By Seth Richardson
I don’t know if it’s possible to stuff a single one-hour TV program with more bogus experiments, falsehoods, evasions, obfuscations, alarmism and ideological rhetoric disguised as “news” than Diane Sawyer and David Muir did on ABC’s “20/20” on Friday, April 10th, but I don’t really want to find out. It was undiluted anti-gun disinformation and propaganda of the first water.
In “If I Only Had a Gun”, Sawyer and Muir presented their clearly biased opinion on the effectiveness of personal defense firearms in a manner calculated and scripted to demonstrate only the worst-case scenarios in ways that set the participants up for failure in such an obvious sham that it would have been laughable if it wasn’t such a serious matter.
Sawyer tried to demonstrate the uselessness of carrying a concealed handgun by concocting, among all manner of other alarmist and deliberately deceptive examples, a demonstration using novices who had little to no firearms training or experience in situations designed to create failure. In a series of fake classroom invasions, the subjects were given a gun firing paint pellets and were told it was for use later. While the instructor was demonstrating safety equipment to a group of “students” who were actually police officers, a “bad guy” came in to the room and began shooting. The purported intent was to show how difficult it is to respond to such a stressful situation.
I can’t argue with the fact that a novice with a gun attempting to take on a professional armed assailant (the bad guy was a police officer) will likely have little luck, but Sawyer wasn’t satisfied with concocting an example guaranteed to produce a “loss” for the law-abiding citizen gun owner, she had the gall to put a “ringer” in the classroom as an accomplice who began shooting students too. Then Sawyer had the temerity to suggest that “tunnel vision”, which does occur, is justification for disarming citizens because, well, Joe Average Citizen is just not skilled enough to take on two armed professional assailants who both knew where the armed civilian was sitting in the room ahead of time, or so it appeared from the video. Sawyer railed on about the possibility of shooting an innocent bystander running between the armed citizen and the bad guy without acknowledging that in such a chaotic situation, that bystander was going to get shot anyway if nothing was done.
While most of the test subjects were shot multiple times (by a trained SWAT cop) they managed some hits too. But the most egregious failure in Sawyer’s rhetoric was her complete failure to mention the fact that while the bad guy and the armed test subject exchanged fire, other people were not being shot and were escaping from the room. Sawyer’s preferred alternative is evidently to just sit there and let yourself be shot, because you might miss and hurt someone if you try to save anyone’s life by returning fire.
This is a significant bit of journalistic malfeasance on Sawyer’s part. The assumption of the whole first half of the show was about the odds of the individual with the gun surviving the incident. But what Sawyer refused to acknowledge, evidently deliberately and to her journalistic discredit, is that many people carry guns not only to protect themselves, but to protect others, even at risk of death to themselves.
Consider Jeanne Assam, our own Colorado Springs heroine, who selflessly ran towards the sound of gunfire and attacked and disabled a mass-murderer before he could kill hundreds of people at the New Life Church as the quintessential example of a responsible armed citizen. Assam didn’t think of herself, she thought of the men, women and children behind her who did not have guns as she stepped out with unparalleled courage from behind a concrete pillar and faced a man armed with a semi-automatic rifle and handgun. And she prevailed. She prevailed because she was courageous, and because the attacker was a coward, who, as soon as he was fired upon tried to take cover, and as soon as he was wounded by Assam, killed himself in a penultimate act of cowardice. That’s significant. Real mass-murderers aren’t expecting resistance and they mostly don’t know how to react when faced with a determined defender shooting back at them.
Do you think Sawyer bothered to mention this incident? Of course not, because that would require journalistic ethics and dedication to objective reporting, something neither Sawyer nor Muir, nor the show’s director George Paul or producer Muriel Parson have. They’re ideological hacks unworthy of the title of “journalist.”
Sawyer’s bit of pseudo-journalism pitted a well-trained SWAT cop against a neophyte in a worst-case scenario where the cop knew what was coming and who to shoot at, under circumstances where all that was being fired were paint pellets. This doesn’t begin to be a valid experiment to determine the actual effectiveness of an armed citizen responding to a classroom invasion because everybody knew up front it was a fake. To discover what actually happens, you have to look at actual armed encounters, and when you do, you find that armed citizens are quite effective at stopping killers and preventing mass murders. But Sawyer won’t even look for that data.
For Sawyer to imply that the presence of an armed citizen in such a scenario is useless, and in fact may do more harm than good is reprehensible and some of the worst, most biased “journalism” I’ve ever had the displeasure to experience. And taking a swipe at credible researchers from John Lott to the U.S. Department of Justice, Sawyer arrogantly said, “We could not find one reliable study” about the successful defensive use of firearms by armed citizens. This is a particularly odious bit of pettifoggery by Sawyer, since even the federal government concedes that firearms are used at least 80,000 times a year to thwart crime, most of the time without ever being discharged.
Not satisfied with this bit of political theater, David Muir takes us to Pahokee, Florida to exploit a ten-year-old black child who lives in a crime-ridden town in a nauseating appeal to pity. Pahokee, a town of about 6000, it seems is stuffed with gang-bangers and drug dealers who fire guns off in the air on the weekends just for fun and shoot everybody in sight the rest of the time. And none of the residents will report shootings to police or cooperate in putting criminals away, whether out of fear or because they’re all criminals is uncertain.
“Mr. President,” says Damon Weaver, “what can you do for Pahokee?”
I’ll tell you what he should do, Damon. He should send the FBI, the BATFE, the U.S. Marine Corps and the NRA to Pahokee, where the FBI will assist the local police to arrest criminals using guns, the BATFE will issue surplus military arms from the Civilian Marksmanship Program to the law-abiding citizens of Pahokee, the U.S. Marine Corps will assist in training law-abiding citizens in small-unit tactics and patrol techniques and the NRA will teach the citizens how to shoot.
Then the citizens of Pahokee who are not criminals, drug dealers and gang-bangers can form militia units and retake their community from the bad guys. They can take a page from the Black Panthers, who in 1967 marched on the California state capitol to protest police attempts to disarm blacks in Berkley and patrolled their neighborhoods openly armed with shotguns. But rather than confronting the police, the law-abiding citizens of Pahokee should work with the police to track down, arrest and bring the criminals to justice, or shoot them dead if they are fired upon.
That’s what the President should do for Pahokee. Or more properly, that’s what the citizens of Pahokee must do for themselves, even if the President turns a blind eye towards them and tries to disarm them instead, which is what he most certainly will do.
© 2009 Altnews
[...] or her, advantages to a shooter that may not be there in real life, ABC’s Diane Sawyer–a propagandist masquarading as a journalist–brushed it [...]
My comment about the mislead facts against the 2nd amend, it is the law of america and the media should defend this constition and not try to put a name on the books that they did report.dishonesty It takes a real COWARD and DISHONESTY and DISGRACE to there self and to a nation to disarms the citizens of there rights to stop a tyranny government like a dictator does. The proof is in what happing to america. now. Are you one of the describe above. Think about it?
[...] against him or her, advantages to a shooter that may not be there in real life, ABC’s Diane Sawyer–a propagandist masquarading as a journalist–brushed it off. So much for embracing opposition. ABC’s penchant for shaping opinions through a [...]
“U.S. Will Restrict Civilian Gun Ownership in Iraq
“May 24, 2003
“A new U.S. policy aimed at drastically reducing the number of weapons in Iraq will allow people to keep guns for self-defense at home but outlaw them almost everywhere else, the commander of American ground forces in Iraq said Friday….
“Restricting gun ownership is likely to be extremely unpopular in Iraq, where owning a firearm is a matter of pride and a sign of manhood to many men, especially in rural areas where tribalism and traditional values endure.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/may/24/world/fg-guns24
“…the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to make absolutely certain that Americans will avoid open warfare until there is absolutely no other choice left to them while making sure that should it come to that, they have a chance to retake their country from a tyrant”: They had a chance when the 2nd Amendment was written, perhaps….
“As for Denver, I don’t know if you were there, but I was, and there was plenty of civilized dissent and very little violence”: I was there. On Monday the 16th Street Mall was packed with people peaceably exercising their 1st Amendment rights. On Tuesday, after convention security put down a couple of unruly crowds with full riot-control gear and ruthless efficiency, the Mall was remarkably quiet. Cops everywhere. I had trouble finding “dissenters” to interview.
“And what ‘Internet spam’ are you referring to?”: Much of Mr. Morton’s post is from a piece of mass-distribution email (“I’m a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment! If you are too, please forward”), as was the HIV-passes-through-condoms post elsewhere on Broadside. Americans at all points on the political spectrum suffer from a lack of critical-thinking skills & are happy to believe (and mindlessly forward) anything they read that supports their preconceived opinions. This is dangerous, and while people have a right to crosspost that stuff, it should be questioned and debunked whenever possible.
In this case I think the idea that American patriots can pull their flintlock rifles down from about the mantel and face down the American Military just like they could in 1800 is a risky myth to promote, particularly with the demagoguery presently surrounding the Tea Parties. I’m a pessimist at heart, however, and I hope I’m wrong….
Seth,
“…the salient point is that as a result of banning guns, Hitler was able to consolidate his power and quash any resistance to his totalitarian regime, not that many Germans of the period were interested in opposing Hitler”: Sure. The Warsaw Ghetto was armed during the 1943 uprising. That slowed the SS down by a matter of months, maybe. Most of the Warsaw Jews wound up in Treblinka anyway.
“The point is that an essential step on the road to tyranny is to disarm the public so that they are unable to resist the government when and if it descends to tyranny”: We’ve seen what happens when a well-armed public meets the American Military head-on. We’ve seen it on TV. That was Baghdad. I’m not entirely convinced that Americans are eager to replay scenes from Baghdad in, say, Indianapolis, or Seattle, or Chattanooga.
This is a longstanding psychic trend in American political thought. It started I suspect in August 1968 with the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. It was hammered home with the deaths of students at Kent State University in May 1970. The Denver convention last year drew a big red circle around “police” power to put down dissent. And Baghdad shows the folly of facing down the US Military with Kalashnikoffs and IEDs.
I hold no brief for Diane Sawyer. But to distill broad philosophical truths from Internet-spam falsehoods seems intellectually dishonest.
“…the salient point is that as a result of banning guns, Hitler was able to consolidate his power and quash any resistance to his totalitarian regime, not that many Germans of the period were interested in opposing Hitler”: Sure. The Warsaw Ghetto was armed during the 1943 uprising. That slowed the SS down by a matter of months, maybe. Most of the Warsaw Jews wound up in Treblinka anyway.”
Indeed. And 20 million Russians ended up buried in the woods too after Stalin disarmed them. Had all Jews been armed as those in the Warsaw Ghetto were, Hitler would not perhaps have had such an easy time of it. Arms are no guarantee of victory to be sure, but the result without them is inevitable.
“We’ve seen what happens when a well-armed public meets the American Military head-on. We’ve seen it on TV. That was Baghdad. I’m not entirely convinced that Americans are eager to replay scenes from Baghdad in, say, Indianapolis, or Seattle, or Chattanooga.”
Actually, the residents of Baghdad were not well armed. Only Saddam’s people were armed under his regime, and after he was deposed, Mohammed Average Iraqi was not much better armed, unless he was a part of a militia of some sort. And the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to make absolutely certain that Americans will avoid open warfare until there is absolutely no other choice left to them while making sure that should it come to that, they have a chance to retake their country from a tyrant.
As for Denver, I don’t know if you were there, but I was, and there was plenty of civilized dissent and very little violence.
And what “Internet spam” are you referring to?
“To summarize, Hitler did ‘effect total gun control,’ but only for the Jews, and only after his regime had been in power for several years. For the rest of the population he relied on laws already in place.”
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1791/did-hitler-ban-gun-ownership
Try to Google out the truth behind the factoids in “A Little Gun History,” kids. Particularly before you go spamming around the Web.
Guffman:
While your dedication to factual accuracy is laudable, this seems like equivocation to me. Whether Hitler himself banned guns for all Germans is unimportant, the salient point is that as a result of banning guns, Hitler was able to consolidate his power and quash any resistance to his totalitarian regime, not that many Germans of the period were interested in opposing Hitler.
The point is that an essential step on the road to tyranny is to disarm the public so that they are unable to resist the government when and if it descends to tyranny. Our Founding Fathers understood this historical fact very well, which is why they considered the right to keep and bear arms to be a fundamental liberty worthy of the most stringent protection.
>>>Mr. Richardson,
Perhaps Ms. Sawyer and Mr. Muir are missing the point…as anyone who reports national statistical information regarding human tendencies, could if they refuse to check the facts of their report (prime example, the disgraced Dan Rather who wanted a story on reservist George W. Bush so badly to be true that he damned the facts and went full speed ahead and reported on a false story.
Interesting reading below.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
*Ronald Wilson Reagan
PEOPLE ASK WHY?
Why I Carry a Gun
My old grandpa said to me son,’ there comes a time in every man’s life
when he stops bustin’ knuckles and starts bustin’ caps and usually it’s
when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin’.
I don’t carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don’t carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the
world.
I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry.
I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating
myself for failing to be prepared.
I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and
not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a
cowboy.
I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the
ones they love.
I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am
inadequate.
I don’t carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful
to me.
Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the
crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.
Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to take an ass whoopin’.
….author unknown
**********************************************
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
China established gun control in 1935. >From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
——————————
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. >From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—- ————- ————-
Uganda established gun control in 1970. >From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. >From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————–
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
——————————
With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ‘subjects’.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.
The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the
shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES a gun to EVERY HOUSEHOLD and provides training! SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN-RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.
IT’S A NO BRAINER! DON’T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
I’m a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment! If you are too, please forward.
Verlan Troutt Jr.
John F. Morton, Jr.
——————————————————————————–
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG – http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.0/2066 – Release Date: 04/18/09 09:55:00
Looking at the site more closely, I see that they already have a thread started under “If I Only Had a Gun.”
Well, Seth, the one positive thing you could say about 20/20 is that they feature John Stossel. I believe he’d enjoy reading your essay.
http://forums.abcnews.go.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&folderId=2&listMode=13&webtag=ABC2020