Front Sight Mail Bag: 20/20 Experiment Even More Suspect
April 22nd, 2009
More responses from you about the Monday Blog Post:
I read your article regarding the 20/20 report. While I completely agree with your assessment and your support for firearms training, I feel that you missed one additional problem with the report.
What I noticed in their “experiments” was that the hostile, upon terminating the professor, came immediately towards the “defender” in the classroom.? This to me shows that they were working to bias the results by immediately eliminating the one known person with a weapon.? While a real shooter would absolutely work to eliminate known threats, such as uniformed police officers, a real classroom shooter would have no idea about the existence of an armed citizen.
Analysis and recreation of “real world” attacks for their scenarios would have drastically changed the results of their “experiment” in favor of the “defender” and Diane certainly couldn?t have that happen.? A more realistic scenario would have the hostile shooting any student that was running from the area, as the human eye is naturally drawn towards motion (for the same reason that my LaserMax laser sight flashes when in operation).
It really was a shamefully biased anti-gun report, and ABC should be reprimanded for their obvious bias.
Thank you for the service that you provide.
Well said, Robert.
Thank you for your blog response to the ABC 20/20 farce “If I Only Had a Gun…”
I passionately agree with everything in your blog regarding the critical need for focused and appropriate classroom, dry-fire, and live-fire training to develop the mental capacity, skill at arms, and awareness of surroundings to respond quickly and appropriately to threats.? I have chastised more than one gun owner who believes that a 4-hour classroom lecture qualifies them for a CCW…
Legally, maybe… Practically, NEVER!!
Nevertheless, there are additional key facts regarding ABC’s “staging” that should be screamed from every mountaintop.? ABC absolutely guaranteed their desired outcome by:
1) informing the shooter that there was only one student carrying a weapon
2) informing the shooter exactly where the armed student would be seated (center seat, first row)
3) having the armed student sit in the same seat for every test (thereby giving the shooter an even greater advantage on subsequent tests)
4) having the student wear cumbersome and unfamiliar protective gear that impeded the student’s ability to respond
Even so… in one of the tests, the student was still able to shoot the assailant in the left groin area (a fact the ABC propagandists ignored).? If the shot had been made with any of the newer fragmenting ammo, that shot alone may have killed the assailant by severing the femoral artery, and certainly would have prevented the shooter from rampaging through the rest of the school.
Again, thank you for your passionate and vocal dedication to pragmatic firearms training.? FrontSight is new to me, but I hope to benefit from training at your facility soon (along with my wife).
Another great point. Although any student trained at Front Sight and applying what he or she learned could have overcome those skewed odds better .
No, four hours is not enough. But it is far better than nothing.
Dear Dr. Piazza,
Thank you for the response to Diane Sawyers liberal gun bashing show!? I would ask that you consider offering her an opportunity to come to Front Sight to see good gun training and the good results.? As a typical liberal she only sought out and found things that would confirm her liberal bias.? Please offer her a chance to see the other side of the story.
Neil, I agree. In fact, this invitation has been extended since 2005.? Any reporter who wishes to write an article on us is requested to first spend a day with us.? Ms. Sawyer, please contact us if you’re still interested in taking us up on that.The invite is still extended. You can find? Ms. Sawyer’s? first report on Front Sight here.
I saw Dianne Saywer’s report on 20/20 right after I came home and received a graduate certificate from a 2 Day Handgun Skill Builder Course. I was furious to say the least! No wonder? I train at Front Sight and watch Fox News! I wouldn’t have even caught this show if my brother,(also a First Family Member), had not called me and told me to tune it in! It’s amazing how divided our country is when it comes to the 2nd Amendment and politics.
Front Sight Diamond Lifetime Member
Agreed.? Glad to have you there to back me up.
Dear Dr. Piazza,
I also saw the 20/20 “SPECIAL” which was a joke.? I noticed that when the gunman burst into the room shooting, he was not shooting indiscriminately. He entered, shot the instructor, and then proceeded to shoot the only other person in the room who had a gun.
It seems amazing to me that a crazed madman would have “gundar” (gun radar) and would know exactly who was armed and go for that person almost exclusively.
Unfortunately my wife is something of an anti-gunner and believes everything that that airhead Diane Sawyer says.
I explained to her that “Yes, if a crazed lunatic bent on destruction enters a building looking to kill ME, then he will probably get it done, since I will be behind the curve — action beats reaction. However, if he comes in a room and starts shooting — meaning if he isn’t looking to shoot me in particular — he also won’t know I’m armed, and I will quickly ruin his day.
I don’t know if anyone else noticed this, or if they noticed that one female student did actually get a few shots off at the attacker, yes she received fatal wounds in return, “from a firearms instructor” I might add, but she did get to her gun and return fire.
Imagine if there had been two or three students that had been armed. I think the outcome would have been very different.? I guess reality television is only for who wants to date a millionaire?
Sincerely: Mark H
Yet another student notices this particular flaw in the logic behind the report.
Mark, feel free to bring your wife out with you to Front Sight. She probably would be more receptive to hearing it from us. 🙂 We have helped many a gun-owning civilian turn their liberal gun-fearing spouses into a supporter with nothing more than knowledge. It’s two-fold, first in correcting misinformation and replacing it with truth. Second in giving them a good understanding of the proper handling of those “mysterious” guns they fear so much.
Thank you for your comments on the 20-20 story. I agree with your analysis
and the presentation was poorly done. Your examples of successful self
defense supplied examples clearly missing from the Sawyer report.
Hmmm, what works better? Myriad examples taken from real life, or a single biased, unlikely, and staged set up with the deck stacked? Which predicts the future best? Which is actually more likely to be useful to you in keeping yourself safe from attackers?
And this next one is obviously more than a little upset. Skip if easily offended by cussing…
Dear Dr. Ignatius Piazza,
Gun control is a very sensitive subject to me. I take it very seriously, while most people laugh and make jokes about it at my low budget high school, I would brush them off by responding to them as I would to respond to a 2nd grader.
I was waiting for this exact E-mail from you and I very much appreciate that you inform me and my family on updates about what’s up in the world today and on guns.
So I finished watching that 20/20 special entitled “If I Only Had a Gun…”. What I thought of it really angered me. There was an obvious abundance of bulls–t, and a hell of a lot of manipulation. Then again what on the television is not manipulated for our entertainment.
What a load of s–t, please excuse my french, that whole program was. They are not only directly stating “GUNS ARE BAD”, but they are also injecting fear into the hearts of future gun owners and (possibly) future Law Enforcement Officers by putting you in an awkward position. It also would make any gun owner feel like a criminal (sure as hell made me feel like one AND I DON’T EVEN OWN A GUN)
Do you remember that scenario when they had the kids with the guns sit in that room with those paint-pistols?
WHAT A LOAD!!!!
1. It was STAGED AND MANIPULATED!
2. THE GUNMAN WHO WALKED IN ON THE CLASS WAS AN EXPERIENCED SHOOTER!!!!! WHAT THE FRENCH WAS THAT ALL ABOUT! SO SUDDENLY ALL BAD GUYS ARE EXPERIENCED SHOOTERS???????
3. Diane Sawyer is a government puppet along with all news programs on the television.
I wont lie, I’m a very blunt person and I say it like it is. You could probably guess many people hate me for that but those people don’t understand it is not about me telling them things they don’t want to hear, its about them understanding the situation and understanding the world today.
By the way sorry for responding late, I have school work and all.
I thank you Dr. Ignatius Piazza (and staff) for your E-mails. These E-mails really help me understand things from a different perspective.
Not pulling any punches today, Tom.
Thanks to all of these responders for the insightful and interesting feedback. There is a ton more, but there’s just not enough time to post here. Direct responses sent on all, though.
You can reach us at firstname.lastname@example.org with your responses to anything posted here.