20/20 Anti-Gun Hit Piece Was Rigged

No big surprise here....

From the article:
* The victim wore a helmet and bulky gloves. Obviously there was a safety issue, so the helmet is understandable. But why the gloves? They appeared too large. They certainly made drawing and firing a handgun far more difficult than it should be. I've run through scenarios similar to this and never wore gloves. Hits sting, but they don't hurt.
* The victim carried an unfamiliar gun and holster. Is that the gun he would have actually carried? Is that the holster he would have used? The video showed the holster placed in an awkward position and at a difficult angle, not likely the way the young man would have carried the gun in real life.
* The victim had to draw from concealment under a long shirt. Is this the shirt he would really wear? Did he receive any instruction on drawing from a holster, with gloves, from that oddly placed holster, from beneath that long shirt? We'll never know, but the video didn't show any training beyond a little ordinary target practice at short range.
* The shooter knew there was an armed student in the classroom. This is a big error in the experiment. What mass shooter would enter a room where he knew there was someone with a gun to shoot back?
* The shooter shot the lecturer first, then turned directly to the young man and began firing. How convenient it was for the shooter to know who was armed and where he was sitting so he could quickly take out the one and only threat in the room.
* The shooter knew he could be fired at, but showed no surprise at the sight of a gun. The experiment was repeated with other "victims" under the same circumstances and not once did the shooter react in surprise. In real life, a shooter won't expect any resistance and is likely to react when shot at.
* The shooter was a professional firearm instructor and a good shot under stress. Not exactly realistic, since real mass murderers are usually just insane people with guns.

Also from the article:

Did Sawyer talk to anyone who thought carrying a gun was a good idea? No. Did she consider any statistics about how often ordinary people defend themselves with a gun? No. Did she get a statement from the NRA, a police officer, an instructor, or a citizen with even a hint that a gun might possibly give you an advantage? No. She didn't even bother to talk to John Stossel, a fellow reporter whose office is down the hall at ABC, reports for 20/20, and has debunked anti-gun propaganda on many occasions.

-----
Click on the title to read the entire article at the Buckeye Firearms Association site.

Guns and ammo are selling at unheard of rates, most likely because we have an administration and congress who would love to restrict the rights of individuals to purchase, own and carry firearms as much as possible. Nancy Pelosi has stated that she does not want to take firearms away, she just wants them registered. Historically, registration is usually followed by confiscation. The media will continue to try to scare us into demonizing and restricting firearm ownership and use. Let's not let them fool us into giving up our right to defend ourselves against criminals and, frankly, oppressive government. That's why we have the second amendment, you know, not so we can protect ourselves against criminals or go hunting - it is there so that we can defend ourselves against tyrannical government. That's really why the left is so against guns.

---Katie