Not that I expected 20/20 to be fair, but...

I was amazed just how biased they were. 20/20 aired a special on Friday night, "If I Only Had a Gun." The premise, I suppose, was to examine whether having a gun could provide someone with a means of self defense. After listing a bunch of mass shootings, Diane Sawyer says, "No wonder more and more ordinary people are thinking about getting a gun to defend themselves." So ABC decides to conduct an experiment to test the ability of average people to react and protect themselves with a gun under stress. After offering police training on firearms at a university in Pennsylvania, they select 6 student volunteers to test. The student is given some minimal training, then handed a Glock loaded with practice rounds, and placed in a classroom. They think the self defense situation will occur later in the day, but then are surprised when a "gunman" bursts into the room and shoots the instructor. ABC then analyzes their reactions. You can watch the video here...

Part 1 (about 8 minutes)

Part 2 (about 6 minutes)

Each student admits that they did not do a very good job defending themselves, as the police instructor lectures them about how they failed. Meanwhile, 20/20 cites examples of cases that are only marginally applicable, or unsupported conjecture about how many times even police shoot an innocent bystander.

So, ABC concludes, how did their students do? Half couldn't get the gun out, those who did couldn't shoot accurately or fast enough, and there was the constant danger they would kill a bystander. All lessons 20/20 hopes you will remember next time you see a tragedy on TV and think "if I only had a gun..." Their advice to survive boiled down to run, lay down, play dead, call 911 and wait for the cops to show up... anything but actually attempt to defend yourself and others.

Hmmm, think they are stacking the deck a little?

• Four of the students had little to no gun training. Is it any surprise that they were not very accurate or fast?
• All six students are using an unfamiliar gun, in an unfamiliar holster, wearing a very long shirt that covered the gun. Is it any surprise that a few of them couldn't even draw the gun?
• They are placed in a small room, crowded with people. And yet, not one of them actually hit an innocent bystander.
• The attacker is a trained police firearms instructor. He is obviously highly trained and practiced at using a firearm. Not exactly your typical school shooter.
• The attacker knows that one person in the room has a gun and will attempt to shoot back.
• Not only that, but watch again each student sits down. Every other seat in the room is filled when they walk in, and the instructor points out where to sit. Right in the front row, center seat. Pretty much the worst seat in the house from which to defend yourself.
• Even worse, the attacker knows EXACTLY where the defender is sitting and where to to train his attention. If you notice, in every run through this scenario, the attacker shoots the instructor, then immediately directs his fire at the defender, and only the defender. Even the guy who couldn't get the gun out of the holster, who there is no way the attacker could tell he even had a gun, the attacker focuses ONLY on that student.

So ABC set up a scenario in which the attacker has the total element of surprise, knows exactly who to is going to shoot back, and has training that vastly exceeds that of the inexperienced student, who is placed in the worst defensive position, with an unfamiliar gun, covered by shirt making it difficult to draw the weapon. My police officer friend described the experiment as an "ambush, period." He also said that even in a room full of SWAT officers, a few would have died before taking out the attacker.

And from the results of this ambush, the conclusion of the show is that a gun is of very little use to defend yourself.

Of course, they don't show a scenario where the defender was in a corner, out of the way. Or even able to chose their own seat. Or where the attacker starts in the room next door, and then tries to enter the classroom, where the defender has had a few seconds to prepare. Or two students with guns for defense. Nope, only the scenario that is most effective at painting guns as a useless self defense tool.

However, did you notice that several of the students did manage to actually hit the attacker? And that while the attacker focused on hitting the student defender, that most of the other students were able to flee the classroom without being hit? Funny, 20/20 didn't bother to point out that while the students may have been poor shots, and may have been hit themselves... they did manage to save the lives of all of their classmates.

Compare that to what would have happened if no one had a gun for defense, and the gunman was able to completely control the classroom, and shoot any student he wanted at will. Kind of like what happens in the real mass shootings, which "coincidentally" seem to occur most often in locations where people are prohibited from carry guns...


Where was John Stossel on this one?