- Messages
- 156
- Reactions
- 21
Watch the "20/20" special on "If I Only Had a Gun" Friday at 10 p.m. ET
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=7266934&page=1
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=7266934&page=1
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The thing that I disliked the most was Diane Sawyer's smug assertion at the end that "we could find no study" that examined the successful use of guns in a defense role, therefore (she implied) there was no proof that they were of any use whatsoever.
Go here: http://abcnews.go.com/2020
and click on "shooting under fire" for the rigged "experiment" segment if you must get as aggravated as we are.
I agree that it was terribly unscientific. But I don't think it was an impossible scenario. I viewed it as worst case scenario. A gunman w/fiream skills (not impossible) walks into a room that he's scoped out before (a grudge shooting against a teacher, the shooter could have been in that class MANY times before as a student) and shoots the instructor then turns towards the center of the room. The CC student was sitting front row center, it's not impossible that he'd be the first next target.The experiments in the show were skewed in that:
- Shooter walking into classroom was firearms instructor, and thus more likely than average person to be a more accurate shooter.
- Shooter knew the situation he was walking into (layout of room, etc) and thus has an unscientific advantage.
- Shooter knew where armed student was located, and that there was only 1, thus has an unscientific advantage.
- Armed student knows their ammo isn't real, so what is the point in drawing it? It likely changes their thinking.
Other than those 4 huge faults with the experiment, I would agree that people scrambling to get out of the room, etc. was fairly realistic. Too bad that the 4 huge faults make the experiment worthless to draw conclusions from.
I agree that it was terribly unscientific.
It makes no sense to consider the worst case scenario, label it scientific, and broadcast it on national TV ... unless you have an agenda.