I'd been waiting to see this for a few weeks, but they showed storm coverage around here last Friday night instead of 20/20. I finally watched it yesterday (available online. Free episodes -> 20/20). I'm not a big fan of ABC news (or TV at all), but I figured alot of people would be talking about this so I bit the bullet (heheh) and watched it. I'm not too impressed, but not too upset either. There are a few things that came to my attention. I think the FoF scenarios were a little bit unfair for a few reasons: - None of the students actually had any real firearms training. That is, shooting at moving targets, moving while shooting, etc. - They were wearing ridiculously baggy shirts. I know most of you don't carry firearms so I'll just point this out: Baggy shirts suck when you are carrying IWB (In Waistband), to the point of making the firearm worthless. Even carrying IWB can be hard without constant training. When you get into a gunfight you get tunnel vision, non-accurate muscle movements, etc. The simple act of raising your shirt and pulling a firearm is hard as hell, and impossible if you are wearing a clown shirt. This is actually, heh, one of the reasons I mostly carry unconcealed OWB (On Wasteband), not because I'm trying to make a point or to 'scare people.. it's just more practical. - The shooter was a trained police instructor. When was the last time someone with practically any firearms experience, let alone extensive training, went on a school rampage in the US? The last guy I can think of is Charles Whitman, a marine. Please correct me if I missed something here. - The student was always sitting in the same place. They could have at least randomized the placement of the student. The 'shooter' already knew where the student with the firearm was before even entering the classroom. - The one where the shooter had an accomplice in the classroom? I just laughed. Not really practical from a school shooting standpoint. Really. They should have at least reversed the roles, that is, have the police instructor be a 'student with a firearm' and one of the newbies be the shooter. I bet it'd be a bit different. Also, they made a big point about how it's not worthwhile to carry a firearm because you are going to get shot anyways. Well, I already knew that. The advantage of having a firearm is that you have a good chance of shooting the guy that's shooting you.... It seems kind of defeatist to not carry a firearm 'cuz you gonna get shot anyways.' I was actually very surprised that none of the students accidentally shot one of the 'randomly running around screaming people.' They never really considered other scenarios like, maybe the shooters kill a classroom full of people, but other students (with firearms) in the building get a heads up from the gunshots and can prevent the shooter(s) from 'spreading.' It also never covers the problem of most mass shootings taking place in places that firearms are generally prohibited. It's probably because there is a good chance nobody is going to shoot back if you go on a rampage. So it'd probably act as a pretty good deterrent. When was the last time someone went on a rampage at a gun show? Anyone? The FoF segment seemed to be 'set up' for the desired results. I do hope that it shows people you can't just buy a firearm and instantly be protected. That'd be like buying a parachute and being set for jumping out of an airplane. I've never advised people to buy a firearm for protection unless they are willing to receive training and practice regularly. When a student was murdered here last year, I overheard lots of females talking about buying firearms like it was some sort of magical protection device. Pretty stupid, eh? I don't have much to comment about the 'Obama Kid'. I actually fast-forwarded that part as I'd already read a few articles on him a month or so ago. All I have to say: Sorry kid, Obama's not going to risk tanking his ratings any more by pursuing a hot issue like that atm. The segment about the 'gun show loophole' was pretty standard for the people that call it a 'loophole.' It's not really a loophole, it's that the private sale of a firearm to another resident of the same state isn't interstate commerce so it's not regulated by the feds. If you sell a firearm to someone face-to-face from another state, it's illegal. The bill to make sales go through an FFL failed in VA last year, and it's not poised to pass any time soon. Keep trying Pouty Mc. OMGThisGlockIsEvilItKilledMySister. I also noticed he had a camera on him, but they never actually showed the supposed transactions where the seller charged extra to not look at his ID. I'm not necessarily inclined to trust him. They could have at least had an impartial person buying the firearms, but of course they had to make it all emotional. I don't really sell any of my firearms (I only buy ones that I know I'll like), but I wouldn't bother IDing somebody either. It's none of my damned business. It'd be like IDing somebody for buying my bicycle or couch. Oh and for you CA people (I'm looking at you LessBread). Don't worry, your state doesn't have a gun show 'loophole' (except for immediate family members). This also completely fails to provide any real proof that criminals buy firearms at gun shows. I wouldn't be surprised if they did, but it's really not easy to track either. The show also ignores the number of firearms sold on the black market illegally, and the ones that are stolen, although valid numbers on those can be hard to come by as well. The segment on the teenage 'movers' being retarded around firearms. Well, I have an idea: DON'T LEAVE YOUR FREAKING FIREARMS IN A DRAWER IN YOUR GARAGE. The show is hampering natural selection by deactivating those handguns anyways ;) Darwin would be ashamed! To be serious though,there is probably a complete lack of training on how to handle firearms, since they are taboo in a large segment of the population. So you get a similar problem like abstinence programs. Instead of training people to have sex/use a firearm safely, they don't tell you anything or tell you not to do it/touch it and you end up with an std/head blown off. Well you know what? Sex exists, and so do firearms, and it's not changing anytime soon. I'd recommend to take a firearms course even if you hate firearms so that you can at least act safely if you are in a situation involving a firearm. I also think that messing with someones stuff like that is a bit uncalled for. If I found someones handgun, I'd immediately go ask them what they wanted to do with it, and maybe ask if I could take a look, or if they'd show it to me (if it were a neat one) :P I guess kids these days aren't very trustworthy (little whippersnappers! Get off my lawn too!). Most of the cases where someone gets shot are resolved anyways. Either the shooter or the owner (or both) are sent to prison, etc, etc. So it's not really an unsolved problem. In short, I think this just shows that you should be aware of the location of your firearms at all times. If there are kids around you should keep your firearms locked up, and if you want one available quickly you should be carrying it in an active retention holster, which is what I do when family visits. I can't quite remember if I'm missing any of the segments. Overall I'm leaning towards the 'the show was a hit-piece on firearms', but I do think it has one redeeming quality: Maybe people who were just casually thinking of getting a firearm for protection will think twice. Like I said before: You shouldn't be carrying a firearm for protection unless you are fully aware of the consequences.

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
Also, they made a big point about how it's not worthwhile to carry a firearm because you are going to get shot anyways. Well, I already knew that. The advantage of having a firearm is that you have a good chance of shooting the guy that's shooting you.... It seems kind of defeatist to not carry a firearm 'cuz you gonna get shot anyways.'

I'm not sure I see your point. If having a gun isn't going to protect you from getting shot, what's the point of it? Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm reading this as "well, I may get shot but at least I'll get the other guy too"?

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0To be serious though,there is probably a complete lack of training on how to handle firearms, since they are taboo in a large segment of the population. So you get a similar problem like abstinence programs. Instead of training people to have sex/use a firearm safely, they don't tell you anything or tell you not to do it/touch it and you end up with an std/head blown off. Well you know what? Sex exists, and so do firearms, and it's not changing anytime soon. I'd recommend to take a firearms course even if you hate firearms so that you can at least act safely if you are in a situation involving a firearm.

Terrible analogy. The desire to have sex is built-in to us. It is not only tolerated but expected that at some point in your life your will have sex. OTOH, I can quite easily go through life without the need to ever use a firearm or even encounter one (assuming we don't end up in some sort of post-apocalyptic wild-west scenario). I no more need firearms training than I need piloting lessons. Granted, if I wanted to go shooting I'd be an idiot not to take a firearms safety course beforehand. It's not like firearms are lying in the street.

[Edited by - ChaosEngine on April 16, 2009 11:42:28 PM]

What is it with you and guns?

Quote: Original post by ChaosEngine

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
Also, they made a big point about how it's not worthwhile to carry a firearm because you are going to get shot anyways. Well, I already knew that. The advantage of having a firearm is that you have a good chance of shooting the guy that's shooting you.... It seems kind of defeatist to not carry a firearm 'cuz you gonna get shot anyways.'

I'm not sure I see your point. If having a gun isn't going to protect you from getting shot, what's the point of it? Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm reading this as "well, I may get shot but at least I'll get the other guy too"?

Surely the better option would be to stop the crazy people having guns, then nobody would get shot! If that means nobody can have guns, then so be it. I've survived these past 29 years without ever touching a gun.

Quote: Original post by ChaosEngine

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
Also, they made a big point about how it's not worthwhile to carry a firearm because you are going to get shot anyways. Well, I already knew that. The advantage of having a firearm is that you have a good chance of shooting the guy that's shooting you.... It seems kind of defeatist to not carry a firearm 'cuz you gonna get shot anyways.'

I'm not sure I see your point. If having a gun isn't going to protect you from getting shot, what's the point of it? Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm reading this as "well, I may get shot but at least I'll get the other guy too"?

I've given that one a bit of thought... First of all, in my own defense, I don't own a gun, never fired a gun, it would be illegal in my country, and even if it were possible, I'd greatly dislike it... BUT...

Consider person A going on a rampage. Two scenarios:

1) Nobody has guns. A kills B. Then C. Then D. Then E. ... Then Z. 25 die.

2) Everyone has guns. A shoots B, B shoots back, both die. 2 die.

So you won't be saving yourself; you WILL be saving a lot of other people.

Why buy a gun if it doesn't save yourself...? Eh... because if /everyone/ has a gun, and every damn crazy wanting to shoot multiple people is immediatly shot himself, nobody will perhaps consider shooting multiple people? Wouldn't work anyway.

(... so they go back to explosives. HRM.)

Quote: Original post by Codeka

Quote: Original post by ChaosEngine

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
Also, they made a big point about how it's not worthwhile to carry a firearm because you are going to get shot anyways. Well, I already knew that. The advantage of having a firearm is that you have a good chance of shooting the guy that's shooting you.... It seems kind of defeatist to not carry a firearm 'cuz you gonna get shot anyways.'

I'm not sure I see your point. If having a gun isn't going to protect you from getting shot, what's the point of it? Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm reading this as "well, I may get shot but at least I'll get the other guy too"?

Surely the better option would be to stop the crazy people having guns, then nobody would get shot! If that means nobody can have guns, then so be it.

That's a pretty naive viewpoint. Saying that no one can have guns doesn't really take them out of the hands of criminals, especially in a country where guns are as pervasive as the USA.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by Codeka
Surely the better option would be to stop the crazy people having guns, then nobody would get shot! If that means nobody can have guns, then so be it.

That's a pretty naive viewpoint. Saying that no one can have guns doesn't really take them out of the hands of criminals, especially in a country where guns are as pervasive as the USA.

Perhaps, but criminals tend to kill other criminals, not go on school shooting rampages.

The thinking that says everyone being allowed to have a gun makes a safer world than noone being allowed to have a gun, is the same thinking that says the US and Russia having thousands of nuclear weapons each makes a safer world than the US and Russia having no nuclear weapons.

As a citizen of the country between you two guys, I hope you can understand why I don't really buy into that thinking.

So I caught this 20/20 as well and was overall underwhelmed by it. But this is a topic I debate with myself about all the time.

On one hand I feel it is a matter of our rights and freedoms. I strongly oppose the government telling the people what they can and can not do. There is already too much of this so I wouldn't want to extend it even further to guns.

But on the other hand a gun is by no means necessary to life and gives absolutely nothing to society. There is little to no artistic value in them, they don't help build roads, bridges or dams, I suppose they entertain a few. What they do bring without a doubt is death. Sometimes its the good guy, sometimes its the bad guy, sometimes its both, but regardless injury and death. So why should we defend the right to something that can only bring bad things?

As for everyone having a gun making it safer, I couldn't disagree more. I have gotten into some arguments about this but I feel that is the WORST idea. As curtmax said, most people don't understand the true implications of carrying a gun and so are untrained. But even if you trained everyone in full it would still create an unbelievably dangerous situation. The most trained person in the world still has emotions, if something or someone really upsets them out of pure emotion they could end up pulling out their gun and shooting someone. Sure if everyone has a gun then they would get shot so you'd have only 2 deaths, but if everyone didn't have a gun there wouldn't have been any!

Getting all the guns off the streets is impossible. We certainly can make it much more difficult but the only way to stop it would be...stop making guns? And again this is infringing on personal freedoms. And so I go round and round...

Quote: Original post by Zahlman
The thinking that says everyone being allowed to have a gun makes a safer world than noone being allowed to have a gun, is the same thinking that says the US and Russia having thousands of nuclear weapons each makes a safer world than the US and Russia having no nuclear weapons.

As a citizen of the country between you two guys, I hope you can understand why I don't really buy into that thinking.

Lets put this in mathematical terms:

If noone had a gun, the risk of getting shot would be zero. In the limit to everyone having guns, the risk of getting shot levels out to some finite value.

Is this function monotonous, or does it have a maximum? If it is monotonous, then less guns would always be better, at least from the utilitarian point of view.

If it does have a maximum (and i think it has: the situation where only few people have guns worries me most, personally), the question becomes: can we approach the root of this function, or are we stuck on the other side of this maximum anyway, for practical reasons, and are such efforts counterproductive?

I think its the latter, but no, i cannot quantify this. I would like to note that random shootouts seem to happen more often in schools than at gunshows. Psychology definitely seems to play a dominant role over the purely physical matter of availability.