IOW you have nothing substantial to contribute, have no concept of even the concepts being debated here (aside from the fact that everyone who disagrees with you is a ‘gun lubber’ or ‘gun nuts on the dope’), and so can be dismissed as usual without further bother.
I will say that at least you did manage to post your bit of insults and nothing in a paragraph format…which I suppose is at least nominally an improvement. Mind…I don’t mind insults, personally…but even your insults are lame.
-XT
I’m curious, Gonzo, what would it take for you to see the test as being biased or rigged?
If the students had their hands handcuffed behind their back and someone cried fowl, would you still be saying “you gun lovers can’t handle any criticism!”?
How about if a team of navy SEALs breached through the door with explosives after throwing flashbangs in the room and the only gun the students had was an unloaded musket in a locked closet in the back of the room? Still a fair test because the result is “see! having a gun is useless!”, right?
That’d be really chicken of 'em.
Who the hell is trained in combat tactics to get a gun? Set the bar high enough? have you no shame?
Forget it Jake, it’s Gonzo town.
Apparently the guy who burst into the classroom to shoot up the students :rolleyes:
And the really sad thing is, you aren’t kidding. You really DON’T get it. :eek:
-XT
Our gun nuts will fight any program on guns if it does not say guns make us safer. I get it fine. In the face of clear and overwhelming data ,gun nuts rely on volume and distortion.
This program did not even say guns were bad. Just that people with them are a lot less able to behave properly with them in a crisis. than they believe they can. Is that such a transgression? Well it is to people who defend any and all programs as slanted and anti gun, even when they are not. TV isn’t the only thing programmed.
No…you don’t get it.
-XT
You are completely right, gonzo.
First of all, if you want anyone to take you seriously, you might want to consider an alternative to insulting posts and name-calling your viewpoint’s opposition. Second of all, when I see an obvious and clear bias in a TV program, I’m going to call it out as biased. The fact that you ignore the bias because it fits in with your point of view about gun control doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. And finally, please learn how to use commas.
To play devil’s advocate here, I did find a kernel’s worth of point in Gonzomax’s posts. If I understand him correctly, he’s saying that the required standard of most states’ carry laws is inadequate to meet the demands of a real tactical situation. Now this says nothing as to whether the 20/20 piece was biased, or how many CCW people self-train past the bare minimum standard, but I would cautiously concede that there’s a lot more to practical self-defense then a minimum score on a silhouette target. I would be the first to say that owning a gun doesn’t make you an expert in self defense any more than owning an ax makes you a lumberjack. I do think Gonzo has a somewhat disparaging view of the competency and intelligence of the average carry permit holder.
But on the other hand, regardless of the required level of training, people can and regularly do successfully defend themselves or property with firearms daily. Here’s a blog with over 4,000 documented instances: http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
But how could that be considering the lack of required training? Could people be slightly more competent than anti-gun folk make them out to be? My point is, if someone is going to go out of their way and obtain a permit to carry a firearm and buy firearms they’re probably going to put a little effort toward practicing with it too.
Gun control arguments are born out of ignorance and fear. Guns are a tools; like an ax or window cleaner, a gun can be misused. Firearm accidents are unfortunate but they are a matter of personal responsibility - Those who are responsible shouldn’t be hampered by gun control laws aimed at a foolish minority.
I will never understand the demonizing of guns. “Gun crimes” are just crimes in which criminals utilized an effective tool. If guns weren’t available, criminals would turn to knives, clubs, and maybe even ball-point pens. Want a cite? Look to Britain and Australia; many criminals still have guns and those that don’t are responsible for the spike in knife and battery crimes.
Criminals are culpable for their actions, fearing the tools they sometimes employ is foolish.
Also many people ,once they have a gun stash it in a drawer and rarely touch it. They are not reliable in a crisis. Not all gun owners are as expert and well trained as Dopers. But that is all the 20/20 piece was about. it was not anti gun at all. Perhaps it even suggested that gun owners should seek training if they really want to protect themselves, their families and the American way of life.
Then why did they not perform a realistic simulation?
There are only two posibilities.
1)They didn’t know any better. I could accept that.
2)They wanted to make sure that the student didn’t have a chance.
As the bloggers point out, they consider that to work out to about two instances in the US per day, although they add an unsupported assertion that “research tells us this number is far higher”.
They also seem to be pretty generous in defining the “self-defense” category, including guns being fired in fistfights between friends and relatives, and ranchers shooting wolves that are chasing their cattle. (Mind you, I don’t have any quarrel with livestock owners protecting their livestock from predatory wild animals, but I call it pest control, not self-defense.)
Irrelevant but interesting tidbit:
Hee:
“Especially when my sister-in-law drops in!”
Hello everyone, I don’t know why I didn’t post before but I am actually one of the kids from the garage experiment in the episode. Its a crazy story of how I got there though. I knew I was being filmed and even wore my highschool’s shirt reading “BERNARDS SWIMMING” in my appearence. I was the kid who was talking on the phone with the gun in his hand. What happened was I responded to a craigslist ad saying $75 bucks for an hour of work so of course I replied and showed up when I was told but when I got there, they told me the power was out (so cameras wouldn’t work) and showed me all the cameras in the house. They even paid me. Then they contacted me again and I said why the hell not, I figured they would just pay me again if i showed up even if they recognize me. As it turns out, they had no idea that I had been to the same house before and I had a great time making a joke out of their show, pointing the gun at my face while talking on the phone and such. I wanted to tell people about this earlier. Pretty funny how easy it was to trick the mainstream media! I’d like to hear what others have to say on this…