I don’t have all the data from the event yet — all the videos are still en route, for example — but Robert wanted me to post something about the event immediately, so I obliged. The office shooting simulation we ran in Plano, Texas involved two scenarios, and was repeated for a total of 9 repetitions. There were some problems with the event, but we also had some interesting findings and noted some areas to investigate further with a larger test. Here’s a quick look at the methodology, issues, and initial results…


Keep in mind that this isn’t the final word yet. Robert’s desire was to re-create the Charlie Hebdo environment exactly, but with an added armed defender. Given the extremely short time frame in which we had to throw this thing together (24 hours), Patriot Protection in Plano, Texas did not have sufficient time to re-create the offices exactly and instead re-used their existing setup which was adequate for the test. Their configuration in the training area consisted of a hallway with six small rooms on either side and a larger room at the end of the hallway.

Volunteers were collected from the local area. A total of 26 volunteers and some paid staff participated in the event, although not all of them were able to go through the scenarios.

The rooms in the training area were populated with volunteers, one or two people to a room down the sides and four people in the room at the end. For scenario #1, the armed defender was positioned in the room at the end of the hall. For scenario #2, the defender was positioned in one of the rooms on the side of the hall.

Each defender was told that there were people in the adjacent rooms, and to act as they would normally. They were given no specific instructions about how to react. The defenders were armed with a GLOCK 17 converted for UTM man marker rounds holstered in a non-retention holster and a single 18 round magazine.

The two attackers were armed with AR-15 rifles converted to fire UTM man marker rounds and a few 30 round magazines. The attackers in this instance were highly trained individuals who were employed as instructors at Patriot Protection, and were similarly instructed to attack the office area as they normally would given their training.

Each scenario started with placing the defenders and volunteers in the office area. Once they were set up, we had them chat among themselves to focus their attention on something other than the scenario at hand. After a few minutes, the attackers entered the area and began their assault. In every situation we modeled the defender had advanced warning that attackers were coming as there were shots fired before they got to the room where the defender was located.


Every live fire exercise has issues, and this one was no different.

The biggest problem reported by the volunteers was that their masks were constantly fogging up. Given the cold nights in north Texas and the lack of heating in the training area, the required safety equipment became more of a burden than expected. Many volunteers complained that they were unable to see the attackers at all when they finally entered the room, and were forced to simply shoot in their general direction. Obviously in a real world situation fogged up face masks would not be an issue, so this is a problem that we experience trying to re-create the scenarios only and detracts from the applicability of the testing to real world scenarios.

Another problem was the use of a flashlight by one of the attackers. A flashlight was not included in the testing protocol, but according to reports from the volunteers one of the attackers used a flashlight to blind the defender in one or two scenarios. These tests deviated from the methodology and will be excluded from the final results.

The use of UTM’s man marker rounds was another problem. While they give a good indication of whether someone is hit or not, they do not accurately model the ability to incapacitate or kill someone. People who were hit multiple times continued shooting, despite being instructed to simply stop shooting and get down once hit. This posed a huge problem when trying to analyze the results.

The final problem was time. Robert insisted that we perform this test within 24 hours of having the idea in order to capture media attention, and that unfortunately meant that the methodology was rushed, the volunteer pool was small, and we did not have sufficient time on the day of the event to even run all of the volunteers who did manage to make it to the location. Due to the small sample size, it will unfortunately be impossible to draw any hard and fast conclusions from the testing. However, we can identify some areas for further investigation in a larger scale test with more time allotted.

Preliminary Results

I do not have all of the data yet. Patriot Protection recorded the whole event on their camera system for me, and unfortunately they have been unable to provide me with the full tapes as of yet. However, the one thing I do have is footage from a camera mounted to one of the attacker’s rifles. Using this footage and descriptions of what happened from the volunteers and attackers, combined with what we have learned from previous testing in similar situations, I am able to make some preliminary statements about the results of the testing.

1. Attacker’s experience matters

In the previous simulation, we used volunteers as attackers to simulate a relatively poorly trained individual attempting to attack a school. In that scenario, nearly ever one of the armed defenders were able to either kill the attacker or successfully prevent them from entering the classroom and killing more students. In other words, guns would indeed save lives in that scenario. The difference in this scenario is that we used two extremely well trained individuals as attackers, and as a result the defenders were placed in what might be described as a “no win scenario.” Two heavily armed individuals against one person with 18 rounds is definitely not a fair fight, especially when the attackers do this as a job every day and are highly trained.

2. One terrorist = victory, two terrorists = defeat

Despite that “no win scenario” description, there were some notable minor victories for the defenders. From the footage available to me at this time, it appears that in the majority of the scenarios the defender is able to successfully kill one of the terrorists before they themselves are killed (the definition of “killed” is a hit on the attacker in a vital location before the attacker can fire back). While it might seem like another “no win” scenario, the fact remains that a single armed defender — even one with very little training — is able to successfully kill and stop at least one terrorist. The problem in this scenario is that there are two terrorists as attackers, and a single armed defender does not appear to be able to stop both of them.

Even when confronted with heavily armed and well trained attackers, a single armed defender is capable of stopping at least one of the attackers.

The question this raises is whether there is any deterrent effect that an armed defender provides to the remaining attacker. In our scenario our attackers were instructed to keep shooting, but in the real world it is entirely possible that the remaining attacker(s) would reconsider their course of action in the face of armed resistance. That outcome is something seen in American shootings time and again, that once confronted with armed resistance (usually the police) the attacker either flees or takes their own life.

3. Armed defenders give others time to escape

In one of the early scenarios, a relatively new shooter decided that instead of trying to confront the armed terrorists she would use her gun to cover her retreat and give her co-workers time to escape. This plan worked perfectly, and she was able to escape from the room while returning fire towards the attackers, allowing nearly everyone in the room to escape before she too turned tail and ran.

In the face of overwhelming numbers and firepower, it appears that this tactic of using the firearm as a means to give everyone else time to escape is extremely effective. There was only one person who used this tactic, but they used it to great effect. Due to the extremely small sample size it is unknown whether this tactic would work for others as well, but it is something that we need to investigate further and try to model in more detailed studies down the road.

Even when the defenders were unable to escape, the presence of an armed defender definitely slowed down the progress of the attackers. The comparison of how long it takes the shooters to kill people and move on between a room with no defender and a room with a defender is clear, and indicates that an armed defender at the very least slows down the attackers. In the case of Charly Hebdo, it would seem to indicate that an armed defender would have been able to give their other coworkers a better chance at running and escaping.

4. People barricade themselves rather than confronting enemies

In every scenario, the defender was instructed that there were other people in the offices around them. For seven of the nine scenarios, the defenders chose to hide in a corner and wait for the attackers rather than confronting them in the hallway and attempting to save their coworkers. For two of the scenarios, however, the defenders edged their way into the hallway and attempted to confront the attackers before they reached the room. Exactly what percentage of people would react in this manner under similar circumstances is unknown due to the small sample size, but in our tests it was approximately 22% of people. This is something that definitely merits further investigation on a larger scale.

Moving Forward

Within the next couple days I will get the footage from Patriot Protection, analyze the tapes, and come to a final conclusion about the results of the experiment. However, even with those final results there’s no way to say that they are applicable in any manner to real life. The sample size for this test was far too small and the methodology far too rushed to draw any definite conclusions one way or another, but it does give us some interesting indications of where to look in a deeper and more complete test. For example, comparing performance with a single armed attacker versus two attackers given identical situations? Or what if the defender was trained simply to delay the attackers and give others time to escape, is that an effective strategy? Could armed guards be effective? None of these questions were specifically tested, and they definitely merit further investigation.

I know the gun control activists will want to point to this as definitive proof that armed defenders are useless, but that’s simply not the case. Not only is there insufficient data to draw any conclusions whatsoever, but we’ve previously proven that in some cases armed defenders are nearly 100% effective at stopping similarly armed attackers. What we are investigating now is the probability of success in different scenarios, and by playing with the variables we can get a better understanding of how best to protect ourselves and our loved ones.

Stay tuned.

Recommended For You

136 Responses to TTAG Charlie Hebdo Simulation: Preliminary Results

  1. Interesting exercise. Thanks for posting.

    One thought that occurred to me while watching is this. If i were a terrorist conducting this kind of attack in America, I would do some things differently than a I would in France. The likelihood of encountering an armed civilian (in some States) being higher, I would have grabbed the first civilian i found and walked them around as a human shield.

    I would like to see the exercise conducted with that in mind.

    • If I were a terrorist conducting an attack in America I wouldn’t be hitting a newspaper office. I’d blow up an Exxon or two or maybe toss a stick of dynamite into a power substation.

    • Well, the answer is obvious. You’re shooting everybody while hiding behind my coworker? I’m going for it. But how long it would take to figure that out, would probably have me dead before I could react correctly.

    • SEVERAL MAJOR FLAWS WITH THIS SIMULATION, AND H OW TO IMPROVE THE SIMULATIONS IN THE FUTURE. Note that this is not a malicious personal criticism of TTAG or the training organization that was helping run the simulations. I am not a tactics trainer and I don’t claim to know everything, but I can observe pretty well and I have some historical knowledge of firearms tactics and previous incidents. We can all learn improved techniques to cover situations that were not previously analyzed thoroughly…as you can see from the massive shift in tactics to handle “fast-moving active shooter” scenarios which used to be treated as slow-moving hostage situations, which they definitely were not.

      1. The attackers/instructors were intensively trained to a standard unlikely to be met even by most terrorists. The better simulation would have included runs with several moderately skilled non-instructors playing the part of the terrorists (to simulate terrorists who are not intimately familiar with the layout) and occasional roles with one of the instructors as defender. It would also be useful to use different numbers of armed defenders, and of different skill levels, to see what is the threshold of fairly effective resistance.

      2. It has been reported (how accurately, I am not certain) that there was one bodyguard assigned by the French govt to protect the main editor of Charlie, and that bodyguard was presumably trained for his task and fully equipped with at least a pistol and several magazines, with the option of having a semi-auto rifle if he was a member of the upper two tiers of the French police system. Therefore, the limitations on the simulation’s armed defender of one unfamiliar pistol and a single magazine is unrealistic and almost a death sentence in most runnings of the test.

      3. The Charlie offices had apparently been attacked with a bomb previously, so the high risk to that organization was known for certain. If we posit that there should be an armed office worker, it would make perfect sense to train that office worker at least a little bit in basic tactics, use of cover, how to utilize the terrain and furniture to set up mobility funnels and spaces with real cover, knowledge of where the various internal doors lead, and how to make the offices a better defensive layout with better door locks, stronger doors, panic button on the electronic door keypad to warn everyone if someone forces you to open the door, training of the office workers how to escape through multiple doors and windows, regular practice drills,

      4. When the volunteer victims arrived at the training center, they were given ZERO instructions. They also had no time to learn the layout of the offices including places of cover or escape. With really minimal instructions and familiarization time, they could have been something other than sitting ducks who couldn’t even figure out where they were, other than thinking “I’m in an unfamiliar small room somewhere and I have no idea how to get out of here without getting lost!” Even the newest office workers at most companies at least learn how to get out of the building in case of fire, but this was not done in this simulation.

      This simulation could have been worthwhile, had the test conditions been better thought through before running the simulations. I find it very interesting that one of the women playing the defender role picked a course of action that saved the people in the office and she didn’t get killed. I suspect that several of the other defenders could have done as well or better if they had been given a little tactical training using her tactics before running the simulations. Testing that with different variables might tell us several ways to improve the defensive capability of lightly armed defenders operating against the apparent odds. Better to have some plan that is known to work some of the time, rather than no plan at all, (requiring people to invent their tactics from scratch while under immense pressure and time constraints). Then build from that foundation.

      I have a substantial amount of knowledge of firearms and debating/presenting, so if anyone would like some ideas or analysis, please email me

  2. Well, another issue would be- if a terrorist goes down, what does his buddy do about securing the weapons his buddy was carrying? Depending on the layout, if he continues he’s now leaving some very capable weaponry to be used against him, unless he can control all the routes to it, or he takes the time to pick it up– giving even more ime for evacuees.

    He’s now faced armed resistance, and even after taking down the armed civilian he has the issue of wondering if there are more. In shall issue states, no way to know only educated guesses.

    • Wow, I never even thought about the surviving terrorist having to deal with the first terrorist going down. At that point, if the surviving terrorist pushes on, he/she enables a surviving office defender to employ the rifle and almost guarantee the death of the sole remaining terrorist. Or, the surviving terrorist has to stop their attack to secure the unclaimed rifle which opens him/her up to attack.

      TTaG — please model this in the next simulation as well.

  3. Sorry, but this test is SERIOUSLY flawed.

    1: Nobody knew the building beforehand. Longtime employees -especially armed ones who had made the decision in life NOT to be helpless victims- would have known the best places to hide or would have known the best locations to use as choke points for defending.

    2: The decision to ask for people with zero firearms experience was a mistake that should have been avoided completely. How many people carry a firearm who have zero firearms experience? That answer is quite literally zero as simply carrying a firearm implies experience with firearms.

    3. The terrorists did have some form of training, but they were absolutely NOT firearms trainers, nor were they as skilled as firearms trainers.

    You should admit these faults and do your best to mitigate the harm this test has caused our side of the 2A fight. By using the absolute best attackers you could find and the absolute worst defenders you could find, you skewed the test beyond ANY reasonable scientific study and these tests WILL be used against us by the media.

    SHAME ON YOU! You should have known better!

    • I could not agree with you more – this skewed test is something I would expect coming from anti-gunners; not a tactical training center! These people should be ashamed of themselves for conducting such a horribly skewed test.

      • You are extremely WRONG!

        The difference of ability between the shooters and defenders does not matter. As long SOME difference is made by having an armed defender, statistical data can be derived from it.

        There is no way to make a perfect recreation and test of what happened. Obviously we can’t repeatedly re-incarnate the dead to have them go through what happened, give them a gun, and have them do it again.

        The simple fact that during 12 runs an armed defender was able to kill an attacker, EVEN IF THEY DIED AS WELL, means that there is an absolute statistical chance that sometimes an armed defender could come out of it with a complete win, 2 kills no deaths. The statistical chance of both attacker dying when there are zero defenders, absolutely none.

        This was not a failure of testing, it was a failure in not being able to run the scenario many more times. A controlled, single variable, experiment needs about 7 runs to give 90% probability to predict further outcomes. This experiment, while controlled, has SO many variables that just can not be accounted for. They would likely have to run this 100 times to try and get solid data out of it. Just 12 runs is barely scratching the surface.

        • Oh please stop teabagging TTAG.

          Every aspect of this “experiment” was a near total and unmitigated fvck up.

          You can even tell that Nick wants to get the stink off him by informing us that RF demanded that it be done in 24 hours.

          The only thing this experiment resembled was a Football Bat.

          To add insult to injury, they broadcast their F’up to the world.

      • I agree in theory, but If a victim disarmament advocate set it up, the shooters would have known who the defender was to start the testing as well. On the counter though, our side lives in the world of objective facts, and the fact is that a single person with a sidearm has virtually no chance against two determined attackers with long arms. If there is a fault I see in this study, it was the rushed nature that allowed for minimal observable data points. I would have preferred to see a week or so delay so that simulations could be run with 1, 2, 3, and even 4 armed defenders.

        But at days end, those that are still on the fence on firearms ownership and are fact-based enough to come around won’t be swayed either way. So I consider it a mere annoyance more than a battle lost.

    • If a test is too controlled, it becomes a shill. I’m immensely proud of how this was handled. The results may not be 100% appropriate to the Charlie Hebdo tragedy, but they are eye-opening.

        • Can you stop trolling this, please?

          Or, put up your own time and money to show us all how to do it better.

          Actions speak louder than words. Nick and crew DID something. It was useful whether YOU see it or not. Useful does not equal “perfect by some guy on the Internet’s standard,” but it was still worth doing.

          I’ve participated in disaster preparedness drills and other related emergency drills. There are always flaws and unrealistic elements. But…what experience teaches in these cases is that the experience of doing SOMETHING is better than NOTHING.

        • Shooting the messenger(s) does not fix the problem from possibly happening again.

          The ENTIRE reason for this exercise was for good media for our side.

          I’d easily wager that 99%+ of all viewers who ultimately see these clips hacked up in various methods by our opponents will have a LESS favorable opinion of personal protection.

          Try as you must but there is NO way to spin this as anything that resembles a positive for us.

          Pretending that there might be something good that can come out of this fiasco only increases the odds that another disaster like this may occur again.

    • Forrest,

      I do not recall them asking for people with 0 firearms experience, merely asking each person what their specific level was. There were varying levels of training including some folks who were CHL holders, I was told this by someone who actually saw the clipboard.

      The people portraying the terrorists were instructors of the venue in which it was held. I am confused as to how this does not translate to them being firearms instructors. Because they work in a facility that uses the UTM training rounds, this disqualifies them from being firearms traininers? Not trolling but slightly confused.

    • Silly Forrest.

      What the testing shows is that some one with little to no firearms.training and little.knowledge of facility lay out can survive and save lives against superior fire power and training
      …. It is a very powerful argument against common misconceptions that only people with special training matters.

      • With everything else staying the same, it would sure be fun to alter the scenario by adding one more armed defender with each repetition. We (I think) advocate more and more carriers, how about a demonstration of how effective that would be? First scenario; one terrorist killed, defender killed, everybody else killed (because there was only one defender), ninth scenario, with 9 armed defenders (I understand there were 40 “potential” defenders in the building), two idiotic doofuses dead before they got 5 feet, no defenders injured, 500 rounds remaining. What are you THINKING?

    • Shame indeed.

      Garbage In, Garbage Out.

      The final problem was time. Robert insisted that we perform this test within 24 hours of having the idea in order to capture media attention,…

      Oh sweet baby Jesus.

      Due to the small sample size, it will unfortunately be impossible to draw any hard and fast conclusions from the testing.

      Don’t worry, our enemies will be more than happy to draw definitive, iron-clad, conclusions.

      I’m confident that this exercise will go down in the annals of TTAG as the worst self-imposed Cluster Farck of all time.

        • RF there are some serious issues with this simulation. 1st and foremost the rifle team knew the lay out better than the defenders. 2nd a shoot house doesn’t have all the desks fire extinguishers, file cabinets, and paper weights. I doubt a terrorist would know the lay out of my office better than myself. I previously mentioned that the number of cpl holders could have been increased until the defenders were able to match or beat the terrorists even with handguns and basic training. As someone else mentioned use fire extinguisher to lay down smoke, throw stapelers and paper weights. The simulation was a great idea in theory but sucked in its execution.

      • Here is a bottom line for you. The unarmed people in the building were already victims, they are going to die. One armed defender hitting an attacker and then getting killed is not a failure, it is not even neutral. Every time a defender hits an attacker, it limits or eliminates the attacker’s ability to go after secondary targets. That is a win. The cop who was executed in the street and any secondary victims would have liked a 50-50 chance of not being killed because a single armed defender gave his life to stop this.

        • Exactly … this was NOT a failure in its attempt to see what may have happened with armed defender(s) on site. In different scenarios it did show numerous good guys eliminating one of the two bad guys. Granted the defenders were killed … but, they were dead anyway, I believe anyone of us would take that options. And in at least one case (mine) had the weapon not failed (crappy ammo failure, dirty firearm) it is entirely possible I could have eliminated the second active shooter too.

          Also, we don’t know what the second active shooter would have done once the first was stopped, maybe fled or maybe shot himself? … or what would have happened should one of the two bad guys been killed and their weapon put into play by a defender. Also, what about the defender being armed with something more than a handgun?

          Also, the defenders did not know the floorplan of the facility and the most advantageous defensive points, the bad guys knew the building. As I said earlier a good guy with a gun, a little bit of training and competent with his or her firearm … will stop the threat and perhaps multiple threats.

    • I would also add that the difference in using AR’s vs AK’s is kind of a big deal too. For someone to be able to do mag changes with an AK quickly they have to be very well trained, long and consistent experience changing the mag. Mag changes with an AR are much easier especially when the ones using the AR are extensively trained. Someone moderately trained is not going to be able to change mags and fight effectively as someone extensively trained with an AR.

    • Seems to me like the very least we should expect is a variation of where the experts are. After three trials with the attackers being the experts, let’s try three with the defenders being the experts. Some with neither, some with both. Overbalancing the scenario with all maniacal killers are highly trained experts and all defenders are 6th grade dropouts with IQ in 2 digits is just stupid. Next time, if we have some notice, I’ll play.

  4. I have a question. I noticed that the ‘civilians’ would fall over when shot but I never noticed any of the terrorists doing the same even though some of the tests indicate that there were terrorists killed? Was that due to the inability to notice the marker shot or were the ‘terrorists’ under some specific kind of obstruction? Example, based on data collected from police shootings of criminals I believe the average number of times someone has to be shot with a hand gun is somewhere between 3 and 5. Where the terrorist instructed to continue attacking unless they were shot so many times?

    • Definitely agree, after watching this video, one of the terrorist dudes who was hit was 100% still functioning normally, not to mention yelling “get down bitch!” or something similiar damn near everytime.

  5. I understand wanting to capitalize on media attention. But it’s also pretty stupid to think that a terrorist shooting, in downtown Paris, that resulted in many deaths, would simply stop being covered in a day or two; allowing for better set-up of the scenario and gathering of resources.

  6. There has to be a readily available alternative to fogging masks. I participated in training thru the US Army in 2008 and we were practically blind making entry into a bldg due to fogged masks. I appreciate the protection of my vision. I understand why the masks are an absolute neccessity. I just think there has to be a solution out there.

    AAR – what do you think of the training you just received? Well, I know exactly what it is like to be blind in a firefight.

    • One solution might be for participants to wear masks that cover the lower face, goggles, and a helmet for the upper head/face (even a bicycle helmet would work)

    • for paintball, I use googles sealed all the way around the eyes with the vent on top and a separate piece for the nose and mouth. I was tired of trying to unfog in the middle of “battle”, you get kicked out if you take them off all the way while the game is going. seems to work though i haven’t played in freezing weather, usually 40 and up gets people out to play

  7. Seriously Robert? Hurriedly setting up a scenario to capitalize on media attention?

    That was an extremely poor decision.

    • As a former CNNer, I know how long a story like this has legs. Not to coin a phrase, I didn’t want the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

      MSNBC just called. One of us will be on the Chris Hayes program tonight.

      The ends do not justify the means, but Nick and Patriot did the best they could with the limitations they faced. On balance, I think this INITIAL test yielded some valuable insights.

      • So? This is something that, if it can’t be done right, isn’t worth doing at all. I understand the time constraints, but by half-assing it, you’ve actually done more damage to the cause we’re all fighting for than if you hadn’t conducted this exercise at all.

      • If that was the objective, then you succeeded.

        But you know as well as we all do, they are watching. We are our own worst enemy sometimes.

      • Robert, do you really think doubling down with an appearance on MSNBC is the best idea after this disaster? Of all news outlets why use the one that, without a doubt, will spin this to the negative no matter how articulate and convincing you are? No matter the excuses for what happened during this poorly thought out exercise that turned it into such a nightmare from a PR standpoint, it will still be used to bludgeon those of us who truly care about gun rights. It hurts the entire industry.

        With a few of the rabid OC crowd screwing things up in Austin this week and now this botched attempt by a “professional training company” to get some media buzz and some new students, this just seems like we’re handing the anti-gunners the torch to light us all on fire and saying, “Well, we give up….”

      • Not to coin a phrase, I didn’t want the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

        That event a couple days is a LOOOONNNNNGGGG way away from being good.

        MSNBC just called. One of us will be on the Chris Hayes program tonight.

        Well I already used “Oh sweet baby Jesus” in the previous post so I’m at a loss of words.

        • They cancelled.

          Obviously, I disagree about the value of the exercise. But I will defend to the death your right to call this an own goal.

  8. #3 is key! While some people might still die, fewer people will.

    For those who say this was rushed… I say thats a feature not a bug. Terrorist attacks are rarely expected and no one has time to think about them. On the other hand the well trained attackers have!

    Also, I don;t think the value of these scenarios is “whether” the attackers are killed, but to find the optimal strategy in a similar situation, and educate people.

  9. My initial criticisms remain.

    Specifically, you allowed the most experienced people possible – the Patriot Protection instructors – to be the bad guys. They know the gear, the layout, and working in teams. The armed defender is left with a gun he’s never once shot before and an “office” he just walked into that day. While the latter is virtually unavoidable, the former is not. It would be a bit like Nick using totally foreign guns in a 3 gun comp. Against Jerry Miculek. At his favorite range.

    I don’t want to know how “good” the Patriot instructors are, I want to know how a more realistic match up would pan out. While it’s good to know that armed defenders do have some value, it would be a much better scenario if you have evened up the playing fields a bit by randomly selecting the “terrorists” and the defenders.

    • There are lots of issues, Life in general is messy. To your point though Who says the armed citizen was on his own turf? we get people from all over in my office. From visitors to contractors. part of the challenge of being armed is being aware of where you are. Thats a good call in my book.

      • But anyone who actually works in an office is going to know the layout better than anyone who doesn’t. Sure, at any given time, there will be a few folks who are visiting for one reason or another. But still, the vast majority of personnel in an office will be folks who regularly work there.

        • which brings me back to the original point who says the person in the office who knows the layout is the one who is armed. Im the guy carrying at the client site, Im the guy carrying at the restaurant, Im the guy carrying at the Mall. Do I know it as well as the staff. No. But Im the guy with the gun. Know your surroundings as best you can and always have a plan

        • I think the evidence of that is that several exercises ended with the attacker circling behind the defenders and caught them by surprise, as if they did not realize that was possible, and the attacker did.

    • Terrorists plan to attack, and train. Defenders don’t know when, where, or how. Training for defenders may run from the twice-per-year occasional shooter to the former SEAL. I think these rough conditions were a feature, not a bug.

    • I agree. The defender would be very familiar with the office and the attackers would not. I think the simulated attackers were much more skilled than the actual attackers. The actual attackers might not be anticipating any resistance and would be much sloppier. I think another defender having access to a long gun might have shown better as well.

  10. In spite of the extremely short time frame, this simulation is nevertheless enlightening and I am really glad that TTaG made it happen.

    I believe the key for future simulations is to enable unarmed office defenders to use melee tactics … to be able to throw simulated chairs, books, computers, etc. at the attackers and to be able to use simulated bludgeons against the attackers. It would also be extremely interesting if unarmed office defenders could blast attackers with simulated fire extinguishers or carafes of hot water/coffee.

    What this simulation clearly demonstrated is that the office defenders are almost totally screwed if they just sit back and hope that a single armed individual in their midst can save the day. Rather, everyone has to go on the offensive with the best weapons at hand, whether those weapons are firearms or improvised objects in the office environment.

    I am looking forward to the next simulation with the added benefit of office defenders going on the offensive with firearms AND simulated improvised weapons.

    • I agree, though I see an issue. It will be hard for the fake terrorists to judge how to react to being struck, as it has to be done safely. There is a bit of a difference between being pelted with foam simulacra of office equipment and being smacked with a chair hard enough to detach your retinas.

      • There will be an element of inaccuracy with simulated improvised melee weapons. Nevertheless, I believe heavy, and yet thickly padded objects will work quite well. Some exceedingly light, strong, and heavily padded simulated weapons will also work quite well.

        Imagine you are playing the roll of the terrorist. As you try to round a corner with your rifle in front of you, an office defender unexpectedly comes down on your rifle or arms with a 20 pound thickly padded bludgeon. That will have a substantial physical impact on you … an impact that you will not be able to ignore. We could say the same about super lightweight (but strong) padded simulated canes or bats for strikes on the back or head of the person playing the terrorist.

        You could also use smaller medicine balls to simulate the effects of thrown objects hitting the attackers.

        By the way I am talking from experience. I have used super light, strong, and padded sticks for practicing hand-to-hand combat as part of martial arts training. You WILL know when someone hits you with one of those and you will NOT keep going on your merry way. And when a squishy four pound ball hits you at a decent velocity, you’ll know it.

    • This may be completely off the wall, but I wondered about the complete lack of visual clutter in the mock up. There were white walls and black targets. In a real office, there are all sorts of objects and stuff on the walls. When the shooter steps into a room, it’s going to take a possibly crucial extra split second sort out the targets from the clutter.

  11. I think, if you are going to do further tests, it would be wise to have a series of control tests (where no defenders have guns), as well as any runs of various tests. I’d suggest it might be interesting to have a scenario of an idealized 2nd Amendment world; one where every single defender has the option of choosing to open or concealed carry a long gun or handgun, or to not carry at all. For that kind of test, though, you’d have to contrive some sort of limitations on the availabilities of those weapons within the office environment; ie long guns would have to be rested at the ends of peoples’ desks, people would have to be seated in office type chars (with arms) etc, so that it wasn’t simply a firring squad waiting for the terrorists to walk in.

  12. I could see a few instances where the defender was given a raw deal. Like at 3:30.

    Hopefully the next test will be conducted at a venue that cares about the test and not just the news coverage.

  13. Totally irresponsible; I’m really disappointed in you guys for doing this. I understand the timing issues, but this is a perfect example of something that’s not worth doing if it can’t be done right. TTaG is on the frontline of the fight and is quite visible (frequently being quoted by anti’s as the ultimate crazy pro-gun types). And you conducted a (horribly skewed) study that you knew damn well wouldn’t reflect well on our side ANYWAY, then skewed it in basically every possible way to pretty much ensure a high failure rate. Now the antis will absolutely capitalize on this and treat it as gospel, like, “Wow! This proves that guns are useless against evil and that anyone who thinks otherwise is too stupid to walk and breathe at the same time. The most hardcore gun bullies in the country (the ones who masturbate by shoving pistols up their asses because something something small penis) have even proved it!”

    Thankfully for us, nobody is talking about more gun control in America because of this. But holy shit was this whole thing irresponsible. I’ve come to expect far better from TTaG, and I’m deeply disappointed. Shame on you, Robert. Shame on you.

  14. Where any shooters recycled from “shooter” to “defender/innocent” or vice versa? If so the random element ,which is important, is gone.

  15. Just stop now! This was a complete shit show. Please don’t even pretend to say you could extrapolate any meaningful data from such a poorly controlled and designed test.

    This was leading lambs to slaughter…nothing more than a compete and total fail.

  16. I’m incredibly disappointed in how this simulation was run.
    So many balls were dropped that the whole experiment should have been scrapped and attempted again when properly prepared for.
    I expected a little more out of this.

  17. Well done.

    I think that this sort of thing deserves a lot more attention and hope that you are able to expand on this initial work. The one thing we know for sure is that cops with guns that are 5 minutes away are not going to help the people involved.


    If you can do something better, feel free.

    The greatest annoyance to people that are trying to actually DO something are the piles of dung heaved upon them by people who bellyache from their easy chairs while accomplishing nothing useful.

    • Sometimes doing “something” is a worse choice than doing nothing at all.

      Creating a test scenario which was heavily skewed in favor of the attackers may actually have done more harm to the discussion than not running the scenario at all.

      • “Sometimes doing “something” is a worse choice than doing nothing at all.”

        Very rarely is that true.

        Cf: detailed study of every great military leader since the beginning of recorded history.

      • Yep, there’s probably hundreds of posts on here from RF that criticize our enemies for “doing something…anything” instead of doing the right thing.

    • I have to agree with DRF. I’m disgusted with all of you “If it can’t be done right, it shouldn’t be done” people. Did the sim prove that a single armed defender could save the day? Not really, no. Will the other side use this against us? Probably. But the whole idea behind this, or ANY scientific experiment, is to see what WOULD happen. Hand picking the defenders and attackers to show our side is right is just as bad as them cherry-picking data to prove their point. An experiment which yields data you don’t like can still be valid. Brushing it under the table when it doesn’t show what you want is how the other side does things. And to paraphrase DRF, “If you can come up with a better experiment, go for it.”

      • No one here is/was asking that they set up the sim in a way that results in good PR.
        What we’re ashamed of is that it was a cobbled together, last-minute, poorly executed scientific farce.

      • I agree. And I’d be interested in seeing how a single cop would fare in this situation since we’re all supposed to believe only cops should have guns.

  19. The solution? If you are a publication focused on satire whose publication could offend crazies that can’t take jokes – have a bump fire ar15 with a magpul 60 rounder.

  20. The problem I see with all of the scenarios is that the Attackers were “clearing” the building. They should have not expected resistance and just walked from office to office shooting occupants. Not rushing, not clearing each room. Just break in, shoot as many as possible and leave before the police arrive. That would have been more realistic. In that case, the single armed defender would have had a chance to either ambush the attackers or gather as many fellow occupants and beat an armed retreat.

  21. To all of you that are worried about anti’s using this against the pro-gun people: of course they will. Just as the anti’s would ignore complete ignore this if all the scenarios only created dead terrorists.

    Anti’s only see what they want to see.

    I do not see this video as a primary vehicle to win the hearts and minds of anti-gun people because those people are not persuadable. The basic position of anti-gun people is “roll over and play dead, because fighting back won’t work.”

    For myself, it gives me some ideas on how to deal with the situation. For instance, would it be possible to stand by the door, grab the rifle of the first terrorist, pull him off balance and then shoot him? Or, get inside the radius of the rifle and work the pistol at knife fight ranges? Be interesting to pull the first terrorist into you (instant shield) shoot him then worry about the other.

    Or, are you deep enough inside the building, that, once you hear shooting, discretion being the better part of valor, do you take up a rear-guard position and move people out while covering them. (the person who did this with a bunch of people and escaped, brilliant move and is eye-opening)

    Our side needs this information, because there are lessons here for those of us who have chosen to carry. Even though the antis won’t admit it, rough men ready to do rough things are the reason they’re afforded the luxury of hand-wringing and second-guessing.

    • Exactly. Just like the anti’s ignore real incidents and make up crap.

      According to them, DGU’s never happen.

      Yeah, just we need to do. We need to play into their hands and let them set the narrative at every chance we get.

  22. What about the Alabama or Mississippi method of blocking doors with furniture and using emergency supplies such as water bottles and canned food to throw at the attacker. If they get lucky, the intruder is knocked out; if the intruder ducks, tries to catch the cans, or loses his aim, it buys time to tackle the attacker. Supposedly in simulated school shootings, this method only resulted in a leg wound to the person tackling the attacker and no fatalities. Can they see if this method works in a Charlie Ebdo scenario?

  23. I’d like to see you flip the roles and have one or both of the instructors play the defender(s) while novice volunteers play the attackers. This would provide insight into how a scenario would play out if a terrorist attacked a workplace with practiced concealed-carriers.

    • Agreed, that would have been immensely helpful to evaluating the realism of the scenario.

      I think one of the biggest takeaways would have been: “Training matters. Whatever you have, get more.”

  24. To everybody who thinks that the test was unfairly stacked against defenders, etc. etc.

    I want to give a reality check. In REALITY, there was a single armed defender in the Charlie Hebdo office. He was a policemen Franck Brinsolaro, who most likely had greater experience with firearms then the defenders in the test. I say this because he apparently had done stints in several important units, including embassy protection. He was unable to kill or hurt even 1 of the attackers, to say nothing of two. So if the test is unfair, it’s unfair to the attacking side.

  25. The negative assessments above are surprising and unwarranted. I, for one, read the preliminary results above with great interest.

    Seems like a perfectly fine simulation to me because: “No battle plan survives contact with the enemy”. This is true for both the defender and the attacker. Therefore there is no way to simulate a situation exactly, but this simulation seems a very good start and anything close will be of value because: “No battle plan survives contact with the enemy”.

    I think the attackers in Paris were very well trained and that the defenders were not trained at all except for one or two security staff that were on hand. So that seems to have been modeled accurately also.

    However, ultimately, it does not matter if this is an excellent simulation or a good simulation of the Paris attack. That is interesting but what I really want is some hard data about what works and what does not work. Does it work to hide in a closet? Is it worth it to jump out of a window? Does it help to wear a IIA vest then get shot by an AK? How about putting all the lights out? How about fighting back with a frying pan or a pot of hot coffee? How much training is required to snap out of the effects of panic and terror? What happens in a room full of victims and you are lucky enough to have even one tourniquet and one chest seal? What happens when all you know goes out the window cause your child or loved one is down the hall on the other side of the fire?

    The reminder above that a fighting retreat is a good plan could save your life cause when 10 people are frozen in terror, just waiting to die, it just takes one person remembering something they heard once long ago about a fighting retreat and then doing something to snap the others out of their stupor and that could end up saving all 10 lives…..

    There is enough material here for a 50 part series……let’s encourage TTAG to do all 50 parts….

  26. To eliminate fogging of the masks, there is a trick I use on my bathroom mirror. Put shaving cream on a cloth and rub it into the surface that is fogging. I haven’t tested this on optic surfaces, but it keeps my mirror clear for a couple weeks.

  27. Had I been designing simulation runs, the main thing I would like to see is how changing variables would affect the results, especially the number of armed defenders.

    So, run on a weekend day so you have all day. First start with no armed defenders. Run that for a while. That’s the baseline. Then add an armed defender and run it a bunch more times. See if there’s a tipping point, a critical mass. If one armed defender can manage to get one of the attackers, but not the other, then maybe just having two defenders is enough to stop an attack of this kind. What would three do? Four? Etc., etc.

  28. TTAG, you forgot to simulate the anti-firearms laws that France has. That way, the two shooters never would have been able to shoot up the Charlie Hebdo office. Oh wait…..

  29. A few comments.

    I am amazed at how many of the comments over the last few days about this experiment are some variation of “If you don’t like the results of the experiment, change the methodology until you get results you like.” That’s grabber-style.

    What the experiment shows me is that a workplace under threat can effectively counter that threat with minimal time and money. Securing the entry, sending three or four employees for firearms training, and developing a plan with all employees about how to react to an attack would likely save many lives versus Charlie Hebdo’s plan of merely posting an unarmed guard outside. Hell, moving to an office with a back door or windows that open would have been a good start.

    A few years ago, Discovery Channel did a show about how to deal with an active shooter in a mall. A couple of SEAL-types hosted. The show was actually pretty good. Their overriding advice though was get out of the kill zone as quickly as possible. That seems to have worked best here too.

    • I need to correct myself. Charlie Hebdo’s offices required a code to enter. The terrorists waited until someone entered the code and then forced their way in. There was a guard in the reception area, and the editor had a bodyguard. I can’t find anything reliable that says whether either guard was armed. It appears the terrorists killed both guards.

      • My understanding that the first person killed in the building was a maintenance worker. I don’t believe there was another guard there, besides the bodyguard (Franck Brinsolaro) for the chief editor.

  30. Something I’d like to know is did the armed good guys seem to.make tje situation worse? Were any “innocents” hit by the good guy returning fire?
    That’s a big one among the antis, that armed non-cops will make something like this worse.
    Judging from what I’ve seen so far, it looks like the outcome was either just as bad as the real shooting, or somewhat better, but never worse. I’d call that a net-positive.
    Don’t forget to take that into account, RF (if anyone’s even reading this far down).

  31. Thank you everyone involved for giving it a shot. It could be a start of something illuminating. I hope that I can help out in the future somehow.

  32. Hi all
    I’m french, from Paris. So please excuse my french
    Bravo for this wonderful fiction and thanks a lot for your efforts to bring us solutions.
    I think it’s not really a good idea that french people should wear fire guns. Not right now. Also, that’s never been the french way.
    I heard Terminator just subscribed to Charlie Hebdo, so we’re safe now.
    BUT i can assure you that we’re all looking forward for Hollywood movie about terrorist attack against unarmed satirical journalists.
    Thanks again. Best from France.

    • Perhaps you should ask the citizens of the Czech Republic, who are able to carry firearms in public almost everywhere except mass demonstrations and government buildings – they are the only European nation with concealed carry laws most similar to the United States.

      Please tell me what their crime rate is, and when they had a mass shooting.

  33. I thought this achieved a couple of objectives, given limited time:

    1. Close enough in the news cycle to get media attention to the idea of armed citizens fighting back.
    All by itself, that was a success, because the most cynical gun-grabbers arent about the truth, just the control of the minds of the sheep. Just the idea they could fight back is a major crack in the paradigm for them.

    2.Have a fighting chance. Even with assaulters better trained than the Paris thugs, defenders partially blinded, and NO 24/7 cops on site, as at Charlie Hebdo, defenders were able to fight back, and kill attackers, and in one case, effect escape.

    In other words, even with the deck tilted in favor of attackers, defenders won, when compared to the Paris bloodbath.

    3. Most important, this started the conversation about how to do it better next time. That gets the sheep thinking, and planning, and some with buy guns for self-defense. That HAS to have the gun-grabbers heads exploding, which is probably why MSNBC cancelled. They have their in house info, and I am sure what they saw, from the sheep, wasnt following their Party Line.

    We POTG will ALWAYS disagree, sometimes obsessively, on tactics, scenario setup, caliber, etc. But one thing we can agree; a concerned population, many who had never considered self defense, got to hear about other people taking action, to defend themselves, even in the toughest, and I am sure there are many who are saying;

    I dont care about the odds, “I’ll take low odds, fighting on my feet”, over “no chance, begging on my knees, unarmed”…

    And thats the Truth About Guns.

    • + 1, and I would add that the criticism of the exercise because it will be taken out of context and twisted by the left seems unwarranted to me. No matter how robust the methodology or how the results may have reflected upon armed self defense it is inevitable that the mainstream media will twist and obfuscate wherever possible and ignore any outcome which impedes its agenda.

      This exercise was intended to start discussion and to allow for better insight into how a truly extensive study might be run. It is unfair to judge it against standards it was not designed to achieve.

  34. I haven’t seen anyone else say this…But regardless of whether this was the best performed setup or not. Regardless of whether it was run correctly or not(which I can’t comment on because I have no experience in this type of thing). I found the first person footage of the “terrorist” quite frankly terrifying. That alone is reason enough to carry and have weapons available when needed for me.

  35. Actually, this sim provides a single talking point that’s an easy counter for whatever the Anti-2As want to use it for:

    No guns = everyone dead, all the time. Guns = at least 1 dead terrorist, some of the time.

    Objectively speaking, guns lead to a better outcome, because no guns is lose everything.

  36. The simulation is worth a consideration!
    Maybe you can refine it.
    One problem of the test might be that all participants know what is coming.
    Consequently the “terrorist” loose the moment of surprise which, in the real world, will give them an enormous advantage and which will make defense difficult, even for a trained defender.

  37. I think the underlying thought behind this project was great. The major lessons of the first experiement often have to do with how to do the experiment properly. And maybe so here.

    I am hopeful that you can do this some more. I am also hopeful that you could possibly get some funding and do it up really right and be able to explore the variables.

  38. At 3.39 it looks like the defender has a very advantageous position on the attackers, fires once, hits the first attacker, and then the gun locks back and he is shot by the second attacker.

    Is this correct?

  39. It also seems that almost exclusively when the first target is engaged by the defender the first target fails to act shot, which causes the defender to continue to fire on the first target, which allowes the second target to take out the defender.

    If the first target was consistent in acting like they were hit I bet we would have seen a handful of defender alive, terrorists dead outcomes.

    The more and more I think about it I fear that in a rush to put something…anything…out we have put out a very flawed set of outcomes. It’s a shame too. Had great potential.

  40. Not just because I can’t stand watching the Young Turks try and make a point but I would like to see this done again where the defender (or possibly defenders) have some firearms training.

    Lets not let them get the last word in.

  41. Unbelievable. I cannot believe you post this garbage. How much do you hate the Second Amendment that you would just hand something like this to the anti-gunners on a silver platter? This bush league “simulation” DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to benefit the pro-second amendment side. NOTHING. You rushed it to “capture media attention”? You utter morons.

    I am having trouble comprehending what cocktail of drugs you all were on when you:
    1. Thought this exercise was a good idea
    2. Thought the results of your ill-conceived and poorly executed farce were fit to publish.

    I hope you regret this for a very long time. Unbelievable. You complete idiots. This is the kind of thing I’d expect from the Brady Campaign or Bloomberg’s pack of malcontents. I cannot believe this came from TTAG.


  42. Just a suggestion for future or follow-up simulations:

    Rather than having a FPS view from one bad guy which is very limiting, wouldn’t it have been more useful to have a bird’s eye view of the simulation so we could see everyone’s reactions in other rooms when the first shots are fired? Especially from the armed defenders so there could be analysis of their behavior (ie. good or bad tactical decisions based on quick reactions).

    That way, this sort of analysis could include:

    1. How effective the current “go hide in a room” strategy works vs. barricade vs. actively engaging the threat vs. escaping.

    2. How effective it would be for a CCW holder to hold off an attacker and analysis of optimal defensive posture and positioning to threat areas (doorway, hallway).

    3. How effective would the CCW defenders have been if there were more than one in a room or in proximity?

  43. I was one of the “terrorists” in this simulation.

    Let me just say this- anti gun biased media and douches like Turk will say what they want to say regardless. Nothing will change that. And their listeners will not somehow magically switch sides to be pro 2A.

    Second. Some of the pro 2A people will NOT like any other outcome unless it is armed citizen killing both bad guys, saving the day and resolving this debate once and for all…

    This wasn’t perfect. Wasn’t completely accurate. And it could never be- as too many factors are and can be present in each and every moment. But I will say this- if we went in being sure that nobody was armed, and somebody was- it would have been different. As a matter of fact- first run was just that. The only problem for the armed citizen was that he decided to stay static and cornered himself, thus being “killed” by second attacker.
    Presence of armed citizen DOES make a difference. Presence of good quality training for that armed citizen could make a world of difference.
    I will write much more detailed account of my impressions, but I will end with this- I am amazed at the “results did not match my expectations 100%, thus they are not valid” attitude. Like a child who did not get what he wanted.

    The not always dead terrorist.

    • “I am amazed at the “results did not match my expectations 100%, thus they are not valid” attitude. Like a child who did not get what he wanted.”

      Well said.

      To paraphrase Albert Einstein, a closed mind ceases all understanding.

      The exercise has been instructional: even flawed, it shows the presence of the armed defender changes the dynamics of the encounter. Yeah, that seems like it should be obvious, but to some people it is not.

      Design the situation however you want, that basic fact will remain. The presence of an armed defender changes the dynamics of the situation.

      What seems to be at issue here (and among the anti’s) is the how “win” is defined.

      I define win as “change the dynamics of the encounter from ‘terrorist has complete control’ to ‘terrorist has incomplete control.’ That’s all I’m asking for…the best I can hope for.

      Gunfights (on the street or organized terrorism) are chaotic affairs – especially when one side has element of surprise. Anything that alters the dynamics in that chaos to your favor is “winning.” Read the Art of War, for crying out loud.

      Anyone that thinks having a gun (in ANY violent encounter) magically means they will save the day or come out on top is deluding themselves. Our EDC handguns change the dynamics for “pure victimhood” to “potential to fight back.”

      A lot of folks here get this, but apparently a lot do not.

  44. Just to add fuel to the fire. I’m glad this test was done and already those of us that understand the complexity of the subject matter have learned from it, and I’m guessing that as more data is made available we might learn more. Here it is….BUT, involving the media in this from the git so that they had access to to raw data without understanding many of the complex parameters was a mistake.


  45. Well I guess it doesn’t matter how any of the simulation turned out. TTAG got 200 comments and probably a few thousand clicks…win for TTAG, no?

  46. At 3:20 in the video is me … at about 3:30 is me after eliminating BG1 with 3 rounds to upper CBM, and now about to engage BG2 with a FTE resulting in a double feed … thus resulting in my demise, However, this proves a little training and practice along with quality equimpent WILL stop an active shooter. Note — you will also notice that almost every GG elimated a BG … and the BG’s were well trained military operatives.

  47. Ok….a couple suggestions.

    I wear a balaclava sometimes as I work frequently outside and wear corrective lenses. Treat lenses with Rain-X to eliminate fogging.

    One thing not discussed in the experiment is whether the GG knew how many attackers and what type of armament they had. You may think that since you might claim to be an experienced shooter the sound of the shots might give a hint. But ask yourself how much shooting have you done in an office environment complete with furnishings and no hearing protection?

    It was a good idea to use instructors as assailants as the Paris duo had military training if not actual combat experience though they knew there would be no armed resistance.

    Did the scenario include the screams of victims? Breaking glass, etc? If not included how then did you get the GG’s heart rate pumping and the included the usual breakdown in motor skills?

    Was the timeline of the Paris attacked mirrored by the scenario?

    Lot’s of questions, but IMHO a good hurry up effort and KUDOs for opening the flawed scenario to public critique!

  48. The purpose of science is to serve mankind. You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge… or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist..

    • “The purpose of science is to serve mankind.”

      Where in the HELL did you get that idea?

      Science is nothing more than a process of forming conclusions based on observations rather than abstract ideas. It has no “purpose” in itself.

      This exercise was never intended to be “science.” As a trained and experienced scientist, I call your comment nonsense in the context of this exercise.

  49. They can run these scenarios and thousand times with only one armed defender and X number of armed attackers and they will NEVER disprove LaPier’s assertion that “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” because if they run the scenario where all the defenders are unarmed NO BADS are stopped.
    To be fair, objective experiments if you are going to change the number of armed bad guys you also have to vary the number of armed good guys.
    Also the objective have to be stated:
    1) All the bad guys dead?
    2) All the good guys survive?
    3) What are the realistic expectations?
    But in any scenario NONE of the bad guys die when NONE of the defenders are unarmed.
    The fact has been proven.
    This is war.
    And in war no general plans a war either to attack or defend with the expectation that there will be no
    casualties on your side.
    It’s naive to expect that and disingenuous for the ant-gunners to paint these scenarios as proof to their point.

  50. As a blind squirrel finds a nut, so The Truth About Guns hits upon a truth. There is no end of reasons to advocate armed self-defense by law-abiding civilians, but the notion of their securing themselves against a terrorist attack is not one of them. While armed civilians can mount effective opposition to an occupying military force, there is no way for them to defend their residences, workplaces, or public spaces from sudden military assaults by well-trained irregulars. They are handicapped by the same disadvantages that beset the regular army in asymmetric warfare.

    Terrorism works. Propaganda by the deed proceeds through the stages of intimidation, repression, and accommodation. An intimidated populace lends political support to repressive measures, well past the point where they intolerably impair its lives and liberties, whereupon arises the political incentive to accommodate the demands of the violent faction. It was ever thus since Alfred Nobel invented dynamite, through the legitimation of IRA in Sinn Féin and PLO in Palestinian Authority. There is no reason to expect Al Qaeda to fare worse than its precursors.

  51. New Life Church mass murders (Dec. 9, 2007) cut short by a volunteer guard with her personal pistol. The attacker was armed with an AR-15 clone, so it was a good test of the “trained person with a pistol vs. moderately trained person with a semi-auto rifle” question.

    Pistol user was unharmed, and shot the attacker several times, after which he shot himself to death.

    Does anyone think that Jeanne Assam should have just given up when she saw the AR, and left the hundreds of people in the church undefended on the grounds that her pistol “would just make things worse”?

  52. Worst test ever…DQ’d for using a flashlight? Seriously? Every office will have (should have) flashlights for emergency usage and its not out of the ordinary. Many people also attach a flashlight to their handgun. Tactical instructors as terrorists? Yea I would imagine most terrorists do not have training on that level.

  53. I’m french,

    And please all french don’t want to use the arm. in fact in France there isn’t so much Attack like in US.
    So keep your mind in your country . You are so has been .

    We don’t need your explication to know how we can to do in France.
    We d’ont need arms too. So shut up man.

    Listen to me : If there is a law about arm in France cause to you, I will come to kill you.

    And it’s not a joke cause i d’ont want my friens died in my country with this idiot law.

    I hope all others américans peoples can thinks by themselves.

Leave a Reply

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