ABC Anti-Gun Segment

[locosway]

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.

[PsychGuy274]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I watched parts of this ABC hit piece awhile back, any common sense thinker could pick it apart.

[PsychGuy274]

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]

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]

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.

[FNH5-7]

What a joke of a study.......

[negolien]

lame and a set up

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]

So this whole thing was set up to fail, who knew? 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]

I thought it would have been awesome if a SHARP defender swapped places with one of the other actors secretly. GUARANTEED success

-Dabve

[Sir Stunna Lot]

This is as much as a scientific study as a Michael Moore production being labeled a documentary.

[sl4ck3r]

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?