Here's the "Overtime" segment where the reporter/on screen interviewer/narrator admits (3:08-3:17) that his colleagues would not be able to restrain themselves from shooting each other (tee hee hee).
It's quite an admission that A) the moral depravity of city dwellers frightens him, but that he feels safe because B) somebody made a law which effectively restrains the base impulses of his colleagues.
A) So we start with the bad premise: that everyone is a killer in waiting. That city life puts such strain and stress on the moral compass as to be insurmountable. I'll defer to the city folk on the forum to refute Kroft on this point. Further, nobody is insisting that everyone on his floor be armed. It's voluntary and self-selecting that way.
Far be it from me to deny that people walk around harboring murder in their heart, plenty of that wherever one dwells (raises hand), but very few justify it to the point of action. Some have said that the proRKBA crowd starts with the same premise, that we craft a need to carry because everyone is a killer in waiting. We might crystalize the point to say that any COULD BE a killer in waiting, and that this necessitates a ready defense. Far from indicting all people, the proRKBA person simply recognizes a desire to protect himself and those he cares for that don't voluntarily arm themselves against the threats we all see in the news. The point of agreement, if there is one, is that there are threats, not how best to address them.
B) Laws don't generate morality. If they did, we'd never need them to prosecute wrongdoing. (Oh, here we go, back to morality.) The idea that a law, and the deterrence of felony punishment, outweighs the thought that one needs to have effective defenses ready to put down a potentially lethal threat, is fantasy. This thinking is devoid of any consideration towards Liberty or human Rights. In fact, doesn't it get twisted into just the opposite, society will only be "safe" when everyone is disarmed (because of the depravity discussed in A).
It's a duplicitous pride.
Kroft is admitting that he or his colleagues are unstable, but that they don't think they would get away with felonious assault. Kroft knows he would surrender his freedom to these impulses and is therefore restrained in his depravity. He thinks of himself as a humble every-man in this way. He's the "good person" who is kept from his own impulses by the law. Without the law, everyone would simply destroy one another in expressions of power and greed. A "Free" society, in this way, where men are not restrained by the iron fist of bureaucracy, is frightening to Kroft. That's the "real world" (4:40). (see that smirk @4:53, where he's dwells on disarming the USCCA guy, Kroft smugly declares momentary victory)
He goes on to state (4:13-4:24) that non-city people are comfortable with weapons, that there's a confidence of understanding which generates this comfort. He goes on to recognize that city people are scared of weapons, inferring that the lack of understanding or IGNORANCE of weapons generates this fear. Instead of being an educator, Kroft goes the route of the STATE-ist, allowing the ignorant masses to reside in their stupor, crafting laws to make them more comfortable in their weakened condition. The alternative being unacceptable. Having a free and armed society would actually teach the moral fortitude and responsibility Kroft acknowledges is lost on his team.