Carrying a gun sure beats hiding under a desk and waiting for the shooter to work his way down the line. Thats what happened in the VT incident.
A room with three or four armed “victims” will level the playing field even more. In fact, knowing there might be several armed “victims” could very well squash the entire event from happening in the first place.
Yes—no one has ever successfully defended themselves with a gun before. Ever. [/sarc]
Leave it to the MSM to rig an experiment when there are thousands of real life examples of Gun owners using their guns to save lives and property that they could have used.
Yeah, if I’m the mass murderer, I’m shooting the guy in the *protective* gear first.
The shooter shot the lecturer first, then turned directly to the young man and began firing. How convenient it was for the shooter to know who was armed and where he was sitting so he could quickly take out the one and only threat in the room.
The shooter knew he could be fired at, but showed no surprise at the sight of a gun. The experiment was repeated with other "victims" under the same circumstances and not once did the shooter react in surprise. In real life, a shooter won't expect any resistance and is likely to react when shot at. The shooter was a professional firearm instructor and a good shot under stress. Not exactly realistic, since real mass murderers are usually just insane people with guns.
In other words, this experiment was rigged. The armed student was set up to fail.
I knew from the first promo that it would be a blatantly unbalanced piece (I've seen that footage of the kids pointing the empty guns at each other and staring down the barrel before), but I was not prepared for the way the subjects were set up like bowling pins in that "live" demonstration.
The author of the article failed to note that the shooter in the demonstrations knew exactly which of the people in the room were going to attempt to shoot back; with the exception of one volunteer and one other designated person seated in the conference room, all the others were law enforcement officers whose instructions were to take cover rather than attempt to engage the shooter. On top of that, when one of the volunteers landed a round on the shooter's left arm, it was minimized: 'It was just a graze. You're supposed to be shooting at the head...'
At the end, Sawyer said she really, really wished she could have had an opposing point of view, but that they couldn't find any that weren't contradictory. Unbelievable (in every sense of the word).
Diane should read the NRA magazines where, every month, there are stories of armed Americans who have defended themselves with their guns, including senior citizens.
I saw the video. My first reaction was “so Sawyer & ABC think all mass killers are well trained policemen” because instead of using a student to barge in and and attempt to shoot people, they used a trained police officer.
Anyone who fell for the MSM propaganda should just roll over and die if they should ever get in that horrible situation.
I wonder how a trained instructor would fare this time against a trained gun owner without the benefit of critical intelligence.
Even if an armed victim isn’t a champion marksman, having his gunfire returned would surely have an effect on the attacker, putting him on the defensive, no?
These guys are never going to do anything honestly. It will always be lie after lie after lie. No chance of teaching responsibility or accountability from them. It’s all about them knowing better when they know nothing.
Look, folks. The Left is just shutting down all "dialog" and lives in a My Little Pony world where they speak a language developed adults outgrow around puberty. They don't get to define my opinion or the definition for terms and they can take their tantrums elsewhere.
Unless I somewhere down deep suspect they are right when they accuse me of being "the old man shouting at the kids to get off his lawn" (what's wrong with that, BTW) than I am immune from reacting to those taunts.
You might as well be trying to be polite to a gang of hooligans harassing you on a city side walk.
There is another obvious point to be made. Which is that if you’re in a room with a Va Tech type gunman - if you don’t have a gun you’re going to get killed. If you do have a gun you may get killed. Which would she prefer? All simulations aside about the likelihood or lack thereof of getting the gun out of the holster, you’re dead meat just by virtue of being in that situation.
Ok one more point. In her “simulation” there is one armed student. What if there were 2 or 3 or more? While the gunman is dealing with armed citizen 1, doesn’t that allow armed citizen 2 or 3 a more or less free shot?
Then Miss Dianne had to make the show into a total farce, by showing the brother of a VT massacre victim going to a gun show and buying guns, and then showing how he is working "tirelessly" to defeat the gun show loophole, even though the VT gunman bought his gun in a GUN STORE WITH A BACKGROUND CHECK! Unbelievable propaganda.
BTW, I saw that P.O.C. propaganda piece. That is one simple minded commie b***h.
How convenient it was for the shooter to know who was armed and where he was sitting so he could quickly take out the one and only threat in the room.
Consider that in a real situation, the armed person that would be taken out would any law Enforcement Officers those would be the persons that would be armed and that would be taken out first.
That's why CCW holders are a deterrent shooters wouldn't know if they were present or not.
Of course, if it were one of those Idiotic 'Gun-free' zones, the shooter would know this from the get go.