Last night, I watched ABC’s hit piece on firearms ownership and self defense on 20/20, which overall was pretty ridiculous and biased. While they managed to avoid parroting the Mexican Gun Canard (which was a surprise), they spent an entire segment on setting up an experiment to “prove” that an armed student in classroom shooting wouldn’t help. The problem is that just from watching the experiment, even the most casual observer can see that it was designed to force the students to fail.
The basic scenario is that ABC took a bunch of college kids, and gave them some rudimentary training with simmunition pistols, then put that student in a faux classroom to “defend” in an active shooter situation. Just watching the video, the students pretty much universally get their lunches fed to them by the “active shooter”. Obviously, ABC’s editorial intent was to “prove” that an armed student wouldn’t make any difference in an active shooter scenario. If you watch, you can deduce from context that the students were not trained – they’d been given basic range instruction, and that was it. Additionally, the active shooter in each situation was a cop; the cop also knew where the armed student was going to be. If you watch carefully, the cop shoots the teacher, than immediately turns to engage the armed student whether or not the student is engaging them.
In that manner, the test is set up to give the student the least possible chance for success. You want to make it a fair test, you’d have to put people of equal skill level in the classroom as the active shooter and the armed student, move the armed student’s location around, and give them free reign to choose whether or not to engage the shooter. It’s completely ludicrous to portray poorly trained students getting blown away by a trained cop with tactical knowledge as some kind of “fair” test.
It’s almost like ABC had an agenda to push or something.
I’d like to see this scenario recreated at one of the top tier gun schools, see how civilians with training react.