's a list of sponsors on page 7 of this thread. If you want to get ABC's attention, write or email the sponsors! Let them know you won't do business with them because they're supporting a political movement that's devoted to violating the Constitution.
Posting brave words on an Internet forum is worthless. Hit the sponsors!
- Status
