• 0:20 – Intro with Leslie Stahl shown in front of this segment’s magazine cover. “Gun Rush” is printed behind a set of crosshairs in red against a white background. Silhouettes of semi-automatic firearms are shown surrounding the crosshairs. Several pistols, an AK and an AR are shown in silhouette. Stahl mentions the 8 shooting sprees and says they may be tied to the recession. She speculates that the recent increase in gun sales may also be tied to the recession, and mentions that Smith and Wesson stock has quadrupled in recent months despite hard economic conditions for most companies.
• 0:21 – Shots of a gun show in Richmond, VA. Stahl states in narration that the line is around the building, and from the footage that appears to be accurate. I don’t know if this is the same show that ABC attended, but it looks like it could be. Cut to Stahl with Philip Van Cleave, head of the Virginia Citizens Defense League^[1]. She asks him how many guns would normally be sold at a show this size (and it appears to be a fairly large show). He responds: “Probably thousands.”
• 0:22 – Stahl in narration: The gun show is “part arms bazaar, part Antiques Roadshow.” Shots of all sorts of guns are shown; antiques, rifles with wood on them, lever actions, etc. are in evidence. No semi-auto PSH. . . so far. Shots of Nazi memorabilia and pennants are interspersed with the other firearms as Stahl mentions a certain disreputable element. Van Cleave points out pink guns and other cute gunnie items. Stahl mentions that FBI background checks are up more than 30% since this time last year, and there are shots of normal-looking gun owners filling out 4473s.
• 0:23 – Van Cleave mentions recent price increases. At this point my CBS feed cut out and I lost ~5 seconds of info.
• 0:23 – A clip of a gun show commercial is shown which says, “Get your guns while you still can.” Stahl, in narration, states that this is code for “Obama wants to take your guns” and reinstate a new Assault Weapons Ban. It may be, but only because it’s true.
• 0:24 – Stahl mentions a possible ammunition tax increase and the national ammo shortage as a result of stockpiling by firearm owners. She asks Van Cleave if he thinks the gun lobby is responsible for these fears. Van Cleave replies: “I don’t think so. I think the elections took care of that themselves.” In narration, Stahl mentions the Gun Show Loophole fallacy. Unlike ABC, she states that private sales are legal anywhere in Virginia, and that gun shows are not unique in this regard.
• 0:25 – Retired VA police officer^[2] Gerald Masingale is shown in the gun show parking lot with Leslie Stahl. He points out that there are license plates present from all over the east coast. Stahl, in narration: Virginia is a “main source” of crime guns in northern states with tighter gun laws. The Gun Show Loophole gets another mention.
• 0:26 – Stahl states that new restrictions on firearms have been difficult to pass in VA (thanks VCDL!) and that a bill to ban the private sales of firearms (to the media “close the gun show loophole”) did not pass even after the VA Tech Massacre. It is implied here that Cho got his weapon from a gun show, which is not correct.
• Stahl to Van Cleave: “Who not make it uniform and have everybody go through the background check?” Van Cleave: “Why not make it uniform and have no one go through the background check?”
• 0:27 – Omar Samaha from the 20/20 special appears and says that he bought “a dozen” weapons at a gun show without showing ID. He states that when prompted for ID, he refused, and that one seller asked him for an extra $15 to take a risk on selling a gun to someone without ID. Friday it was 10 guns and $100. Which is it Omar? Stahl brings out the big guns: “Cho didn’t get the guns from a gun show and he did show ID and go through a background check.” Oh snap!
• 0:28 – Van Cleave points out that an armed student could have stopped the VA Tech shooter. He also points out that as soon as police arrived and presented armed resistance, Cho committed suicide. This is a common theme among active shooters.
• Stahl, in response to Van Cleave’s assertions about armed students: “Arming all those young people. . . (trails off)”   Van Cleave: “I wonder who’s fighting for us in Iraq right now.”
• 0:28 – Stahl points out that the bill to close the “gun show loophole” failed in the VA Senate by 2 votes. She refers to this as a victory for “gun rights forces.”
• 0:29 – In conversation with a victim of the VA Tech shooting, now an anti-gun activist, LilyHabtu, Stahl points out that even with the shooting, the student and parent backlash, the Governor, and police chiefs on their side the anti-gun lobby was unable to pass a bill to ban private firearm sales. Habtu responds: “The gun lobby must have a strong base in VA.” Habtu would like the national legislature to pass a similar bill now that the Democrats have a majority in both houses.
• 0:30 – Stahl points out that the AWB expired in 2004. There’s footage of several tables full of semi-automatic rifles at the gun show and of the aftermath of recent shootings.
• 0:31 – Stahl interviews Diane Feinstein. Feinstein states that these weapons (semi-autos) are made to kill in close combat. (false) Feinstein states that these are the weapons of choice for gangs (false), drug cartels (false), and the mentally ill (I guess I’m mentally ill? No, never mind, this one is false, too).
• 0:32 – Dick Durban on the Senate Floor says that “sensible gun control” is “too big of a hassle” to try to debate these days. Stahl points out that after the original AWB passed in 1994 Republicans took control of both houses of Congress for the next 12 years, and that the NRA got a lot of credit for those wins.

Stahl to Van Cleave: “Don’t you think there has been a shift in this country?”

Van Cleave:”Yes, towards guns.”

Stahl: “Towards Democrats.”

Van Cleave: “Democrats are not anti-gun.” He points out that not all Republicans are friends of firearm owners, either.

• 0:32 – Stahl mentions the 65 Democrat Representatives that signed a letter to Eric Holder stating that they would vote “no” on a new “Assault Weapons Ban.” Says Feinstein: “The NRA essentially has a stranglehold on Congress.” She also says that no one in the legislative leadership has asked her to “back off” on gun legislation or control.
• 0:33 – Footage of Obama at the White House. Stahl: Obama has been called the “great gun grabber” by pro-gun advocates. She mentions the AWB promise on his website and the fact that he hasn’t been pushing for it. Stahl says to Feinstein that it would be a bad idea to push for a new AWB with the economic crisis, the war, and other happenings in the world. Feinstein says, “I agree, I wouldn’t bring it up now.” Stahl asks her, “So you’re going to hold off?” Feinstein replies, “That’s correct, I’ll pick the time and the place, no question about that.” Same old Di-Fi, eh?
• 0:34 – Stahl is back in front of the magazine cover for this story. She cites the recent Gallup Poll results indicating that support for gun control is at an all-time low, saying that support for restrictions is “eroding.”
• End of Segment

Overall this was a much more balanced program than the 20/20 show. It still reeks of bias, but Van Cleave held his own and made us all look good. It’d be nice if they had done some investigating to catch their other guests in their blatant lies, but I’ll take what I can get from CBS. They did mention the background check process, and Stahl herself got in a good point against the antis.

TXGunGeek and Sebastian have more coverage of the show.

Van Cleave makes an excellent point that the last thing we need to do right now in the gun rights crowd is attack our Democrat members and supporters. Painting all Democrats with the broad brush of “gun grabber” does no good to anyone. We need everyone to understand that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that we are all responsible for defending, and attacking every Democrat just for belonging to a political party without understanding their individual views is damaging to our cause.

Also, if you join only one gun rights organization, join the NRA. But if you join two, I cannot recommend highly enough joining your local organization. Find the guys that are doing the most good for you at a local level, and join. Help them out at shows. Help them lobby your legislators. You can see in this piece the effect that VCDL is having in Virginia. I am a member of AzCDL and the ASRPA, and there are several other state-level organizations linked at right. These are the guys helping to keep us free.

1. Who was shown briefly in the ABC piece but not identified. He gets much more face time and recognition in this piece.
2. Stahl identifies him as a lieutenant but I found another source that refers to him as a colonel, so I’ll go with “officer”

This is going to be a long one. Detailed notes on the show after the jump.

• 0:00 – Intro. Lots of images of EBRs and handguns. No images of “safe” guns.
• 0:01 – Jonathan Lowy (Identified with name on screen) of the Brady Bunch uses the same peanut butter quote in the show as Paul Helmke used on his blog, as below:

“About 30,000 people a year in this country die from gun violence, about 80 a day, 32 by homicide – the same number who died at Virginia Tech two years ago this month.In the space of four months, up to nine Americans died as a result of bacteria-laden peanut butter crackers, and the government quickly took action.” – Paul Helmke, Brady Campaign.

• 0:01 – Some pro-gun guy I don’t recognize, who is not identified (Via Matt in comments, I have learned that this is Philip Van Cleave, head of the Virginia Citizens Defense League), cites studies which show the presence or more law-abiding gun owners reduces crime, not increases it. (ed. -  This is the last we will see of any pro-gun viewpoints in the show.)
• 0:02 – Diane Sawyer appears for the first time on camera. She states ” This is not going to be a debate about the right to own a gun.” Somehow, I believe her. There will be no debate.
• 0:03 – A cop is shown who states that he believes video games contribute to the mass shooting craze. Some scenes from a very old 3rd-person shooter game are shown. Despite my video gaming pedigree, I do not know what it was.
• 0:04 – ABC conducts a study on armed civilian response during an active shooter situation in a classroom. The classroom looks like a small lecture room with two rows of elevated seating, stadium style. Sawyer does mention at the outset that none of the college students participating in the study have formal defensive firearm training.
• 0:05 – Montage of students training with paint simunitions – very cool. Sawyer (as narrator) explains that the students have received less training than “half” of states require to issue a CCW permit. She does not, however, explain what the training was. The clip makes it seem like the received little training, however they perform well enough that I would suspect they received at least a half day of firearm instruction, probably more.
• 0:05 – Jimmy the student shown carrying concealed under a heavy sweatshirt. He is the first subject for the “study.” He is placed in the classroom with a lecturer, other “students” (revealed by narration to be police officers or ABC staff), and safety gear. Jimmy’s first action is to ask the “student” next to him if she is packing. She replies in the negative, and he advises her that he is packing. Smart. Lecturer asks students to don safety gear, ostensibly as part of the training class. Active shooter breaks in and Jimmy is unable to draw his sidearm from under his concealing sweatshirt. Looks like he needed more practice. Jimmy is shot and “killed” before he can draw. Jimmy did not seek concealment behind his desk. Sawyer trots out the canard that Jimmy could have been disarmed by the active shooter, his own gun used against the other students after he falls. The active shooter is a police officer and firearms instructor, trained and experienced in shooting while moving and recognizing threats. Not a realistic simulation, it seems to me. Edited to add: I just watched this footage again at Shangrila Towers, and when the officer is shooting at the student he pauses to let a woman run in front of him, then continues to shoot when his line of fire to the student is clear. This is visible at about 3:10 in this youtube video. What kind of active shooter has that kind of control and concern for bystanders?
• 0:06 – Sawyer states that even cops can’t handle guns safely! ONOZ! Video is shown of the DEA Agent (Mr. Only One himself) who shot himself in the leg while demonstrating gun safety with an “empty” Glock. Sawyer identifies him as a police officer. It is implied that if cops can’t be trusted with firearms, no one can.
• 0:07 – Danielle, our next subject for the “study”, takes concealment, draws her weapon and fires, hitting the active shooter in the leg, while she is shot in the head. In my humble opinion, there’s a chance she would have stopped the shooter. A chance worth taking.
• 0:08 – Some cops explain the value of training and the difficulty of acting under stress. Good advice here.
• 0:09 – Chris, the next subject, is described as a “gun enthusiast” with over 100 hours of gun experience on the range. When the shooter enters he immediately dives under the desk, but is also unable to draw from under the sweatshirt. He is shot many times.
• 0:10 – More from cops about the perishibility of training and the importance of training in dealing with loss of fine motor control and tunnel vision. No mention of where this training is available to civilians, it’s implied by this exclusion that only police officers can obtain such experience.
• 0:17 – A bit on kids with machine guns and the 8 year-old child who was killed at a gun range when he was allowed to handle a weapon that he could not control. Sympathy for the father but no deconstruction of the actual event, implies that guns and kids don’t mix.
• 0:19 – ABC conducts another “study” where children play with real firearms after watching the NRA’s Eddie Eagle videos. No mention of how thorough their instruction was. Did they go through the whole program or did they only watch a video? How committed to the lesson were their instructors? These things matter. Also, the guns that they played with? Hidden in a box of toys. Real subtle there, ABC. “Oh, look. We put some guns in with toys and kids treated them like. . . toys! The NRA is bad, folks.”
• 0:20-25 – Another ABC “study.” I’m going to run out of my quotation mark quota at this rate. Some college kids are invited to a garage to clean it out for the owner, who is actually a producer at ABC. The crew leaves two guns, a Glock and a S&W revolver, in a drawer. There are live rounds with the guns, but the firearms themselves are disabled. The kids pull a number of classic idiots with guns stunts, including looking down the barrel of a loaded firearm, fingers all over triggers, and basically violating all four rules of gun safety; sometimes all of them at once. Clearly, since these morons don’t know how to safely handle a gun, neither does anyone else. After all, they were raised post-Columbine! They have video games! They’re gun experts! Excuse me, I think I need to vomit.
• 0:25 – A kid who killed another child with a firearm is profiled, then asks Obama to “lock up all the guns” and “take them away.” I respectfully disagree, kid.
• 0:29-35 – David Weaver lives in Pohokee, FL and is unable to play outside at night due to gang violence. The gangs are well-armed and apparently have no qualms about showing off their gats for the nice news people. A lot of semi-autos are displayed, and surprisingly few cheap Brycos. It is revealed that the gang members use minors, 14-16 years old, to purchase their firearms through a cut-out, and the price quoted for a pistol is $60. At a price that low, the firearm is almost certainly stolen. Let’s count the crimes: Theft, trafficing in stolen goods, minor purchasing a firearm, straw purchase of firearm. That’s five four and I’m not even a LEO or  a lawyer. I bet you can think of more. But remember: more laws will help. Do it again, only harder. David implores Obama to do something to help Pohokee. Is it too much to ask them to help themselves?
• 0:40 – Omar goes to the gun show. Omar’s sister was killed by the psycho who perpetrated the VT massacre. ABC gives him $5000 cash to buy firearms at the show. He buys a Glock from a private seller in the parking lot for $450. Somehow, I don’t think this is the place that those homeboys in the previous segment are getting their gats. ABC pushes the Gun Show Loophole fallacy here.
• 0:42 – ABC admits that the VA Tech Shooter did NOT buy his firearms from a private seller or at a gun show. He purchased them at a legal FFL’s storefront, and completed all the requisite paperwork and background checks. The NICS system failed, not the gun store, and not a private citizen who sold a prohibited possessor a firearm. The government failed, as it often does. The narrator mentions the gun show loophole again.
• 0:43 – ZOMG A BABY AT A GUNSHOW! WTF?! Oh wait, statistically, he’s in no danger at all. Just a healthy family outing. Strangly, ABC does not push the family bonding angle.
• 0:43 – Omar buys some semi-automatic AK clone. He also buys two “shotguns”. Psst, one of them is a lever-action rifle. Don’t tell ABC. He also buys some sort of semi-auto EBR. Pants shitting hysterics ensue.
• 0:44 – For the love of John Moses Browning, ABC mentions the gun show loophole again. They cite the ATF that gun shows are a significant source of crime guns, but have no hard numbers. They beg the excuse that gun show sales are untraceable. ABC bemoans the fact that Virginia’s state legislature has voted two years in a row to keep private firearm sales legal (except they refer to the gun show loophole again). Good for VA.
• 0:45 – ABC calls the NRA to talk about the “gun show loophole” (AGAIN!). The NRA declines to comment. I have no idea how much they spoke to the NRA for this special, but through the entire program not a single identified NRA representative speaks.
• 0:46 – They took the guns from the gun show to the police station, and turned them in. They probably could have turned them around for a profit. Fools. Also, Mayors Against Illegal Guns gets a shout out from Diane Sawyer at this point.
• 0:51 – A police officer points out that even if you have a gun, shooting might not be your best choice. I completely agree, but shouldn’t we have the option?
• 0:52 – Back to the classroom shooter “study.” The firearms instructor points out that due to tunnel vision, in one scenario there was a second active shooter that the defending student did not notice. Also, one student nearly shot an innocent bystander. The instructor correctly advises the students that in a defensive shooting situation they should shoot to disable, to stop the threat, not to wound.
• 0:55 – More warnings about hitting bystanders. Rule 4, people. A police officer states that for the non-LEO responding to a shooting or other situation where you are justified in using deadly force, the responding citizen is responsible for every shot.
• 0:57 – Diane Sawyer claims that in researching this program, they were unable to find any reliable or non-contradictory studies that could be construed as pro-civilian gun ownership or pro-concealed carry. I contend that they didn’t try very hard. The facts are there in all their digital glory: civilians with guns use their sidearms defensively, successfully, at least 1.5 million times per year according to the USDOJ. Bans and other restrictions on firearms, even when the bans target so-called “assault weapons,” do not reduce firearm homicide or crime in any measurable fashion. Shall-issue CCW laws at worst do not increase violent crime rates and at best have a deterrent effect on criminals, reducing crime. All of these facts are in the linked studies, which I found in less than five minutes of searching. You’re welcome, ABC.

Some closing thoughts on the show:

• The bias is clear. There was one pro-gun statement in the entire program, during the intro, from a man who was unidentified and whose facts were uncited. Immediately before him, we had a Brady Bunch representative who was identified by name, along with his organization, spouting anti-gun rhetoric.
• A lot of the points made by the police officers in the program, the majority of whom I doubt are actually anti-gun, are valid. Armed citizens should consider the value of training, especially under stress. They should absolutely consider the consequences of arming themselves, and carrying arms daily. Armed citizens must be conscious of the risks and benefits of their actions, and consider shoot-no-shoot scenarios. And then, having considered all the factors, citizens should arm themselves if they so desire. It’s too bad the good advice from most of the officers was drowned out by ABC’s agenda.
• There was no mention of any civilian firearm self-defense schools such as Gunsite, Front Sight, Thunder Ranch, or Blackwater. It was implied by omission of data that all gun owners are untrained, unprepared, and unwilling to use lethal force to defend themselves and others. It was also implied that all gun owners who carry weapons in public are a danger to themselves and others. This is a demonstrably untrue implication.
• There was no emphasis on the laws broken by active shooters in the commission of their crimes, and no acknowledgement that there is no evidence that strict gun control prevents mass murderers from carrying out their crimes. There was no coverage of existing gun laws at all.
• There was no coverage of the process involved in purchasing a gun through an FFL dealer. There was no examination of the 4473/NICS process and no mention of what constitutes a prohibited possessor, or even that some citizens are legally barred from owning firearms at all.
• My inital impression was right. There was no debate in this program. It was a completely one-sided, PSH-ridden, GFW-run hit-piece on firearms owners.

Updates:

Both John the Texaner and Caleb watched and reported as well. Both of them have great dissections of the “active shooter study.” John the Texaner joins the Daily Reads list.

TXGunGeek has a post as well.

David T. Hardy and Sensibly Progressive have more on the active shooter study, Sensibly Progressive has a lot more.

Sebastian and VSSA have more.

Holy crap it’s a Tamalanche! Thanks for visiting all, feel free to poke around.

Another article blaming violence in Mexico on lax gun laws in the US. Here’s the problem: Mexican drug cartels are using automatic weapons, not semi-automatics. Why does it matter? Because automatics have been heavily regulated in the US since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934 and were further restricted by the Gun Control Act of 1986. It is very difficult for a normal US citizen to get an automatic weapon; you can’t just go down to the gun show and pick one up. Among other considerations, such weapons MUST be registered with the Federal Government and the prospective owner is fingerprinted, photographed, and subjected to a months-long background check. The 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban” did NOT affect automatic weapons at all! They are already tightly controlled.

On the other hand, semi-automatics are easier to come by, and some of them even look like military weapons. Semi-autos are among the most popular weapons in the United States and are NOT the weapons used by Mexican drug lords. These weapons are used by Americans in the most popular sport shooting games in the nation, as well as for personal protection and for hunting. Despite their looks, they are not modern military weapons and do not function like modern fully-automatic weapons.

The 1994 AWB banned certain semi-automatic weapons based purely on largely cosmetic features such as barrel shrouds, folding stocks, pistol grips, and bayonet lugs. These are the features that we were told increase the lethality of these weapons, which is completely untrue. Also affected by the ban were standard-capacity magazines for semi-automatic weapons. Magazines manufactured during the ban had to hold 10 rounds or less. This too, we were told, would reduce the lethality of the weapons. To put a lie to that statement, the deranged shooter at Virginia Tech used 10 round magazines for his pistol which were legal during the ban. He changed magazines more nearly 20 times and fired more than 170 rounds. Magazine restrictions do not reduce lethality.

What, then, was the effect of the 1994 AWB? According to a report commissioned by the FBI (“An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003″) at the end of the ban, almost nothing for Americans, and absolutely nothing for Mexicans. The report states: “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. [Assault Weapons]s were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.” Before the ban, the affected weapons were used in less than 2% of all gun crime. These weapons are not any sort of clear and present danger to our safety.

The only source for the figure of “90 percent of the assault weapons and other guns used by Mexican drug cartels are coming from the United States” is the Mexican government itself. When pressed, the Mexican government has refused to provide any serial numbers or other evidence that the weapons they have seized originated in the US. Since the weapons are largely automatics, a more likely source for the weapons would be the Mexican military, which has an astonishingly high desertion rate, or weapons manufacturers from south of Mexico’s border.

Newsweek, please do your homework instead of publishing such a poorly researched article.