Texas gun group "simulates" Paris attack... result? Really hard to kill gunmen even if armed.

Great Debates
1

Here’s the link.

They laid out an office similar to the Hebdo offices, with 12 people as the civilians, one of whom was “armed” (with a paintball gun), simulating concealed-carry. Then two gunmen entered at some point with paintball rifles, with the goal of “killing” everyone.

They rotated the role of the “armed” civilian – only 2 of the 12 were able to “kill” one of the gunmen, and none of them were able to “kill” both of the gunmen. One was able to escape by fleeing.

Maybe it’s in bad taste. In any case, the results aren’t that surprising to me – one armed civilian probably doesn’t make much of a difference in an attack like this, unfortunately.

I wonder how this would play out in other scenarios – for example, I’ve heard some say that if multiple civilians were armed in a terrorist attack, this could increase the danger, because they (and the police response) may not know who is the good guy and who is not. Perhaps this could be simulated – like, say, on a mock subway car, or mock movie theater – have a handful of random civilians be “armed”… one is a terrorist, and the rest are “good guy” civilians – what happens when the terrorist opens up and starts shooting people? If everyone has different color paintballs, we could determine how many are killed by the civilians, and how many by terrorists.

2

I am an armed civilian and the only difference I would hope to make in such a situation is keeping myself alive, whether I do that by shooting or by running. I can’t speak for any other armed citizens, but such has always been my policy. I carry to protect me, not you.

3

In the simulation, the armed civilian failed to protect himself in all but one case. Two were able to shoot one of the gunmen, but they were “killed” by the other gunman.

4

This is one of the things that dissuades me from carrying. If I end up in a fight and the bad guy is lying on the ground in a pool of blood with me hovering over him and then the police arrive, what do I do to let them know that I’m not the baddie so I don’t get shot as an “armed and dangerous” suspect? Put my hands up immediately?

5

But taking one of them out with you is arguably better than just sitting there and letting them kill you.

6

Which is why I kept the option to run on the table. How many of the people who couldn’t shoot back (no gun) survived, on the average?

7

So that makes 3/12 of the sims which turned out nominally better (less successful for the attackers) than the real incident?

8

And unlike the original, in all the reenactments they were expecting the attacks, so the amount of panic and surprise could not possibly be the same.

9

I consider the whole exercise of very limited value. Everybody concerned knew in advance that there would be an attack and how many attackers there would be. The attackers knew in advance that one of the targets would be armed. Since the whole exercise was non-lethal, there is no disincentive for making wildly bad tactical decisions.

10

Yeah – knowing that one is in a simulation, and there’s no actual fear for one’s life, definitely changes things.

11

Not sure if there was any overlap – if the “escape” happened in the same one as one of the killers being shot.

12

I can think of a bunch of things to improve the exercise, make it very interesting for all participating… but I’m not sure it would tell us much more than could have been postulated to begin with:

  1. An armed civilian has a chance of taking out an attacker.
  2. A determined team of attackers is likely to kill many of their targets, regardless.
13

The element of surprise is tremendously valuable when seeking to kill your fellow man. In this scenario, it does work in both directions, at least a little. When you come stampeding into an office set on murdering a group of helpless people, armed resistance is quite likely going to throw your groove off.

14

No, 1/12 turned out better. Good guys surviving is a good outcome. Bad guys dying is not, in itself, a good outcome, except insofar as it contributes to good guys surviving.

15

Just a reminder that one of the people killed in the Charlie Hebdo shootings was a police officer (and presumably armed), assigned as a bodyguard to editor Stephane Charbonniere. If a single armed professional had no chance, I could not be optimistic about the chances of a single armed non-professional.

[Quote=Wikipedia]
Franck Brinsolaro, 49, Protection Service police officer assigned as a bodyguard for Charb
[/quote]

Note: this was not the second police officewr who was killed in the stgreet outside as the attackers were leaving.

16

I know, horrible situation to be in, right? Much better when it’s you lying on the ground in a pool of blood with the bad guy hovering over you.

17

Whatever you may be optimistic about, I would prefer to be armed in such a situation.

18

Which is why I vote to take away your right to carry. Most of the hostages were rescued; not so much if someone with a gun tries to play hero.

19

Which it is generally understood to do (as would capture). That’s why police pursued and eventually shot the actual guys.

20

If I had said anything_at all_ about being a hero, this reply would have made sense. I didn’t and it doesn’t; so, I must presume that you just wanted to somehow work into the conversation that you object to armed citizens. In point of fact, I indicated that I would run away if that action would save my life. At no point did I say anything about rescuing any hostages. You got to air your objection, though, so there is that.