Hmmm... I'm not sure what that means. 


-T.

I started to watch, but when just to see what they were saying, but when they started off with lies, and started to get mad, I stopped.  Got to the badly staged classroom set up with a guy who doesn't have a clue how to draw a gun.

How can I word it better?

Anyway, I'm in the process of watching this, and I must say these people are really good at locking in and slanting their bulls___

You might as well delete it.  But now I feel like going to the range tomorrow.

[This next part might be redundant to some--as previously mentioned, I've never seen this type of program before so I went ahead and watched it.]
EDIT:  I just finished watching the show; we all know it is biased.  The student's experiments sucked.  The viewing public was not made aware of the variables in the experiment?  How do we know that this experiment was being conducted in an honest way?

Why assume that all classrooms/lecture hall will have the same layout?
How do we know that the holsters the students were provided with weren't "trouble''? (They reported that some students had trouble drawing their weapon)
Why assume that all students will have easy access in an OWB carry at 3 o'clock?
Why always assume that the active shooter will be an expert marksman--as the guy in the experiment was.

What do gun shows have to do with this?  Criminals or murderers will get guns if they really want to.

Then they made it seem that owning a gun was too much trouble and that everyone will automatically end up injured or killed.

The program was fail, but what concerns me is that the sheeple will believe all of this BS and go out and vote that way.  What pisses me off is that right at the end of the show the lady mentioned something about reports and statistics on defensive firearms use as not reliable.  She claimed that they were unable to find at least one report with a reliable source.  And that those with "credible sources" simply contradicted themselves and thus were canceled out.

I watched a total of about five minutes of it in about one minute segments here and there.  This was nothing but Yellow Journalism at its worst.

Makes you want to think about "reasonable regulations" for the press.

That would appear on the surface to be a straw purchase, no? 


-T.

I'm gonna have to go with a no.
As Outbreak said he essentially bought the guns for the police. But that's a different legal case than buying them for anyone else.
In the first case, the ultimate possessor (the police) is itself a legal buyer.
Second, it was a gift. George or someone would know more about this, but I'm pretty sure it's legal to buy a gun as a gift for someone who otherwise could legally buy it.

I think the experiment would've had a little more credibility if the armed student sat in some random seat, the active shooter wasn't told where the armed student would be, and the active shooter was another untrained participant. Take the pretty blonde girl and sit her in the crowd somewhere, and then put one of the guys in a blue hoodie and tell him to shoot the teacher and then go wild.

Interestingly enough, this looks like it was done at Essex Community College, right down the street from my parents' house in Maryland.

I think if i were a student and carrying, I wouldn't be in the front row center seat.

Besides, the whole point of the exercise somehow escapes me. You're more dead if you were shot because you were armed than if you were shot because you were defenseless???

I quit watching after the first few 'classroom' experiments.  I recorded, but haven't felt like going back to it.  What really bothered me was that they were taking very 'new' shooters and outfitting them in the classroom with gloves and hoods.  They were setting the students up to fail from the beginning.  I agree the seating should have been random, up to the student to pick his/her seat.

Tass