20/20 If I Only Had a Gun

curtmax_0 · 2009-04-25T13:42:51

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.

GDNet Lounge Community

Started by curtmax_0 April 16, 2009 10:51 PM

68 comments, last by SeymourClearly 15 years, 6 months ago

phresnel

953

April 17, 2009 12:25 PM

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
This doesn't happen often. I can't really find any events where a shooting clusterfuck commences and a bunch of random people are gunned down by other random people trying to gun down the random people shooting at them, etc.

Exactly because of that, weapons-at-home are not justified in my humble opinion.

Quote: What's generally wrong with selling firearms at a discount store though? Should you only sell firearms at a 'firearms place' and nowhere else? Why does Wal*Mart sell TVs then? Only TV stores should sell TVs. There are still hardware stores around here that carry firearms. Makes sense, it's just a tool store.

I was trying to refer to how killer-tools are accepted in society, but natural things like sex in general, homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality, etc., are not.

Selling shooting weapons at Wal-Mart or whatever marts is okay if it is regulated and handled carefully.

Quote:
I'm planning on getting an FFL. Just depends on if I move somewhere with zoning restrictions. Would that make me evil? Selling guns from my garage?

I wasn't saying such people are evil (otherwise I would be evil, too), but, if one can trust known statistics, handling weapons requires more respect then they have at the moment. Though I don't understand the motivation behind having firearms at home to protect yourself (if that is your motivation). If you are an average person, you will anyways not be able to shoot at another person soon enough; most people don't have the courage it requires, highly probably including myself (I think we all know those courage tests from TV, where one pretends to be a victim of crime, just to see how people around react).

[~/www/ — ~/projects/picogen — ~/projects/metatrace]

Zahlman

1,682

April 17, 2009 12:26 PM

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
Quote: Original post by stlfbr1
We certainly can make it much more difficult but the only way to stop it would be...stop making guns?

Impossible. Have you ever seen any of the videos of Pakistan's gun markets?

1. Your link leads to a cartoon.
2. Pakistan and Afghanistan are not the same country.

Quote: Honestly, I'd really prefer if people had some reasonable comments, not 'WE NEED TO BAN GUNS, Oh how I wish they would just all disappear', because that's really not even a physically possible outcome.

So you don't think gun control is working in, for example, Canada? Because I have a whole bundle of absence-of-handgun-death here that says it does.

Quote: I generally don't talk about firearms all the time, not here or in RL.

You talk about them much more, and without provocation, as a total percentage of what you say here, than pretty much anyone else does. I'm blindly asserting that, but I'm sure if anyone with access to the relevant information wanted to compile the statistics, that they'd support the claim.

Quote: For this thread, there was a rather high-profile news show on the topic, so I thought it'd be interesting to discuss it.

So high-profile that I haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere on the internet. :/

Quote: Not really. Let me go get my Glock manual:

"Warning - Children are attracted to and can operate firearms that can cause severe injuries or death."

I hope you'll pardon me if I flat out don't believe that. Attracted? Why?

Eelco

301

April 17, 2009 12:37 PM

Quote: Original post by phresnel
Or Eric Frey'ian. Or just statistics that I find in books and in newspapers sometimes, or like in my above post.

I bet i can match any of your statistics with an opposite and equally meaningless one.

There are three kinds of lies...

Kaze

948

April 17, 2009 12:55 PM

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Quote: Original post by phresnel
OT: What I personally find odd, is that in the US, it seems to me, kissing gays, or just a pair of boobs, in a movie, are worse then weapons at supermarkets. Like, everyone might have the power to kill, but about sexuality one shall not talk.

What I personally find odd, is that havnt been able to find this US of moore-ian propaganda myself. As far as i know, it exists only in the heads of people such as yourself.

Are you kidding,
watch anything political on fox for like 5 minutes.

Eelco

301

April 17, 2009 01:14 PM

Quote: Original post by Kaze
Quote: Original post by Eelco
Quote: Original post by phresnel
OT: What I personally find odd, is that in the US, it seems to me, kissing gays, or just a pair of boobs, in a movie, are worse then weapons at supermarkets. Like, everyone might have the power to kill, but about sexuality one shall not talk.

What I personally find odd, is that havnt been able to find this US of moore-ian propaganda myself. As far as i know, it exists only in the heads of people such as yourself.

Are you kidding,
watch anything political on fox for like 5 minutes.

Can you state upfront what that is supposed to prove? I have no clue what you are hinting at, and I have better things to do than watch television.

tstrimp

1,798

April 17, 2009 01:15 PM

Quote: Original post by Zahlman
So you don't think gun control is working in, for example, Canada? Because I have a whole bundle of absence-of-handgun-death here that says it does.

You have a lower murder and crime rate overall, should it really be surprising that you have less hand gun death? That being said, 1/3rd of all Canada's murders are committed with a firearm so it isn't exactly like you're free of gun crime.

Eelco

301

April 17, 2009 01:23 PM

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
Quote: Original post by Zahlman
So you don't think gun control is working in, for example, Canada? Because I have a whole bundle of absence-of-handgun-death here that says it does.

You have a lower murder and crime rate overall, should it really be surprising that you have less hand gun death? That being said, 1/3rd of all Canada's murders are committed with a firearm so it isn't exactly like you're free of gun crime.

I want even aware canada had any gun control. Thats what micheal moore would have me believe, in any case.

More importantly, I also have mounds of empirical evidence suggesting that apples are not oranges.

Kaze

948

April 17, 2009 01:25 PM

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Quote: Original post by Kaze
Quote: Original post by Eelco
Quote: Original post by phresnel
OT: What I personally find odd, is that in the US, it seems to me, kissing gays, or just a pair of boobs, in a movie, are worse then weapons at supermarkets. Like, everyone might have the power to kill, but about sexuality one shall not talk.

What I personally find odd, is that havnt been able to find this US of moore-ian propaganda myself. As far as i know, it exists only in the heads of people such as yourself.

Are you kidding,
watch anything political on fox for like 5 minutes.

Can you state upfront what that is supposed to prove? I have no clue what you are hinting at, and I have better things to do than watch television.

so:
1: you claim something is fake
2: I claim it has a entire broadcasting corporation dedicated to it
3: you claim that #2 isn't relevant to anything

Eelco

301

April 17, 2009 01:31 PM

Quote: Original post by Kaze
Quote: Original post by Eelco
Quote: Original post by Kaze
Quote: Original post by Eelco
Quote: Original post by phresnel
OT: What I personally find odd, is that in the US, it seems to me, kissing gays, or just a pair of boobs, in a movie, are worse then weapons at supermarkets. Like, everyone might have the power to kill, but about sexuality one shall not talk.

What I personally find odd, is that havnt been able to find this US of moore-ian propaganda myself. As far as i know, it exists only in the heads of people such as yourself.

Are you kidding,
watch anything political on fox for like 5 minutes.

Can you state upfront what that is supposed to prove? I have no clue what you are hinting at, and I have better things to do than watch television.

so:
1: you claim something is fake
2: I claim it has a entire broadcasting corporation dedicated to it
3: you claim that #2 isn't relevant to anything

Pretty much, yes. There are lots of broadcasting corporations in america. Fox doesnt have a patent on moronicity. If i had to take seriously everything that was being said on TV, now that would be depressing!

Good thing i dont.

Go talk to people. (surgeon general's warning: do so at your own risk: moronicity may be contagious)