The show so was so multifaceted that I couldn't keep up. First it was shown that it has actually occurred in the United States that someone has accidentally shot someone else and regretted it. I've read about such things but had no idea the stories were based on a possible reality. No good frame of reference was given on the number of deaths. Death numbers are a funny thing that way. Sometimes they sound like a lot of people when they really aren't. If you knew that 802 people had died from accidental shootings in 2001 it would seem like something to take notice of. However, after being told that 13,000 people died from accidental falling or 12,700 were accidentally poisened, it starts to sound like fatal accidental shootings are about as rare as fatal celebratory backflips on the wrestling mat.
Next we learned that some communities are stricken with gangs and crime. Even in those communities there are still some people who would rather not be shot. So they look to the president of the U.S. to help them (what?). No ideas are presented about how to handle this problem and this is the sly part. In this show there were never conclusions drawn. Just emotionals etups for you to draw your own. The reason is that the conclusions they are setting you up to draw are completely irrational. They won't come out and try to say that illegalizing guns is the answer because they know you're too smart for that. That will only keep them from the good guys, right? The scumbags will still trading drugs and guns regardless. Let me borrow from a favorite columnist here and mention that the political left are constantly harping on the right to give up on teenage abstinence from sex. It will never happen no matter what we do they say - all teenagers will have sex anyway. Funny how their argument is put back to them concerning criminals and guns and they refuse it.
Back to the show - we now know that guns hurt people sometimes when they are fired in the general direction of people. Now we learn, based on a ridiculous setup, that even armed people cannot defend against mass shootings. Yeah, remember all these stories about guys walking around buildings with everyone trapped inside shooting everything in sight with extra clips of ammo and multiple guns? Where they talk to people, line them up, have a smoke, wander the halls looking around and reloading? Well 20/20 wants you to know that even if you had a gun, if a shooter jumped into a room by surprise and unloaded his gun as quick as he could at the guy in the front row, that guy could never respond in time. Oh really? I'd never have guessed it.... Aside from the bogus setup this causes another unintended consequence. My response is that more people must then be armed. If the one dude with a piece sits in the front row of the classroom we are in trouble. If ten are packing, and scattered about, your odds might improve. The reality, though, is that these people are going into schools, churches, and public buildings for a reason. They get to take their time shooting trapped cowering people. Sometimes they want the cops to finish them off, sure, but only after they've made themselves infamous at the cost of many lives.
Moron had no plan last night for dealing with guns other than ending Virginia's gunshow loophole - and I say go for it. Backgrounds checks are a good idea and we do them in Iowa. Requiring gun safety courses for concealed weapons permits makes sense, and we do that in Iowa. I'm all for reasonable reforms, especially if they aren't a clear political tactic towards a gun ban.
The conclusion that Moron was pushing for was not these reasonable restrictions but a reliance upon the State for all your security needs. Someone is shooting everybody? Well, he'll run out of ammo at some point and then we'll take him to a treatment facility afterwards. Make sure you take yours without a fight or you might be legally responsible for any damamge done to the scumbag.
To which I respond.... I don't think so, Moron.
