Screen Shot 2015-01-13 at 11.10.02 PM

“’He started shooting – and I started shooting,’ said volunteer Linda Cruz. Time and time again, the armed civilian ‘dies’ – shot by a round that marks him or her with paint. In only two cases volunteers were able to take out one of two gunmen in the process.” That’s the result of tonight’s simulation of the attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo as reported by (click image above to view their report). Nick conducted the scenario twelve times at Patriot Protection in Plano, Texas, apparently showing that given the circumstances – two terrorists armed with rifles – more than just one good guy with a gun would likely have been needed to save lives. But we’ll leave the final analysis to the analyst. Stay tuned.

Recommended For You

111 Responses to Charlie Hebdo Shooting Sim Shows More Than One Gun Is Needed

    • Since there was supposedly ONE policeman in the conference room as “security” (and possibly armed, though I have never heard on any news report that this was so), it would seem logical to run the sim so as to determine if he would have had any effect on the outcome (which he apparently did not).

  1. When confronted with return fire, how did your assailants react? I’m thinking there’s a huge real world psychological factor that will never be present in scenarios like this. If gunman A sees gunman B brought down by a GGWAG, I highly doubt gunman A will continue unabated in his attack, his behavior will change.

    • Entirely depends on the mindset of Gunman A.

      You are running the scenario through a “I want to live” filter. Things change a lot when the actors don’t care if they live or die, or worse, want to die but bring a lot of destruction in the process.

    • Chris is exactly right, suppressive fire could mean absolutely nothing in this type of scenario because you aren’t A.) using the right type of person and B.) there is no threat of death. In reality just presenting opposition could slow down these type of people, shooting at them would force them to cover and significantly impede their activities if not halt them entirely by forcing them to end the attack. Not to mention a well placed bullet would do.

      These guys acted unabated, without that impunity the situation would have been invariably different. 10 to 1 this simulation won’t take into account any of these factors.

      As to the idea that they’re there being suicide terrorists as opposed to just being terrorists: If that was the case why didn’t they stay and fight instead of fleeing? Why didn’t they just use a suicide bomb? You see I don’t think that’s what the intent was here. I’d say these guys were definitely intent on surviving.

      I’d like to see this test run with several volunteers, maybe 15 or so people to play helpless bystander, 2 maybe ex-mil guys that AREN’T regular shooters and don’t own guns to be the bad guys and say one guy who has taken his ccw course and maybe a training class to be the good guy with a gun. That in my opinion, would be a lot more accurate test.

      • These guys were also wearing armor that could sustain a few pistol rounds, and were hell-bent on being martyrs. As long as it wasn’t a direct face shot, they could continue on as they pleased. Even that, Adrenaline would have kept them going for at least 30 seconds more even in a ‘fatal’ shot placement.

      • The final place where the police caught up to them was not far away from airport. I think that shows they had a different endgame in mind. That is probably why they left the office after the shooting.

        Also, keep in mind that they FORGOT one backpack with ID of one of them in the getaway car. If they didn’t leave the ID there, they might have been enjoying a coffee right now with cops and military chasing their tails all over France.

  2. Not surprising. Two idiots with AKs took on a bunch of armed cops in that botched bank robbery in West Hollywood. So some pencil pusher with a pistol is going to do any better?
    I might get gunned down, but I’d rather go out with a gun in my hand shooting back.

    • As someone mentioned above tho, the bank robbers wanted to live. They were expecting armed resistance and brought armor.
      If a terrorist is expecting no resistance and bullets start flying back in the other direction, the question is if this changes or slows their attack.

      One or two half successes are an improvement over the existing tragedy. So I wouldn’t say it’s a lost argument, just one that needs better odds.

      • It helped they were both bodybuilders jacked up on amphetamines and barbiturates, covered in Kevlar, with a converted hk91, a converted ar15 carbine and two converted aks with drum mags, along with pistols and a worn out vhs tape of the movie “Heat” indicating they understood how the tactics of a running gunfight with LAPD might work given the ex IRA technical advisors on that film did an excellent job.
        Aside from that, a couple of bad guys with aks is still a formidable force to deal with if you had something like a Glock 19 with 2 mags without the element of surprise. In a situation like “charlie” I would guess that you are in the role of the determined martyr trying to take out two bgs before you bleed out.

    • you go ahead and be a martyr, even if I am armed, I am going to preserve my life, and as many of the people around me as possible. Hero’s die, I would rather live.

    • In the West Hollywood shootout, the two bank robbers were the only fatalities. The goblins were armed with full-auto weapons and body armor and they still were the only fatalities.

  3. One wonders how many times the armed gunmen were shot when there were no armed sheepdogs?

    Having the gun give you a chance not a guarantee.

  4. If I’m not mistaken the gunmen made it a point to take out the armed guard/police protecting the editor first. And I also believed they had a period of asking who was in the room etc. If that’s the case the sound of the AK would have allowed the armed of the group to be more prepared as they entered the room. With my reading of the incident I did not come away with the understanding they just came in the room and shot whoever they saw.

    At the DC Navy Yard shooting (it was essentially an office building) the shooter took out the armed guard first. The takeaway is if you’re the armed guard in an active shooter situation, you are probably going to be the first one hit.

    • Good point, C.Z. It seems that just maybe they left out some key or even critical variables of their simulation of the Charlie Hedbo attack. Variables that would have taken some of the advantage away from the islamist terrorists.

  5. Wait, so only twice did the armed employee successfully return fire? Hmm… I guess I expected better luck shooting a terrorist in the back while he mowed down the other staff.

  6. True, it would likely take a more than a few pistol packing cartoonists to stop a terrorist attack from a couple of well armed and determined jihadists. However I think just one teacher simply presenting a firearm would likely deter a psychopath trying to live out a fantasy by shooting up a school.

    Terrorists want war, loner school shooters want easy targets.

      • Spree shooters typically respond to armed intervention by leaving or shooting themselves. They are not interested in armed confrontation. Why else would they consistently choose disarmament zones, aka schools?

        • Because that is where the people are that they want to shoot.

          Contrary to popular belief, there are just about NO cases of a spree shooter just arbitrarily picking some school or other gun-free zone as their killing field. I examined every school shooting I could find and in every case but one, the shooter had a direct connection to the school. Meaning, they were either a current or past student of that school, or the person they wanted dead was a student or employee of that school.

          Just like this French scenario… was the office a gun-free zone? Probably… but is that WHY it was chosen for an attack? Of course not. It was chosen because that is where the people were that the gunmen wanted dead.

  7. Uh yeah…I guess 2 guys who want their 72 virgins each might not care if one guy shot at them. Who only had a handgun and not a fully automatic AK. Yep…

  8. Q1) Why does it appear that the bad guys were able to advance without warning? Wasn’t there shot fired in the streets and warning that bad guys were coming?

    Q2) Did the real attackers have to come up a stairwell? If so the attackers should have had to do something analogous.

    Q3) Should have done a scenario where Charlie Hebdo was based in Texas and had been firebombed previously and therefore 5-10 of the employees were rightfully armed.

    Q4) I really doubt the attackers were pros. I think at best one of them had run around on the battlefield with his sandals and probably did some classic hold the gun over his head and did some blind shooting. Should have had some of the drills using attackers that were semi skilled like some of the volunteers.

    All-in-all it seems like the deck was was artificially stacked against the office workers. This isn’t how you win the propaganda battle. You’re being too fair to a fault.

    • “Q3) Should have done a scenario where Charlie Hebdo was based in Texas and had been firebombed previously and therefore 5-10 of the employees were rightfully armed.”

      Twenty six million in Texas, I believe, less than one million CHLs. Let’s say 100 employees, statically speaking, 4 have CHLs, and that’s being generous.

      Then you have the “corporatist” aspect where businesses and their share holders don’t care about employees’ lives or rights, just profit and liable. So, I doubt they would “allow” armed employees, as it is a liablity. And most CHL holders, including people who post here on TTAG, won’t carry illegally, or against company policy.

      I think one armed person is more likely than 5-10, even in Texas.

      Because in real life, most of the population is walking around unarmed.

      • You say that a corporation that is on Jihadi blacklist, receives daily death threats, has been firebombed in past and was forced by government to change offices to a location which is not publicly listed, would approve policy of disarmed employees? If so, then who the hell would work for them?

        You say that majority of people that are on Jihadi blacklist (death threats … firebombed … moved to secret location) would not go and get CC permits in case they didn’t have them before? If so, what kind of people are we talking about?

        • Our entire country is on the blackist and we elected a Muslim president, twice, so get real.

      • Charlie Hebdo wasn’t Joe’s Welding Shop.
        You were cartoonists drawing Mohammed literally taking it up the ass.
        Your offices were firebombed.
        Your cartoons regularly caused riots amongst crazy people.
        Your server overflowed daily with death threats.
        If you had that occupation, who in their right mind wouldn’t carry?

        Under those circumstances I’d easily contend that it was reasonable to run simulations where 4+ people would be carrying. In fact I think it would be quite interesting to know what number it would be before the victims had the upper hand.

        • Our country is target número uno and I’ll bet money you couldn’t find 4+ CHLs holders in sight of one other on an average day, even where allowed.

          I was pulled over a few yrs back and informed the trooper I was armed, he said, “Nice, you know how rare that is, most people get the license but never carry.”

          And that’s when I started taking notice and asking around, and he was right.

        • And only 5% of Americans have the license. Most people you hang out with don’t have a carry weapon. The ones that do only a small percentage carry. The problems are the hassles one must go through in their daily lives. Even when it is legal to carry, many people have to go to restricted places. Post offices, court houses, etc. Then you have people that have owned guns almost all their lives but those guns are in a closet and are not loaded.
          I’m sure you have pockets of areas where as many as 20% are carrying, but overall I estimate less than 2% of the population are regularly armed. Criminals are playing the odds and they are still too much in favor of the bad guys.

        • “Charlie Hebdo wasn’t Joe’s Welding Shop.”

          You can’t have a first amendment without the second.

          Live by the sword, die by the sword is cute but more apt is,
          live by the print without a sword, die by the sword.

        • CH is the type of liberal agitprop mag that would have its office in a NYC suburb or LA, not Dallas or Salt Lake City. I’m sure that even if they were officed here in the states, they’d have about the same ratio of armed employees as Salon or The HuffPo. == 0

      • So I guess I go to hell for this admission. I have always carried against my employers rules. No one would ever know, unless I used it. As Hillary said “at this point what difference does it make.” Now retired. The only place I don’t carry is were it is prohibited by federal law. The idea of being unarmed just sounds stupid.

        • I do what I gotta do, and if there aren’t metal detectors and armed security, then they aren’t serious about it, that’s all I have to say.

        • The right thing and the righteous thing are not always synonymous.

          But, let’s say I know a guy who knows a guy, and he has been tooled up in some places who wouldn’t believe, without issue.

        • @Jack, I did the same. When I carried at work, I was violating a company policy written in the employee manual, but not any law since the store itself was not posted.

          If I had to break the law to carry at work, I would have worked somewhere else. But I had no qualms at all about violating a stupid company policy.

    • Q4) Google the picture of the first police car they encountered. The grouping on the windshield is extremely tight. They first shot at it standing and then during drive one of them shot out of the window, sitting on the door. I mean, that was hell of a marksmanship. It seems the Jemeni Al Qaeda knows how to train their operators.

    • “This isn’t how you win the propaganda battle.” I disagree. One thing that distinguishes modern Progressives from most of us is they think Truth is fluid — it is what’s convenient for the moment. If the armed citizens had taken down the terrorists, critics would say Nick & Co. stacked the deck. Anti-gunners gleefully point out Joseph Wilcox died without saving anyone and claim Joe Zamudio “almost shot” innocent civilians. And Mark Vaughan was a “law enforcement officer”. Nick Meli and Dr. Lee Silverman simply don’t exist. They’ll make of it what they will.

      On the other hand, this was an honest experiment that did not go “our way,” but provided some valuable data. I tip my hat to Nick & Co. for presenting the results, messy and provocative as they are. Would MDA or Brady have done the same?

  9. The Terrorists in Paris were trained for this kind of attack. The “terrorists” in the simulation were trained in this kind of attack. In each of the twelve simulations a different “victim” was armed, apparently. One actually shot a “terrorist”, but “died” and one shot a “terrorist” and survived by fleeing the room. The other ten “died” without “killing” either “terrorist”. All “victims” apparently had pistols, the “terrorists” full automatic rifles. Al Qaeda has years of experience and knows how to train people for these types of attacks. I am not surprised by the results.

    If all twelve “victims” were armed with pistols at the same time and the two “terrorists” were armed with automatic rifles, I would still expect “victim” fatalities and severe wounding before both “terrorists” were down. It might be possible a simulation could still result in all “victims” being killed or wounded and one “terrorist” surviving. I project this on the basis of full auto rifles “spraying” a lot of rounds in a close space and trained “terrorists” being skillful at the close quarters “spray” tactic. I also take into account the chaos and confusion amongst the twelve “victims” many of whom have never had this kind of experience before, blood spattering about, gruesome wounds and reactions from the first people shot, heads exploding, “victims” having pistol deployment problems, freaking out and so forth.

    I looked at the video a few times and realized how truly chaotic the simulated attack was even with the “victims” expecting it. Then, I considered what it might be like if the “victims” were truly taken by surprise. I eventually concluded that even if all twelve were Armed, the scenario would be so chaotic that the “victims'” advantage would not significantly improve in this particular setting and set-up. In other settings, the results would, I think, be different. It should also be considered that Terrorists may make deliberate choices about locations and settings to mount such an attack that would keep the advantage of surprise and set-up in their favor.

    I do not claim that this analysis is anything but speculation and impression, so don’t take it as my projecting it to be in any way “definitive”. As I watched the video and read the text, these are the thoughts that came to mind and apply to this specific case ONLY, not to all possible cases. In my opinion, this scenario is a “worst case” situation for reasons I noted above and I think that should be obvious. It is quite instructive, as Leghorn found out.

    • …..In my opinion, this scenario is a “worst case” situation for reasons I noted above

      Our political opponents do not subject their arguments to “worst case” scenarios.

      Our political opponents do not let TV stations record their dog&pony shows without knowing what the results will be.

      I can assume that we had no political or marketing folks involved with this experiment.

      It was un-wise to do 10 runs of the same scenario. If the most experienced 3 folks you have die in the first 3 run-throughs then why the hell keep running the same experiment with even less experienced folks?

      I again surmise there were no engineers or scientists in the house.

      I contend that this show was a net loss for our side but maybe a plus for Patriot Protection. Maybe they were the smart ones in the room?

      • Yes, I had the same thoughts, doesky2. I was concerned this simulation would be propaganda fodder for our opponents precisely because they would not parse possible scenarios, but claim this exercise was “typical” of any such scenario. In fact, I would be entirely surprised if they do not seize upon it for that purpose. Not happy about having to “go there”, but I think the exercise was worthwhile and instructive, even so. You?

  10. Was definitely an interesting experience, Im going to save my thoughts and experiences until the full article is released. Either way, I had a great time.

  11. Really amazing that you all put this together. To me what this highlights is the need for training for civilians. I feel like we are seeing more and more quality trainers every year, but more could not hurt.

  12. So, if more than one armed defender is optimal, you’ve validated Mr.Lott’s analysis: more guns does in fact equal less crime…you’ve proved it! We need MORE guns!

  13. This is not a real life simulation of situation in a country with easy legal access to CC permit.

    The people inside
    (1) were getting daily death threats
    (2) were firebombed in 2011
    (3) were forced by the government to move to a location, the address of which was not publicly listed (the terrorists originally arrived at the official address where someone at gunpoint told them where the newspaper really is).

    Also, there were 20 people inside, 12 was the number of casualties (including on the street).

    In any country with easy legal access to CC weapons, it would not be 1/12 armed, but at least 4-6 if we are really pessimistic (given the 3 points above). If we are more optimistic, it would be around 7/12 with CC pistols and 2 with fast access to SBRs.

    • A smart group would have had much better physical security and maybe a safe with some long arms.

      On the other hand, Leftists generally believe their own bullsheet view of the world.

      I’d bet most of them thought they could reason with a terrorist.

      I’d bet most of them thought that Obama would heal the Earth and bring everlasting peace.

      I’d bet that most of them thought that their government would protect them.

      Most assuredly, if any of them thought they would be assassinated that were sure it would be George Bush’s fault.

    • Might you be underestimating the faith that liberal journo types have in their government and smug self-righteousness? I certainly do not take it on faith that any would be armed, given the history with the addition of readily available CCW. I find the culture of victim glorification just does not allow them to even consider the possibility of trying to protect themselves.

    • I agree. You would need to train the group of multiple CHL holders so when they all begin applying deadly force they at least have a training inkling not to shoot eachother in a crossfire with that many guns in play.

      I dont feel better being shot/killed by friendly fire than by a fundamentalist IslamoNazi.

  14. Not too surprising. Simple game of numbers, training, and equipment.

    Two trained bad guys with rifles & the element of surprise > One civilian, minimal training, armed with just a pistol

  15. Two guys moving together with long guns, decent skills, the advantage of surprise, and no concern whether they survive, are an extremely lethal combination. I am not surprised that a single armed defender was not able to stop both attackers.

    I believe an NRA sponsored group ran a simulation with a group of a few such attackers and even a police squad suffered heavy losses.

    Make no mistake, such a situation is combat and people from both sides usually die in combat. The objective in this scenario is to insure that attackers die as well, since defenders are going to die anyway. In other words the defenders are trying to minimize the body count.

    Great job TTaG staff and thank you for organizing and running the simulation!

  16. I didn’t read the previous, full rundown, but at first glance, it’s exactly what you might expect.

    Two BGs on the offensive with rifles vs one GG on the defensive with a pistol, hardly even.

    But, if that’s how it goes down, that’s what you’re dealing with… Like they saying in street drag, “Run what you brung.”

    I’ve said it before, carrying a gun is not about living or dying, because sometimes it’s not up to you. It’s about honor and dignity, yeah I might die, but I’m gonna die fighting, like a man.

  17. I don’t think the results are that surprising. Going 2v1 with a handgun against AKs is not a situation I’d probably jump into, without a tactical advantage or no other choice, and I’ve had some tactical training. It’s real hard to say what one would do, but I think I’d probably use the only advantage I have, which is knowledge of building, to help folks get out. Save the handgun for defending the exit.

    Each situation is different and the attacker’s motives play big in how they respond. A jihadist or criminal isn’t likey to turn the gun on himself at first resistance like school shooters seem to do.

    A smart guy with a trident on his chest told me once, should I find myself on bad guy land with just my trusty Sig…outside of 20 yards run like your life depends on it and hope he’s a bad shot. Then grab some cover and make him come to you. Inside 20 yards, aim well.

  18. This is the Hollywood Scenario. Trained and equipped bad guys on a mission from God. Short of a deployment to the sandbox none of us will ever face this situation.

    If this happens in the states hopefully the cook in the target zone will be Casey Phucking Ryback.

  19. Don’t remember who said it, but there’s a quote by a former law enforcement guy who was involved in a number of shootings to the tune of “you’ll never kill em all.” This is supposed to mean that there are some situations where you just won’t win.

    Getting surprised by two guys with rifles in close quarters who are both wearing body armor is probably one of those cases. They aren’t all like that though. And many DGUs happen against people who are not trained and aren’t using rifles or even guns at all. Keep running tests and give us the results and hopefully the media reports on those too.

    If anything we know that retreating(running away) may be the best choice if odds are this stacked against you.

    • Yes! This shows the real world wisdom of Sun Tzu’s Art of War. The terrorists attacked on their terms and prevailed. The victims defended themselves on the terrorists’ terms and lost.

      As someone stated, quite possibly the best course of action for a single armed defender is to escape and only use their handgun to shoot their way out of the building if necessary.

  20. The analysis will be interesting even if the test has flaws. But to me it’s largely pointless.

    I’d rather die fighting for my life over dying begging for it.

  21. How about you run the simulation again with a person (or two) allowed to have an SBR handy in their office.

    Prove that the NFA cost lives…

    • I addition to equipping the defenders with short-barreled rifles, make sure they are select fire short-barreled rifles and allow the defenders to use three-shot bursts or even full auto at close range.

      Again, show how NFA costs lives.

  22. What strikes me is the multitude of witness videos showing ample opportunity for non-employees to throw lead at these guys during downtime from their assault. The CH employees notwithstanding, it would have been great if SOMEBODY was able to get a jump on these guys.

    Reminds me of the machete attack in Great Britain when the extremist stabbed a soldier to death, then ranted and raved for minutes on video while people just stared at him in shock. Disarmed and apparently spayed and neutered as well, the lot of them. This is what happens to a disarmed, dis-empowered populace.

  23. Key data point here is two assailants have a better than 82% chance of completing the murder mission than one. The chance one person has a gun in the workplace when an attack starts is less than 1%. Follow on force will locate, close with assailants and kill them only after original assailant mission is completed.

    Since you cannot win, MOMs wants everyone disarmed so killing occurs faster, police are declared heroes, legislators get to pass more laws disarming law-abiding citizens, thus insuring ensuring more killed AND when assailants attack in groups of five, they overwhelm local PD thus becoming cost effective killing machines.

  24. This good stuff. THIS is what the public dialog should contain more of. There are some excellent comments above, so I’ll only add the following:

    (1) Should be obvious, but GG with a gun CAN influence the outcome. As has been said many, many times but merits repeating, there is no guarantee. The gun on our hips is not a magic talisman, but it gives the carrier (and / or others) a non-zero chance.

    First rule of a gunfight: have a gun.

    (2) Should be obvious also but for some reason isn’t, hopefully this will dispel the notions a lot of CC-ers seem to have about being “The Savior” in a situation like this. A carry handgun is not a “combat weapon” per se, it is a last resort.

    Like one should not bring a knife to a gunfight, one should also perhaps be MIGHT circumspect about bring a pistol to CQC against multiple attackers armed with automatic rifles.

    Circling back to (1), though…long odds are nonzero odds. Sometimes in life, we have to take what we can get.

    Finally, (3) In my opinion, the presence of the armed GG is not necessarily about him/herself surviving the fight (though that IS a goal, just perhaps not the primary one), the real goal is ‘stopping the threat, or at least slowing it down.’ There are too many variables to know how all this would go down, but seeing that there is a possibility of changing the outcome in a positive way is very instructive.

    It was a good “first test” and can result in good data to discuss, analyze and incorporate into tactics and overall strategies. And, sadly, it will probably be ignored by MSM and misused by many who simply do not understand the point.

    • I like your analysis paraphrasing the old “Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight” axiom. I thought about that, too. In this new situation, we need to add something like, “Don’t bring a pistol to a machine gun fight.” In the scenarios were are used to anticipating, a pistol is very adequate, but in the scenarios we need to contemplate for the future not so much.

  25. I would love to see multiple variations on the scenario, like what if there were two employees with Garands and fixed bayonets? My money is on the Garand.

  26. I guess, I would have either used the table, by having it turned on edge with me laying on the floor behind it with only peeking around a corner to shoot (small target). Or plastered on the wall with the door, sunk down low in hopes the room would be taken for empty or have an opportunity when the bad guy put is head around the corner to check.
    However, I agree that there is not a very good chance to win. However, the chance to is non-zero where being unarmed your chance is zero,

    • I did a write up as an after action type report and sent it to TTAG. There were two corridor entrances, and that was one of the things I thought about after I had gone through.

  27. I’m glad to see it got good media coverage, that was really well done.

    I’d love to see U.S. corporations spend some cash and train some volunteers at Gun SIte, Thunder Ranch or Lethal Force Institute. Maybe people would realize that having armed, well-trained citizens, even in the office, is a good thing.

  28. Well, a sim is a sim. In real life, chances are, if the perps heard shots coming their direction they would have high heeled right out of the building.

  29. Yes. All the occupants of that office/structure should have been armed. Hope like hell that a lot of money was not wasted figuring this out.

  30. This and other things has made me think about how to stack the odds more in my favor. The element of surprise and pistols vs. rifles I figured it wouldn’t be much better than this.

    To be honest I don’t carry on body at my workplace. Like most of these journalists I assume, I sit at a computer and I’m not going to subject myself to having to conceal a pistol all day when I’m sitting down all day. I have a pistol in my backpack with an extra mag.

    Getting back to stacking the odds… typically it’s the gun I might have to carry which is not a full-size gun. I’m contemplating a full-size gun and dealing with it if I do have to carry it. Then how do I have a long gun or at least higher capacity powerful caliber around is my next thoughts. I somewhat regret getting rid of my Sub-2000, but maybe a AR pistol or PLR-16 would be it.

    • Make no mistake, rifles and shotguns are far superior to handguns in combat. The only reason that handguns are so “ubiquitous” in public is because they are small and easy to conceal.

      If you want to prepare for combat, you need access to the largest firearm possible given the constraints of your location/situation. If you can only have a handgun, then have the largest handgun possible even if you have to store it in a backpack, briefcase, or desk. A 10mm semi-auto or .45 ACP with a 5 inch barrel is probably the minimum if you can handle the recoil. A pistol caliber carbine in .40 S&W, 10mm, or .45 ACP is even better. Of course a shotgun is much more effective than any pistol caliber firearm and an AR/AK carbine would be ideal.

      I rank an AR/AK carbine decidedly above a shotgun because:
      (1) an AR/AK carbine would enable much faster follow-up shots over a shotgun
      (2) an AR/AK with hollow-point ammunition has similar stopping power to a shotgun
      (3) an AR/AK will penetrate ballistic vests that stop handgun and shotgun rounds.

      Moral of the story: keep an AR15 or AK47 available if possible.

  31. There are really too many variables to calculate. In my opinion, these terrorists were not expecting opposition. A single conceal carrier could have easily taken down one of them as hey casually walked away. If he took cover and maneuvered appropriately, he could have escaped the second gun man. If the conceal carrier is good enough, he could potentially take out both before they had a chance to respond. Shooting terrorist in the back does count. Now, if a conceal carrier with a pistol tried to slug it out with rifle toting terrorists face-to-face, he is probably not going to win unless he is lucky and good.

  32. I would like to see the simulation run again with a few more victims with commonly carried pistols.

    Unfortunately determined attackers with rifles and body armor, even if they are thinking about escape, are going to be very tough to defeat. The earlier comment suggesting a few shots sent down the hall would have sent them running is VERY unlikely considering the just released video where French police in a car fire with pistols and the brothers stop their car, calmly get out and begin firing on the police car till it retreats.

    I am fascinated by the simulations, but I am concerned it is going to be used like the Diane Sawyer 20/20 hit piece that “concluded” there was no situation that armed citizens could improve the outcome. Those of us that study these situations realize that in an ambush situation, the defenders are likely to suffer three casualties even if they “win”.

    Lets do it again for science.

    • Being given time to take cover and draw your defensive weapon can make all the difference. Add a second armed worker, with both being able to take cover and draw their weapons, could completely reverse the outcome.

      if the cops had been armed, or armed security guards present, the additional time might have also made all the difference.

  33. I would anticipate the following outcomes in a realistic scenario:
    1 – an armed worker with a pistol would have a reasonable chance of taking out one attacking rifleman before being killed by the other, if the worker wasn’t among the first shot or immediately identified.
    2 – if the attacking riflemen knew who the armed worker was prior to attacking, the armed worker would have near-zero chance.
    3 – if the police had been armed, the workers would have had some warning as the police engaged the attackers outside of the building.
    4 – if a worker, or security guard, was armed with a rifle and behind cover, one defender would have a reasonable chance of killing both attacking riflemen.

  34. Interesting discussion but I am afraid that this is a “Kobyashi” Maru scenario with computer to fool. You are going to lose. It is just a matter of how much damage you can do before you assume room temperature.

    To give yourself any kind of a chance you have to dispense with the pocket pistol. You need something that will at least stun an assailant in body armor. That mean you want a large caliber. You need a gun that you can accurately put lots of fire down range from the first shot to the last shot. That excludes revolvers. You have no margin for error so you have to a single action combat trigger because every shot is going to count. Any DA/SA pistol is suboptimal because getting the first round on target is absolute critical. The DA pull is going to hurt accuracy. You also need a long sight radius so you get the maximum accuracy so even a compact is suboptimal.

    The 1911, preferably in 10mm, meets these requierments and I can see a Walters PPQ in 40 cal also meeting them. But to reiterate you are still going to be a dead man walking in this scenerio.

  35. I don’t want to wander into Alex Jones territory but am I the only one who find the whole thing fishy? I mean, why did they bother to wear masks but leave their ID at the scene? And watching the video where that police officer got shot you notice that there isn’t any blood coming out. From what I know of biology there should be some blood when you get shot in the head. Just look at the Zapruder film and you will see what I mean (not for the faint of heart). That and the impact seems to hit about 30 cm to his side.

    • What got me was how deserted the streets were. I understand that we Americans are workaholics and there is always street traffic, but this looked like a closed set. I have never been to France so somebody tell me if it is normal for some parts of the city in France are deserted like this.

    • And would two mass murderers then go to a Kosher deli to grab a bite of lunch? I think not.

      Obviously, this was a false flag operation, since it’s been proven that mass murderers in France prefer Coquilles St. Jacques for their après-slaughter meal over corned beef on rye with Russian dressing.

    • lolinski, hate to get personal like this. But could it be you’re searching for an alternative truth because you’re muslim?

  36. Charlie Hebdo recently moved to this location since they were previously bombed. The real issue here is that they already knew they were in danger and their security plans were, well, lacking. We all know that training and preparedness are paramount to any engagement. Heck, not engaging is actually the first premise. But, Monday morning quarterbacking, their security sucked considering the high visibility of their work.

  37. Something to consider is the affect even the _possibility_ of an armed citizenry offering resistance would have had on these attacks. It is possible that would have been enough to stop even the planning for such an attack.

  38. The “TRUTH” here is that ambush and surprise will always tip the odds in favor of the attacker. That idea that we all should walk around on high alert, ready to defend our lives at any moment is preposterous. The fact is that we all *have* lives to live and for most of us that does not involve being an Operator. Instead, we have meetings, negotiations, deadlines, honey-dos etc, none of which we could meet if we were constantly looking around the corner to see if the coast was clear. The TRUTH is that we live in a mostly peaceful society where we can afford to let our guard down and grow fat, lethargic and opinionated (and that’s another thing, why or why are so many “preppers” obese?).

  39. This is kind of a Kobayashi Maru situation! In this scenario both ‘terrorists’ are professional trainers, plus they know there will be an armed response. Furthermore they know only one will be resisting. That’s a helluva an advantage. Between having the element of surprise, superior training and superior weaponry it’s hard to imagine how a lone defender could expect to prevail. It would be key to tip some of the advantages to your favor. For instance in a real situation the attackers wouldn’t know if any of the victims were armed or how many might be. Any advanced warning could also be critical; you would then be organizing a counter-ambush.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *