Debunking ABC's 20/20 Episode "If I Only Had a Gun"
The April 10, 2009, episode of ABC’s 20/20, titled “If I Only Had a Gun," features a demonstration/experiment intended to show the improbability of a civilian with a concealed handgun stopping a mass shooting.
The most obvious shortcoming of the 20/20 demonstration/experiment is that it focused on a quick draw scenario in a small, single classroom, not a protracted massacre spread over multiple rooms, as was the case at Virginia Tech, Columbine, the recent civic center shooting in Binghamton, NY, etc. Even the NIU shooting took place in a large hall full of hundreds of students and lasted 2-3 minutes.
The demonstration/experiment was clearly designed to promote the argument that mass shootings happen too fast for individuals with concealed handguns to respond. Proponents of this position ignore the fact that at least one surviving victim of the Virginia Tech massacre spent five minutes talking to a 911 operator on her cell phone and listening to gunshots getting closer, before being shot by the gunman. She survived, but her professor and ten of her classmates lost their lives. Proponents of this position also ignore the fact that surviving victims of both the Virginia Tech and NIU shootings hid under their desks and watched the gunmen reload. It's hard to believe that students and faculty members who had time to dial 911 and/or who had a window of opportunity while the gunmen reloaded would not have had time to draw a concealed handgun, take aim, and fire.
A more subtle problem with the experiment is that the test subjects used concealed holsters to which they were introduced only a couple of hours earlier. And they had their vision and dexterity limited by paintball helmets and gloves. It takes a lot of practice to draw from a concealed holster, even without those inhibitors.
A third, much more egregious problem with the staged scenario is that the individual who played the gunman was a HIGHLY trained individual who not only knew there was an armed “student” in the room but also knew WHICH student had a concealed handgun and WHERE he or she would be sitting. Pitting a firearms instructor who has undergone years of training, who knows the scenario is staged and therefore isn't suffering from the same debilitating effects of adrenaline that a real gunman would experience, and who knows the location and identity of his only armed opposition is not a realistic simulation of a typical multiple victim shooting scenario.
Finally, in the episode’s analysis of the demonstration/experiment, the hosts play up the fact that one of the subjects “came close” to shooting a fellow classmate who ran in front of her while she was firing; however, the show never directly addresses the fact that none of the subjects actually shot any innocent bystanders. None of the scenario outcomes were made worse by the presence of one civilian with a concealed handgun. And no mention is made of the fact that the student running through the middle of the classroom would have been an easy target for the gunman, had the gunman not been facing armed resistance.
The fact that the scenario was set up as a quick draw test, the fact that the demonstration utilized concealed holsters with which the subjects were not intimately familiar, and the fact that the gunman had the distinct advantage of knowing both when and where he would face armed resistance completely discredits this demonstration/experiment as an accurate examination of whether or not a concealed handgun license holder could stop a mass shooting. The experiment might have gained a bit of credibility if it had included among the test subjects one or two licensed civilians who carry concealed handguns on a daily basis.
Instead, many aspects of the experiment just come across as silly. For example, it's difficult to fault someone who thinks he’s in a handgun training class for not immediately responding to a surprise attack perpetrated by an outsider who enters the class wearing full paintball gear, especially while the entire class is, coincidentally, also wearing full paintball gear. It's safe to say the test subjects might have had good reason to suspect that the shooting wasn't real.
At one point in the episode, the narrator concedes that concealed handguns have been used to “scare off” assailants in the past; however, no mention is made of the countless incidents where concealed handguns have been used to safely and successfully SHOOT assailants. And the only examples of self-defense shootings cited by the episode are clips from surveillance cameras, used to show examples of civilians firing handguns in self-defense and either not hitting their targets or firing too close to other civilians.
Despite all of the episode’s talk about the danger to bystanders, it does not present any examples of self-defense shootings where bystanders were actually caught in a crossfire or hit by stray bullets.
The episode presents a strongly biased anti-concealed carry position as if it were the irrefutable, scientifically proven gospel truth. In reality, the only thing this 20/20 special proves is that many members of the media strongly oppose the idea of civilians owning and, particularly, carrying firearms for personal protection.
###
"Students for Concealed Carry on Campus Handbook: Texas Edition:” http://www.studentsforconcealedcarryoncampus.com/
Additional blogs/essays about 20/20’s “If I Only Had a Gun:”
http://sensiblyprogressive.blogspot.com/2009/04/abc-anti-gun-hatchet-job-on-2020.html
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/04/abc-news-has-amazingly-bad-piece-on.html
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/04/abc_on_self_def.php
The most obvious shortcoming of the 20/20 demonstration/experiment is that it focused on a quick draw scenario in a small, single classroom, not a protracted massacre spread over multiple rooms, as was the case at Virginia Tech, Columbine, the recent civic center shooting in Binghamton, NY, etc. Even the NIU shooting took place in a large hall full of hundreds of students and lasted 2-3 minutes.
The demonstration/experiment was clearly designed to promote the argument that mass shootings happen too fast for individuals with concealed handguns to respond. Proponents of this position ignore the fact that at least one surviving victim of the Virginia Tech massacre spent five minutes talking to a 911 operator on her cell phone and listening to gunshots getting closer, before being shot by the gunman. She survived, but her professor and ten of her classmates lost their lives. Proponents of this position also ignore the fact that surviving victims of both the Virginia Tech and NIU shootings hid under their desks and watched the gunmen reload. It's hard to believe that students and faculty members who had time to dial 911 and/or who had a window of opportunity while the gunmen reloaded would not have had time to draw a concealed handgun, take aim, and fire.
A more subtle problem with the experiment is that the test subjects used concealed holsters to which they were introduced only a couple of hours earlier. And they had their vision and dexterity limited by paintball helmets and gloves. It takes a lot of practice to draw from a concealed holster, even without those inhibitors.
A third, much more egregious problem with the staged scenario is that the individual who played the gunman was a HIGHLY trained individual who not only knew there was an armed “student” in the room but also knew WHICH student had a concealed handgun and WHERE he or she would be sitting. Pitting a firearms instructor who has undergone years of training, who knows the scenario is staged and therefore isn't suffering from the same debilitating effects of adrenaline that a real gunman would experience, and who knows the location and identity of his only armed opposition is not a realistic simulation of a typical multiple victim shooting scenario.
Finally, in the episode’s analysis of the demonstration/experiment, the hosts play up the fact that one of the subjects “came close” to shooting a fellow classmate who ran in front of her while she was firing; however, the show never directly addresses the fact that none of the subjects actually shot any innocent bystanders. None of the scenario outcomes were made worse by the presence of one civilian with a concealed handgun. And no mention is made of the fact that the student running through the middle of the classroom would have been an easy target for the gunman, had the gunman not been facing armed resistance.
The fact that the scenario was set up as a quick draw test, the fact that the demonstration utilized concealed holsters with which the subjects were not intimately familiar, and the fact that the gunman had the distinct advantage of knowing both when and where he would face armed resistance completely discredits this demonstration/experiment as an accurate examination of whether or not a concealed handgun license holder could stop a mass shooting. The experiment might have gained a bit of credibility if it had included among the test subjects one or two licensed civilians who carry concealed handguns on a daily basis.
Instead, many aspects of the experiment just come across as silly. For example, it's difficult to fault someone who thinks he’s in a handgun training class for not immediately responding to a surprise attack perpetrated by an outsider who enters the class wearing full paintball gear, especially while the entire class is, coincidentally, also wearing full paintball gear. It's safe to say the test subjects might have had good reason to suspect that the shooting wasn't real.
At one point in the episode, the narrator concedes that concealed handguns have been used to “scare off” assailants in the past; however, no mention is made of the countless incidents where concealed handguns have been used to safely and successfully SHOOT assailants. And the only examples of self-defense shootings cited by the episode are clips from surveillance cameras, used to show examples of civilians firing handguns in self-defense and either not hitting their targets or firing too close to other civilians.
Despite all of the episode’s talk about the danger to bystanders, it does not present any examples of self-defense shootings where bystanders were actually caught in a crossfire or hit by stray bullets.
The episode presents a strongly biased anti-concealed carry position as if it were the irrefutable, scientifically proven gospel truth. In reality, the only thing this 20/20 special proves is that many members of the media strongly oppose the idea of civilians owning and, particularly, carrying firearms for personal protection.
###
"Students for Concealed Carry on Campus Handbook: Texas Edition:” http://www.studentsforconcealedcarryoncampus.com/
Additional blogs/essays about 20/20’s “If I Only Had a Gun:”
http://sensiblyprogressive.blogspot.com/2009/04/abc-anti-gun-hatchet-job-on-2020.html
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/04/abc-news-has-amazingly-bad-piece-on.html
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/04/abc_on_self_def.php
posted by Douva | 10:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home