PDA

View Full Version : ABC Anti-Gun Segment


locosway
10-01-2011, 11:35 PM
I'm sure some of us have seen this before, but it was the first time I've seen this particular segment. Outside of the obvious staging of scenarios against the LTC holder, it does show one important thing. If you're going to wear gloves EVER and you're LTC, you should train with your gloves. I think most of the people had issues with their gloves not being able to feel their shirts or firearms.

8QjZY3WiO9s

rLN6_s66wTg

PsychGuy274
10-02-2011, 5:32 AM
I wrote and entire review/breakdown of this "study." I'm waiting for my GF to get some extra time so she can edit it and I'll post it.

PsychGuy274
10-02-2011, 5:33 AM
To say the least, this is not a study and there's no science in it whatsoever and I really realized that after breaking it down to the nuts and bolts. It's disgusting.

dieselpower
10-02-2011, 11:25 AM
To say the least, this is not a study and there's no science in it whatsoever and I really realized that after breaking it down to the nuts and bolts. It's disgusting.

and you would be wrong. There was a considerable amount of study and science involved in the making and operations of this ABC report...just not what you think.

It used specific science and technique to both trick and prove guns are evil.

The entire segment is 100% science. The clothes were designed to prevent the subject from drawing properly. The firearm was chosen to hinder drawing from those same clothes. The subject was placed in the best spot to be targeted easily by the shooter, who knew 100% were the subject was. The subject was a novice by any standard, the shooter was a profession. All of this was by design to prove a point. That point was defined before the segment was even filmed... "produce a segment that shows gun owners will fail..... and make it look non-bias."

The firearms community could do one of two things in response to this segment.
1) produce the exact opposite and design a segment proving our point that gun owners will win 100% of the time.
2) produce a segment that is 100% non-bias. Which will show, depending on the situation, a person carrying a firearm has the ability to win, but may not.

stormy_clothing
10-02-2011, 1:59 PM
so what they are saying is that children should be made to go through firearms training in order to better defend themselves...um ok sounds better than normal PE to me

Just Dave
10-02-2011, 2:09 PM
I watched parts of this ABC hit piece awhile back, any common sense thinker could pick it apart.

PsychGuy274
10-03-2011, 3:54 AM
and you would be wrong. There was a considerable amount of study and science involved in the making and operations of this ABC report...just not what you think.

It used specific science and technique to both trick and prove guns are evil.

The entire segment is 100% science. The clothes were designed to prevent the subject from drawing properly. The firearm was chosen to hinder drawing from those same clothes. The subject was placed in the best spot to be targeted easily by the shooter, who knew 100% were the subject was. The subject was a novice by any standard, the shooter was a profession. All of this was by design to prove a point. That point was defined before the segment was even filmed... "produce a segment that shows gun owners will fail..... and make it look non-bias."

The firearms community could do one of two things in response to this segment.
1) produce the exact opposite and design a segment proving our point that gun owners will win 100% of the time.
2) produce a segment that is 100% non-bias. Which will show, depending on the situation, a person carrying a firearm has the ability to win, but may not.

I understand what you're saying, but it literally does not fit the definition of a scientific study.

dieselpower
10-03-2011, 9:22 AM
I understand what you're saying, but it literally does not fit the definition of a scientific study.

For an honest person, No it doesn't. For the scam artist who must alter facts to prove a point, its 100% scientific.

locosway
10-03-2011, 3:26 PM
The piece was obviously rigged for a specific outcome when they place the novice person who is armed in the same spot each time and have them going up against a Police firearms instructor. There are still some things which hold true. The loss of fine motor skills, tunnel vision, and just going into vapor lock will all happen.

All of which were accentuated by gloves, a tight shirt, and an unfamiliar holster.

Colt-45
10-03-2011, 11:32 PM
What a joke of a study.......

negolien
10-04-2011, 10:50 AM
No way will someone with all that crap on be able to defend themselves against a guy bursting in targeting them specifically. If you watch the gunman comes looking straight for them so /shrug who could really get a shot off? This was a set up obviously they were made to fail. Plus wearing all that crap really? Shocked I tell ya... well not really of course they have an agenda.

mlevans66
10-04-2011, 11:34 AM
So this whole thing was set up to fail, who knew? :rolleyes: The guys they used the people they picked and showed on the camera was all to show how gun owners are bad. I mean that shirt and gloves? A holster he's not used to? Was that a full size Glock caseu it didn't look like a CC Glock? The whole thing was a set up for blasting CC!

saki302
10-04-2011, 4:31 PM
I thought it would have been awesome if a SHARP defender swapped places with one of the other actors secretly. GUARANTEED success :D

-Dabve

Sir Stunna Lot
10-04-2011, 4:55 PM
This is as much as a scientific study as a Michael Moore production being labeled a documentary.

sl4ck3r
10-04-2011, 5:19 PM
I think ive seen this posted here a few times.... besides the "study" being retarded it looks like they just need more people with a CCW to me. if 4 people had a ccw in the class and he started shooting, what would happen?

USMC 82-86
10-04-2011, 5:20 PM
Well one thing was certain the test was rigged in the fact they knew who had the gun, they did not target the student body in general. A more fair test would have been to have the attacker enter not knowing the shooter or at least not know where they would be seated. The other option would have had the instructor sit in a known seat and not known when the attack would occur. The one thing I did think did hold some weight was the training aspect, training is crucial no doubt about it, and the absolute thing needed is the mind set.

Sonic_mike
10-04-2011, 5:42 PM
cant wait till they get 12 year old kids driving cars or the danger of voting for 0bama again :rolleyes:

SocomM4
10-04-2011, 6:13 PM
Setting the mindset that , if I'm most likely to fail at defending myself; why bother? Let's just ban guns and be done with it.

We need the NRA to do a response video. Showing ACTUAL ccw holders responding to this. People that have taken the classes needed and are familiar with their setup.And have them sit randomly in the class . I guess airsoft isnt the same as the real thing hey Timmy?

I mean come on.I wear mechanix gloves too, and they are made to fit almost skin tight, those are falling off the girl. The whole thing was a joke.
A viral spoof of this "study" on youtube would be easy.And EPIC!! A youtube video can have HUGE views. Have a set just like the real video,but have the guy thats ccw wearing a bright orange shirt that says "i have a gun-shoot ME"in black on the front.Make the shooter a navy seal and the responder someone who's never held a gun before. Instead of a holster,just duct-tape it to his belt.Use black spray paint on the visor of the helmet so the responder cant see anything .maybe have kids be the anchors on the news show,lol

Im joking around, but what a serious attack on gun ownership.

ETD1010
10-04-2011, 8:22 PM
The ONE main point of contention is that the "shooter" went for the concealed carrier as soon as he shot the teacher. . . That angered me more than anything. I kept yelling at the TV 'OMG, a real shooter wouldn't know WHO IF ANYONE was armed!!!!!!!!!!