Posted by
John Caile on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 11:16:04 AM
Like crack addicts, the anti-gun nut jobs at "20/20" just can't quit. Pretending to be "investigating" what might happen if students in a classroom were carrying concealed handguns when confronted by an armed attacker, their latest propaganda effort was almost laughable to anyone in the firearm training field.
Not surprisingly, the entire scenario was clearly rigged to produce their desired result (convincing you that you shouldn't carry a gun). For starters, rather than using a student as the shooter (as is almost always the case in real life), "20/20" instead employed a highly trained firearms expert to act as the attacker.
Even more ridiculous - the "attacker" not only knew in advance that there would be an "armed" defender, but even WHERE THEY WOULD BE SITTING - they had the defender sitting in the same seat every time! Why not at least have the defender sitting in a different seat? And why not sometimes have multiple defenders?
To further slant the results, the defenders were not trained shooters. In addition, the clumsy "safety" equipment they had to wear made handling their "guns" even more difficult.
All this silly nonsense aside, this latest episode begs the question: Why did "20/20" decide to manufacture this absurd charade in the first place? Why not look at what has actually happened in such situations where students really were armed?
After all, if the producers of "20/20" were genuinely interested in "investigating" armed defenders in mass public shootings, you would certainly think their first step would be to contact Professor John Lott, the one person who has done more legitimate research on the subject of multiple victim homicides than anyone in the country.
Professor Lott, an economist and statistical expert, has investigated dozens of actual incidents, both in America and around the world - and these are REAL cases, not simulations. More to the point, a number of these cases involved armed defenders.
But he didn't even get a phone call.
Sort of like doing a special on astro-physics, and NOT interviewing Stephen Hawking.
Naturally, "20/20" did see fit to contact just about every gun-control group in the country. You need only look at their website to see the overwhelming bias - it is peppered with talking points right out of the Brady Campaign playbook, along with sappy emotional stories of victims of "gun violence" - leaving out the fact that most of these victims died at the hands of gang members.
Oh, sure, they found a couple of people from the pro-gun side to give the impression that they were being "balanced" in their report, but don't hold your breath waiting for ANY mainstream media organization to be truly honest in their treatment of guns and gun ownership.
The anti-gun (and anti-self defense) media propaganda machine will continue to roll along, misinforming the public...and threatening your very right to defend yourself.