they were trying to pull the wool over the viewing public's eye by saying the daughter (forgive me not remembering her name) was shooting a Desert Eagle...when in fact they switched it out for a Beretta 9mm.
The channel that hosts the show (Discovery?? History?? Whichever...) scrubbed the episode from their website due to all the mail/calls/inquiries about the switch. The video has also been taken down from places like YouTube and Google video from Sons of Guns blocking it for copyright infringement.
Even the still frame picture captured from a screen shot to prove it's a Beretta has been taken down.
(shhh!! They missed one!!)
Here ya go for as long as it's still under the radar: Sons Of Guns Derptastic Deagle Episode
Questions I had after seeing that were;
1) the "owner" of the Desert Eagle said she really liked the gun, except for its size, its power, and its awkwardness...but wouldn't that mean you (in fact) do NOT like the gun??
2) Isn't it illegal to put a stock on a handgun without lots of FBI/BATFE paperwork and $$ for special tax stamps? Can you really just log it in as a repair and walk out with it modified like that?? I sure didn't think so...
3) If you did, in fact, own a Desert Eagle (and stated how much you like it), wouldn't you know how much of a bang was coming when the trigger was pulled so you wouldn't necessarily "jump out of your skin" when standing behind someone shooting it (like the "owner" did)?
4) I'm no marks(wo)man, but can you really hit the bull like that when shutting BOTH eyes BEFORE pulling the trigger?
The follow up to this is being played out two different ways, apparently.
One is that on the daughter's FaceBook page, it was stated that she actually did injure herself when attempting to shoot the Desert Eagle (although, it did not say *how*).
The other (which sort of ties in) is that they substituted the Beretta to keep continuity for the shot so they would still be able to use the footage of the scene for the show...and they are calling it an "editing mistake".
Either way it is (or isn't), I was of the opinion that the DE owner really was not an owner of that firearm (and maybe even NO firearms?) and that opinion is enhanced after reading this article
. (Sorry, peeps...there is no Santa Claus).