ABC 20/20 "Guns in America"

[Skipper5]

Keith...well done in your note to ABC. I was eagerly awaiting the show to be even more super-liberal, anti-gun than it actually was. Totally agree as to the classroom shooting scenario ....bogus.

We all would be interested to see if ABC has developed a written response to positions you expressed. Let us know.

Again, nice going.

//John

[bbonner]

Most of the show was difficult to watch but the "gun show loophole" portion was the most difficult for me. Who among you has been able to go into a gun show and buy a gun from anyone at a vendor table and did not have to fill out any paperwork and/or show your CHL license? For this person to walk into a gun show and walk out with all of those guns and say there were no questions asked was a malicious lie! Or . . . is it possible that I have never come across this in all my years going to gun shows! I understand it is possible to buy a gun from people walking around with a gun in their backpack and a sign but there are no vendors that can legally sell a gun without proper paperwork. Am I wrong on this? If so, I feel so stupid!

Billy B.

[JackRR]

Well said Keith!
I have only watched the "active shooter" segment once. What I noticed mostly was the clothing/mask the participant wore. I understand the need for safety but give me my shooting eye-protection, my Hawaiian flowerdy shirt, my choice of holster, my carry weapon and last but not least, everyone else will wear same as me plus I get to choose where to sit(probably in the back row) Then we will see. But I expected nothing less than the slanted piece ABC produced. I was going to watch the other segments (and I may in time)
but I think instead I will go spend time at the reloading bench getting some ammo ready for the next range trip in a couple of days.

One thing is true, you need to practice,practice, and practice drawing your weapon. This is why I wear only certain clothes to carry, If I cant draw my weapon with only one hand without getting caught up in the shirt, it dont get worn.

[AEA]

Most of the show was difficult to watch but the "gun show loophole" portion was the most difficult for me. Who among you has been able to go into a gun show and buy a gun from anyone at a vendor table and did not have to fill out any paperwork and/or show your CHL license? For this person to walk into a gun show and walk out with all of those guns and say there were no questions asked was a malicious lie! Or . . . is it possible that I have never come across this in all my years going to gun shows! I understand it is possible to buy a gun from people walking around with a gun in their backpack and a sign but there are no vendors that can legally sell a gun without proper paperwork. Am I wrong on this? If so, I feel so stupid!

Billy B.

You are incorrect.

Part of the thrill of going to a Gun Show is looking at everyone bringing stuff with them to sell. They carry pistols, rifles, knives, all sorts of things. Sometimes they will have a sign on a gun they are carrying with the price. Others have no signs. You simply walk up and ask "is that for sale" and go from there.

That is exactly what the guy in the ABC Show did. He walked up to someone in line that had a pistol in their hand and asked if it was for sale.

As long as you buy from an individual and not a licensed FFL Dealer, you can buy with absolutely no paperwork at all. A lot of guys that have extensive collections sometimes rent tables to sell their guns. You can buy from them without paperwork. Just because someone has a table does not mean that they are an FFL and paperwork is needed.

If you are not sure, just ask if the person is a FFL Dealer. If the answer is YES, then there will be paperwork and a NICS Check. If the answer is NO, pull out your cash and take the gun home with no other requirements.

Welcome to the Forum!

[NcongruNt]

The gun bloggers (myself included) are attacking this as well.

Here's a list for your reading pleasure:

http://therealnecessities.blogspot.com/ ... tated.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
My blog. Note: I used a naughty word at the end of my post. Consider this your language warning.

http://blog.knotclan.com/2009/04/11/if- ... had-a-gun/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Eseel at Found: One Troll does a play-by-play.

http://gunnuts.net/2009/04/11/set-up-to-fail/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Caleb over at Gun Nuts Media.

http://sensiblyprogressive.blogspot.com ... -2020.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sensibly Progressive in Politically Correct America.

http://virginiashootingsportsassociatio ... d-gun.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The president of the Virginia Shooting Sports Association weighs in.

http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/04 ... tchet-job/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sebastian from Snowflakes in Hell adds his commentary to the VSSA and Sensibly Progressive posts.

[gemini]

[quote="AEA
Part of the thrill of going to a Gun Show is looking at everyone bringing stuff with them to sell. They carry pistols, rifles, knives, all sorts of things. Sometimes they will have a sign on a gun they are carrying with the price. Others have no signs. You simply walk up and ask "is that for sale" and go from there.

That is exactly what the guy in the ABC Show did. He walked up to someone in line that had a pistol in their hand and asked if it was for sale.

As long as you buy from an individual and not a licensed FFL Dealer, you can buy with absolutely no paperwork at all. A lot of guys that have extensive collections sometimes rent tables to sell their guns. You can buy from them without paperwork. Just because someone has a table does not mean that they are an FFL and paperwork is needed.

If you are not sure, just ask if the person is a FFL Dealer. If the answer is YES, then there will be paperwork and a NICS Check. If the answer is NO, pull out your cash and take the gun home with no other requirements.



AEA is correct. I sometimes have a table and sell from my personal collection. However, I always ask a few
questions: ie. Are you a legal resident of this state? Do you have any felony convictions or court orders that would prevent
you from legally buying a gun? I require a DL or CHL, and I copy that info into a notebook for my records. No NICS or other paper work required. The type of guns I am interested in don't normally interest the gangster crowd. Mostly, I run across straight up folks, good people looking for specific firearms for collections etc. As an individual, I reserve the right to not sell anything to anybody I don't want too. Side benefit of working for yourself!

[Skiprr]

All of the other "students" in the classroom were plants, and were playing out a role. You cannot simulate "active shooter" chaos with roll-playing.

What would you suggest to make a more realistic active shooter scenario?

I wasn't completely clear on that one. (And I also missed the fact that the "student CHL" was always seated front-row and center in each running of the scenario. Geez.)

Here is exactly how Diane Sawyer described everyone in the classroom simulation, save the "student CHL" himself:

He also doesn't know that these other "students" around him are in fact cops, or people working for ABC who will replicate the chaos of real people in real crises.

That's what I was referring to. There were no other students in the scenario, only police officers and ABC personnel. As you watched each scenario unfold, it was obvious it was scripted going in.

For example, even though the front of the classroom "horseshoe," where the "teacher" was lecturing, was narrow--less than 10 feet wide--and the active shooter was less than 15 feet from the most-distant "student" sitting in the front row, one "student's" task was to climb over the furniture and run between the active shooter and the "student CHL"...in effect running toward the shooter. Not out of the realm of possibility, but I'd think not a very probable reaction. And the "active shooter" knew exactly what the "running student" was going to do; the "student CHL" did not.

To make it more realistic (the PD "active shooter" aside), I think they should have recruited other, actual students from the campus and given them the same information they gave the "student CHL," essentially that at some unknown time, one or more attackers will storm into the lecture room and start firing; if you're shot it might sting a bit but will be safe; pretend it's a real assault situation and react accordingly. Any more instructional detail would impact the spontaneity. And having different volunteer students for each scenario would be best.

You can never create a truly realistic force-on-force training scenario...at least not within the realm of safety. But there were so many unrealistic things about the one 20/20 staged that theirs could serve as an example of what not to do.

[srothstein]

I did not watch the show (mostly because I had no faith in it to begin with), but I have been thinking about the active shooter scenario.

Having just started work on my doctorate, I keep looking for things to do a thesis on, and looking at things like this from a thesis perspective. This would make a really good research project if done correctly.

The way to do it correctly would be to repeat the scenario several times. In equal number of times, vary who knows what is going on between the one student with the pistol, the bad guy, and the professor. The other students would know something was going to happen, because of the need for protective gear, but they would not necessarily know what. And they definitely would not know one or more of the students had a concealed weapon. It would take quite a bit of work to fully script out the scenarios, but it would be an interesting research project.

On a side note, this has been done before for training (not the research part). In a lot of police academy classes, there would be someone bust in and start shooting a pistol (usually blanks) and then run out. The class would be judged on their reactions and also then asked for descriptions of the suspect and reports on what happened. In my academy class, you could see who was an experienced cop because they were instinctively reaching for their own weapons (which weren't there) or taking cover. The others usually froze the first time it happened.

[G.C.Montgomery]

To be fair (something ABC obviously can’t do) I actually watched the show online this morning before commenting…Isn’t broadband cool? As expected, it was an editorial opinion piece rather than a presentation of the facts. I tried to look past the underlying message that we, the general public, are too stupid and too ignorant to own guns and that one should leave such things to “professionals.” Of course, ABC’s editors contradicted themselves on that point by showing Lee Paige, formerly of the DEA, shooting himself in the foot.

We recognize the false claims of the report. Like the idea that police spend months training specifically to deal with active shooters. Some police agencies do spend months training certain officers for active shooters. However, relatively few officers are specifically trained on a regular basis to engage active shooters. And those officers are not typical patrol officers who we depend on as first responders. HPD for example; didn’t introduce active shooter training until a few years ago and it’s only 1-5 days, rather than months, of training. So, I applaud Keith for his message to ABC. ABC's “report” is full of errors, half truths and outright lies. Still, I see some truth in the report. That may not be a popular view in our group but that’s how I see it.

How many of us honestly think that just having a gun is enough? I am sure all my fellow CHL instructors would agree that simply possessing going through the process of qualifying for a CHL does not prepare you successfully engage one or more active shooters. As IDPA and USPSA shooters, don’t we constantly recruit people by telling them IDPA and USPSA skills are far more practical than renting a lane and shooting a static target? Of course, neither IDPA nor USPSA has people shooting back at you and you have the advantage of knowing your targets and their locations before the timer goes off. However, the core skills of drawing, shooting, reloading, moving, using cover/concealment and shooting moving targets still apply. As valuable as those skills are, many of us still seek additional training that includes truly dynamic programs and is as close to a real fight as possible. If ABC wanted to be fair, they would have sought people like US in addition to college age children “playing” with airsoft toys in their backyard.

[Doug.38PR]

^
And just for the sake of argument...a person is STILL has a better chance with a gun even if they haven't been through any combat training than they would without a gun. Combat trainng is just another edge up from the gun.

[tboesche]

I noticed that. I also noticed that, in the active shooter scenario, the attacker entered the room, shot the "teacher", and then immediately opened fire on the student with a concealed pistol. Why would a gunman come right out and target one person after shooting the teacher?


I caught this too. The shooter targeted the "good guy" who was always sitting in the exact same spot. Not very fair. The "good guy" should have been randomly placed in the room.

THe show was severely biased against guns. But then we knew that before it ever aired

[Skiprr]

And just for the sake of argument...a person is STILL has a better chance with a gun even if they haven't been through any combat training than they would without a gun. Combat trainng is just another edge up from the gun.

Agree with Part 1: You always have a better chance in a life-and-death conflict if armed.

Disagree with Part 2: The gun is merely one tool you use in the application of your training. Proper training is more important than the gun. In a street scenario, I'll take G.C. with a knife every time over my next-door neighbor with a gun.

But I hear what you're sayin'. And you're correct that, for many who choose to get a CHL, the gun does come first. Unfortunately, most stop there. But many of those who choose to make professional training a part of their lives are equally as prepared--if not more so--as most patrol officers to confront something like the staged active-shooter scenario.

[Doug.38PR]

^
My dad and mom both own guns. Dad has a CHL as I do....if lucky....they go to the range once a year. Everytime I ask one to come out with me to the range "no, I got a lot to do or I want to watch the ballgame, but thanks anyway."
I don't just go to the range anymore...my gun range is my land. I go up there and am able to shoot anyway I want, draw from the holster, change positions, duck behind the engine block and fire at whatever target I want, etc.
It's not hoffners or some police training program....but it's better than nothing. Standing in an alcove shooting at a stationary target in isoceles shooting stance is very limited.
Of course, dad served in the Marine corp from 1964-67....so he's got a bit more than I do...but then that was over 40 years ago.
I think people who don't at least go to the range once a month or every week really miss out on something, not just staying familiar with a gun and somewhat prepared but also...just to have a good time and relax. Anybody who stays so busy that they don't have any time to do that has just got way too much going on in life.

[gregthehand]

I once again would like to mention that I saw how the "gunman" new exaclty where their opposition would be sitting. I mean it was very obvious to me that as soon as he shot the lecturer he turned exactly where they would be sitting. I even noticed at one point the student got up and moved the gunman's left. The guman had I guess practiced so much that they had to pause a moment and figure out where the person had gone. Also I noticed the gunman always focused only on the student with the firearm and never even looked at anyone else.

In my opinion the gunman had been told or trained (or both) where the student with the weapon would be seated.

I was also upset that the first guy they showed carrying told the girl next to him that he was armed. Obviously they showed this to cover the angle of if students carry others will know and not want to come to class.

I'm thinking about performing my own little experiment. I have a place that is just like a classroom I could use for the experiment. I think I could get a reasonable amount of people to show up as well. I think a better idea would be to find out who in the group has a CHL. Then figure out a way to randomly pick one of those that does and have them be the armed student. I would actually want everyone in the classroom setting to be un-aware of what would happen. Maybe even the lecturer. Furthermore I would not tell the shooter they were the shooter until just before the others. Maybe run a few expriments where they had time to study the room but not where people sit. Then have the student carrying concealed sit where every they like. Also everyone would wear whatever they felt like. I understand having everyone wear the same thing but I think ABC did this in hopes they would look scientific. Unfortunatley by having the gunman know where the student with the gun would be the credibility of the study went right out the window. Anyone interested in being involved with this if I put it together?

[Doug.38PR]

^
You could probably post your experiment on Youtube and it would get more attention and have higher ratings than anything on ABC, save John Stossel.