Charlie Hedbo office (courtesy nbcnews.com)

UPDATE: Still a few people short. If you can make it tomorrow at 6:00p central, please email the requested info below to thetruthaboutguns@gmail.com. Thanks.

The Washington Post’s Adam Taylor writes: “Some, such as the National Review’s Jim Geraghty, have pondered how the [attack on the Charlie Hebdo officers] would go down in the United States, where more gun ownership could have prompted an “armed response from ordinary citizens.” Such an alternative reality scenario is hard to guess at, though it’s worth noting that the evidence from the United States is far from clear, especially in shootings involving automatic weapons.” Once again, the champions of civilian disarmament reckon armed defenders are surplus to requirements. We need your help to prove them wrong . . .

After our post-Newtown school shooting sim in Connecticut Nick and I reckon an armed civilian (or two) could have prevented a great deal of slaughter in the Paris terrorist attack. I contacted Dallas’ Patriot Protection to arrange a simulation to prove – or disprove – our theory.

They’ve agreed to provide the facility and equipment to test out the impact of an armed defender against two terrorists armed with AK equivalents (ARs). We need 40 warm bodies to meet us at Patriot Protection at 2552 Summit Avenue unit #404 (around the back) Plano, Texas at 6pm to make it happen. Click here for a map. All you need to bring is . . . friends!

If you’d like to show the antis the error of their ways (presuming), please send your name, cell phone number (for texts), sex, age and firearms experience to thetruthaboutguns@gmail.com. Newbies most welcome. [NB: We will not share this information with anyone but we are going to film the sim and the media may be present.]

You can call me for more info if you like at 401-835-5054. PLEASE help us show the world the value of armed self-defense.

[NOTE: We’ve changed the time to 6pm to accommodate working stiffs.]

Recommended For You

95 Responses to TTAG APB: We Need 40 Warm Bodies for Tomorrow (Tues. January 13) for Dallas (Plano) Charlie Hebdo Sim

  1. Back when I was in Iraq we had a painted wooden sign with the Master Chief from the video game series “Halo” near our Entry Control Point (ECP).

    The sign said: “No re-spawns past this point.”

    Bravery is easy in the virtual world where if you die- no big deal. You respawn.

    I can can tell you – and I am not embarrassed to say this – the first time I was shot at, I was shaking so much that I couldn’t open the feed tray cover of my machine gun.

    I know it’s fun to think that a couple of guys with LCR’s could have stopped two committed terrorists with real automatic rifles – but the reality is that they would probably be dead. If you are a vet you are probably nodding your head right now.

    The simulation can’t simulate the mind-numbing fear that you have when somebody is trying to kill you. So yeah, some random guy will pop up and maybe engage the bad guys and maybe even kill them.

    But it’s all a game. In real life, there is no respawn point. And that is the critical difference.

    • I don’t think anyone would dispute anything you said. But, image how much worse your shaking would have been if you had no weapon in the same situation – “mind-numbing” wouldn’t begin to describe that fear. And that’s the point of being armed.

    • Yes, there is that. And yet ordinary people do perform adequately (often admirably) under fire in a variety of life-or-death situations.

      There’s no way to duplicate the fear/adrenaline factor, but a well-run simulation can still give a good idea of what an armed victim might be able to do. My guess is that in a situation like this, with multiple well-armed and trained attackers, the victims still die — but at least one of the terrorists would be meeting Allah ahead of schedule.

    • “I know it’s fun to think that a couple of guys with LCR’s could have stopped two committed terrorists with real automatic rifles – but the reality is that they would probably be dead.”

      Probably, but they may have gotten in a good lick or two first, and if you’re going to die anyway, better to go down fighting. “3 terrorists kill 11 and get away safely” is a lot different from “3 terrorists kill 11, 1 terrorist shot dead on site and the other wounded”

      • 4 killed 17…4.25 to 1 ratio. Left unchecked 300K radicalized nut jobs = 1.27 million normal people dead.

        Also encourage watching the Kenya Mall Attack. Shows real time response.

    • The first time I was shot at made me mad as hell and ready to return fire. The rounds came from the freeway above me as I was in a patrol car on city streets. I never caught that a$$hole, but if I did, I imagine my guns would have returned a lot warmer than when they left.

      So if it’s between begging for my life and returning fire with a GLOCK, I’ll take the latter option. And if I could take video with a phone, I would also be in position to return fire. Even if I’m stuck with a handgun against a rifle, I’ll take whatever element of surprise I can get. I have no qualms about shooting a murdering terrorist in the back of the head. Or in the ass.

      With that being said, a .380 without sights or a DAO snubbie revolver would be piss poor in a gunfight outside of 5 yards.

      • “So if it’s between begging for my life and returning fire with a GLOCK, I’ll take the latter option. And if I could take video with a phone, I would also be in position to return fire. Even if I’m stuck with a handgun against a rifle, I’ll take whatever element of surprise I can get . . .”

        I think that’s the whole point. It’s about having a fighting chance. America has a large population of recent war-vets and so it’s intriguing to speculate on what a couple of armed Desert Storm or Fallujah vets would do in a shopping mall attack. But, really, we may be talking about an arthritic granny with a .380 who just wants to live. When it gets down to the nut-cuttin’ it’s about whether having that fighting chance is worth it. I think it is. I’ve never had anyone shoot at me, but I have had someone try to kill me. When we’re faced with a deadly threat, even with training, human physiology and genetics takes over. Some people are prone to freak out while others are calm in the moment . . . and then they freak-out later. I was useless starting about an hour afterwards..

      • We could (and should) follow the Israeli model. Mandatory civilian carry along with the police armed with Uzi’s.

        • Dan,

          Civilian and non-police carry is not common in Israel, as is commonly thought. I did some research before I went there last June and I was surprised at how difficult it is for regular folks to be able to carry. Even most knives are a no-no. (I realize that there are some efforts to ease civvy carry after the synagogue massacre.)

      • Was anybody outside of 5 yards? In the kosher store, the jerk held 5 (?) hostages for hours. Was he watching each one the whole time? ‘Cuz, in TX, when he turns his back on one for 5 seconds he’ll get a ballistic surprise or 7. In the back. From cover, if available. If you’re in a fair fight, you’re doing it wrong. The video showed those hostages were not tied up, the jerkoff simply realized they were all unarmed. That won’t get you far in the free portions of America.

    • “The simulation can’t simulate the mind-numbing fear that you have when somebody is trying to kill you.”

      Probably.

      I can, however, guarantee you the fear, the sense of utter helplessness and sheer RAGE I would feel if my gun were locked up outside in my vehicle or at home in the gunsafe instead of concealed on my person when an active shooter enters a room I was in.

      And that is starkly, utterly, undeniable.

    • I think it’s called a “fighting chance”.

      As opposed to no chance.

      A free people can expect no more and deserve no less.

    • Every individual is different. The first time I got shot at it I reverted to training and just reacted and did what i was told. Second time was scary because my gun went down, every time after that was kinda fun, sure it was scary but in our squad of 11 Marines I never anyone freeze, or even hesitate

    • … I know it’s fun to think that a couple of guys with LCR’s could have stopped two committed terrorists with real automatic rifles – but the reality is that they would probably be dead. If you are a vet you are probably nodding your head right now. …

      Here’s a paper towel. Wipe the smug off your bottom lip.

      You don’t know me.

    • It would be interesting to know if the super-leftists that these cartoonists probably were if they would have elected to tool up if they had the chance. If I was a cartoonist doing their style of cartoons I certainly would be tooled up 24/7 and would refuse to do the work otherwise. So I don’t know if that makes them incredibly stupid or incredibly brave. Since they are lefties, I’m leaning towards them being stupid.

      • I don’t know as I’d say stupid or brave, more along the lines of naive.

        I do know people like them who absolutely cannot conceive that someone would actually resort to physical violence or if they do imagine it their conception of violence is yelling and cursing and maybe a punch and that is as far as their mental pictures go.

        • re…naive

          Hmmm …maybe. European culture is an expansive sea of leftism. I’d agree that the vast majority of the Euro public could spend their entire life without seeing conservative viewpoints. It’s nearly the same here but we do have a few refuges (talk radio, few newspapers, and a little cable) if you seek them out. Europe is essential devoid of real conservatism.

    • I won’t dispute anything that you just said. But I would like to add that two civilians carrying LCRs have 10x the fighting chance that two unarmed civilians have.

      It is very likely that you won’t be able to fight off an ambush like that in real life.

      What is the alternative? Slim chance? Or No chance?

    • The fake terrorists will benefit from the same lack of mortality that the fake victims enjoy.

      But in the real world some terrorists don’t worry much about mortality.

      So there is that.

  2. “I can can tell you – and I am not embarrassed to say this – the first time I was shot at, I was shaking so much that I couldn’t open the feed tray cover of my machine gun.”

    Would you rather have had no machine gun in your hands at all?

  3. As another military veteran– you can never tell how someone will react. Some of these civilians just might surprise you with their resilience and IWNFD attitude.

    That being said– armed citizen will have no impact in a terrorist attack because terrorists will account for it in their planning. Far easier to target, as spree shooters have repeatedly shown, gun-free zones. Terrorists will simply avoid the factor of an armed citizenry via target selection. Chicago, DC, LA, New York etc. plenty of places to attack without that complication.

    • So you’re saying they won’t choose Dallas or Phoenix because of an armed populace, they’ll go to a place like LA instead. Isn’t that a pretty significant impact for Dallas? Like no terrorist attack at all? Because of an armed populace?

      • Unless there’s a specific target with some sort of meaning/symbolism– the terrorist’s will plan their attack to give the best chance of success and in an attack involving small arms vice a bombing why would they not take into account armed citizenry? They’ve watched our news, they follow it, they’ve seen the body count in school and theater shootings. Why throw in the possibility of a chance encounter with an armed citizen spoiling their plans if they can avoid it?

        Now, bombings could occur anywhere and don’t involve shooting or an overt act. Typically they’re either placed or concealed on the body. Not something that provides the opportunity for armed intervention. I think something like that is more of a worry for Dallas than a small arms attack.

        • You prepare for what you can. These guys aren’t predictable necessarily. Prepare for anything. Worrying about a bomb is not a good excuse to say, “frack it, I’m not carrying because I can’t prevent that specific incident.”

        • Not saying anything about not carrying. It was more to the point that– the folks debating it would have been different in the US because of an armed citizenry are ignoring that not all of the US respects the 2A. Just as spree shooters pick out gun-free zones, I expect that terrorist attacks (i.e. prior planning vice Lone Wolf mental cases grasping on Jihad to justify going postal) will take that into consideration. The Colorado shooter passed up two closer theaters showing Batman which allowed concealed carry, he chose a theater which prohibited concealed carry on it’s premises. I expect terrorists will do the same kind of thing.

  4. I know one thing that would be different. In any major US city, these attackers would not have made it out of the office building to jack a car and retreat to the muslim ghetto unchallenged. Our police response in NYC/LA/Chicago would have been pretty rapid and well armed.

    I wouldn’t expect anyone in a journo office to be armed, honestly.

    • Those crazies on HLN said flat out they aren’t allowed to carry in their building (CNN) and they were pretty smug about it too. They thought they were safe because of their “security”. They also started that whole bit talking about the 2A and how some “believe in it” like it was another religion or some optional warm fuzzy someone could Cling to… Made me mad and showed CNNs true colors.

  5. Does this strike anyone else here as poor taste in terms of timing? Do it in a month when memories have faded slightly. This is no difference from the antis waving a bloody shirt.

    • I’d have to agree with you on the timing. It seems rude and thoughtless. It would be better after the people involved have been buried and their loved ones have had a bit of time to grieve. A not-exactly-the-same-but-close-enough comparison would be if France had staged a mock flight hijacking with box cutters on 9/17/2001 showing that they wouldn’t have been victimized as much.

      • Well it’s also in response to claims currently being considered in the media, so I think its quite reasonable to do this now. It is responding to speculation with data.

      • “The media has a short attention span and this is a life-or-death struggle. It is what it is.”

        It’s the exact tactic the antis use to pass gun laws.

        Rham Emmanual once said to the effect of: “Never allow an opportunity to go to waste.”

        • What he said was: You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.

          Which has a different flavor than mere opportunity, Don’t you think?

      • Let me be specific, I am a strong believer in armed self-defense of myself and others. However, this simulation could be run a month from now and provide the same data points but would be done with a bit more class and empathy. This is my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions. However, the next time you use the phrase “…didn’t waste any time waving the bloody shirt” I’d like you to consider the pot and kettle.

        • How exactly is a training exercise waving the bloody shirt?

          Using recent real-life scenarios as training models is time tested. You say wait a month. Someone else says wait a year. Someone else says never do it.

          So, what’s the limit? And, what’s the point of wait? In a rational sense, waiting serves no purpose. It’s the data they are after. That data will be the same tomorrow as it will be next year (barring, of course, more info being developed on the scenario or tactics, etc, in that intervening year).

          We run the risk of letting emotion make decisions for us. Generally speaking, such decisions are bad and result in negative consequences.

        • Liljoe, you are conflating the deliberate mistruths of an MDA flogging a political agenda,
          (gun confiscations/destroy NRA) while claiming to be about something else “for the children”.

          (Which numerous Mayors discovered abiut Bloombergs first sockpuppet effort,@ MAIG, btw)

          With a proactive fact based effort to educate that is entirely congruent with TTAGs approach all along,
          Based on a repeat of an earlier educational effort, that was delayed in respect.

          Moreover, this training opportunity is already after the mass expressions of grief and support, held in Paris.

          Nor is this about a school with vulnerable children,
          But a corporate workspace in the context of already aware, threatened, unarmed but police guarded adults, as at Charlie Hebdo.

          I appreciate your concern for my credibility, but I respectfully suggest you rethink your logic.

        • One more quibble…I reread the article and found no sense of ‘lack of class’ or something to suggest a lack of empathy, in RFs words, or mine, speaking to his point about the news cycle, and the link validating the proof, ie the intense interest by journalists, on their own self protection.

          Normally, a bit of self effacing humor, or provocative snark is part of RFs ‘voice’, so I think you may be “projecting” a bit there.

          If you are dinging me, fair enough, as a commenter I dont need to be quite so disciplined as TTAG editors, so you will forgive my cynicism and lack of empathy for scared Journolistas…

        • According to this tracking site “a month from now” will be approximately 200+ Islamic attacks and 2500+ dead bodies from now. It’s quite amazing how much goes unreported EVERY DAY.

          http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

          Monthly Jihad Report December, 2014
          Jihad Attacks: 233
          Countries: 30
          Dead Bodies: 2497
          Critically Injured: 2225

        • @publius s
          The system won’t let me respond to your further comments, so I’ll just say it here. You read a lot more into my opinion than was said, based on your responses. My opinion, which your clever, witty and ineffective counterarguments has failed to change, is that the timing is in poor taste. Not the exercise, not the wording used to present it, but the timing. Nothing you say will change my opinion of that, and nothing I say will change yours. So let’s just agree that I’m right 🙂

    • No media are likely to pay attention anyway, unless this exercise proves guns are bad. So no one who would cry “bad taste” will even know.

    • Timing? The Charlie magazine just selling 5 millions of their new issue, making tons of money of the dead victims. Their timing is way more awful.

  6. I would expect that by, let’s say age 40, most men have experienced some life threatening experiences of one sort or another, whether in the civilian world or military.

    Could be a single, quick instance like a vehicle acccident and resulting trauma and first aid. Could be a more slowly building event like a small craft adrift offshore and taking on water. Could be an abrupt violent encounter like a mugging or bar fight. Plenty of nonmilitary people have been shot at before and faced the typical share of danger.

    In my experience, the more time there is to reflect, the more time there is to be overcome by fear. The faster the event itself unfolds, the more primal, loud, and effective an individual’s response.

    I’ve no doubt that some armed citizens would indeed be killed in an encounter with heavily armed terrorists. I’ve also no doubt that most armed citizens who choose to engage such terrorists would strike at least one of them and disrupt most attacks to the point the attackers would abandon the attack and be forced to flee, thereby minimizing total casualties.

    • Yup. I’ve had my share of trying to avoid collisions while driving. And it is MUCH better the second time that happens. You don’t get scared anymore, you just get angry.

  7. These “simulations” strike me as pretty pointless. Of course an armed victim has a much better chance of stopping one or more attackers than an unarmed one. We already know that – that’s why we carry. It’s basic logic; the guy with a lifejacket has a better chance of not drowning. There’s also the chance that the armed guy dies first, and the attack proceeds unaltered. So what? It doesn’t actually prove anything either way.

    The only way to know if it would have made any difference in any specific actual incident is to have a time machine, and if you have access to one of those, can you go back to 1934 and stop the NFA?

    If you want to play with simunitions, by all means, go ahead – it looks like a whole truckload of fun. Heck, if I were in Plano, I might join you. But don’t pretend like it’s a scientific experiment and that you’re gathering valuable data.

    • The simulation is a hell of a lot more applicable than a WAPO editorial or a CNN bobble head.

      Knock your enemy (the MFM I’m saying) back on their heels and on the defensive.
      Make the video dramatic, get a professional narrator, make it look professional, get some go-pro’s for action work, don’t be afraid to do a post-analysis and draw conclusions the way you believe them, hell the MFM always does that.

      Did the killers have to go up a stairwell? If so do a run where the cartoonists trained to pin the bad guys in the stairwell or as their heads came over floor level. Who is to say that they wouldn’t have trained for that if they had the opportunity?

      I read a snippet that someone buzzed them in under threat. Certainly that would have slowed down the killers and allowed the victims to get positioned. There was shooting in the street before they came into the building, that’s more time and warning to allow to get your team ready. These victims were not surprised, they heard and knew what was coming.

      Take the propaganda fight to the gun-grabbers.

  8. Not in poor taste At ALL liiljoe…these aren’t 6 year olds in Newtown. These are grownups who think they are protected when they are not. Or Jewish people in a market. Look at all the mass shootings stopped or limited by a tiny bit of resistance. The 18year old co-terrorist surrendered without a fight. A good guy with a gun…

  9. Any shots back at cowards like the ones that killed the people in France would have at least slowed them. Maybe they still kill people, maybe they still get away,but do you think them or people like them aren’t going to think twice next time? I’m willing to bet any shot even a miss from an average civy would make most criminals up and gtfo. “I was shaking so bad” ok cool bro that was you and that was a different scenario. Did everyone around you freeze up and die? I’m guessing unless you are posting from the grave then someone returned fire…

    • I wonder sometimes at the video from the roof top. I have heard some say how nice it would be if that guy had a rifle, but take it a step farther. How about a 9mm compact pistol? The guys down there wandering aroud with no fear of resistance in the street, no real chance of hitting them, but what would the reaction be to a few rounds zinging past them? The sounds of shots they did not fire? Would they have still stuck around to execute the cop? If they come up the stairs after you, make sure your gun is pointed at the door they have to come through, and that now they’re in range, you are ready to kill.

      I KNOW it would have turned out different, just not sure how.

    • “I’m willing to bet any shot even a miss from an average civy would make most criminals up and gtfo.”

      Most criminals, yes. Suicidal jihadists? Maybe not so much.

  10. Robert – Don’t forget to arm the Mom with child at the door. Funny how nobody talks about her cowardice in punching the entry key in the first place knowing full well what was about to happen. I guess that’s a forbidden topic.

    • I’ve seen discussions about her, and the consensus I’ve seen is that there’s little to be gained from chastising as cowardice what a mom did in hopes of protecting her child. Not to mention she was successful in keeping her child safe.

        • Unarmed, with my kid to protect, vs two big guys in black with AKs…I’d do the same.

          And remember, Charlie Hebdo had two full time cops on site…my guess the staff was told, “let the pro’s handle it….”

  11. The problem is that there is quite a few businesses that have a no weapons policy for their employees such as but not limited to Walmart. Also if terrorists were going to attack they would most likely chose a location in New York City since those that are not politically connected can not acquire a carry license.

    • I think the real problem is that most employees act as though their employee handbook holds the rule of law.

      If you have a CCW permit, and you’re not wanded by a guard, pass through a metal-detector or are subject to a pat-down, I say carry at work and to hell with the consequences. It’s better to be fired from your job than fired upon AT your job and have nothing more than your empty hands to show them.

      Alabama passed a law in 2012 that made it against the law for employers to ban employees from keeping weapons in their vehicles, even on company-owned private property. Hopefully one day that law will extend to their actual workplace.

  12. Job #1 for the new Texas Legislature: remove the legal penalties for violating 30.6 “gun-free” postings. We should not have to put our lives in the hands of some shop or school’s political biases. If they want to put a sign up that’s fine. If I choose to abide by it or not abide by it, that ought to be my choice.

    • It already is your choice. Concealed is concealed. Still, I agree we need to repeal that and several other things.

    • Grapevine Mills Mall in Grapevine, Texas has those 30.06 signs at all the entrances. That is why I don’t shop there. They tell me that there are a number of empty stores at that mall now. I wonder if there is a connection?

  13. I’m in CA, but if I were around I would definitely take part. Good luck, hope it goes well.

    If at all possible and you get enough volunteers, it would be awesome if you were able to make multiple runs with different control groups, all having varied levels of armed response. 10% Concealed carrier ratio, 20% Carry ratio, no carry but there are a couple dedicated security officers armed with available long guns and vests, or possibly some other realistic situations.

    I realize 20% is pushing reality a bit, 5-10% is probably more realistic in a Carry Friendly area, but maybe people need to see that more guns really is better.

  14. I’ll be there!
    Sure, a sim is just a sim, however, one man – armed -may just be all that is necessary.
    If I get killed – so I get killed! But as a 5 year ccl holder… I damn well won’t go easy!!
    With the crap going on, I’m considering altering my edc from my 9mm shield w/8 rds.
    to my 1997 Italian Beretta 8000 9mm w/15 rounds – depending where I may be going.
    At 71, I’ve seen plenty. If it comes to put up or die… this old man got at least one good shot left!
    I hope all the talkers who have a ccl… actually start to carry and can act accordingly also!
    It could be your wife or daughter or Mother in that ‘wrong place wrong time’!!
    These jackasses don’t care at all, —- and in regards to them ….either will I.

  15. I would suggest you play the scenario out with the attackers following 3 separate mindsets:

    1. They are hell bent on becoming martyrs
    2. They are trying to create as many casualties as possible before surrendering or death
    3. Hit and Run with the idea that they live to fight another day.

    I think the outcome changes depending on the determination and motive of the attack, at least as far as body counts may be concerned.

    The Hebdo attack is more #3 while the Mall attack is more #2.

    The thought is that any kind of return fire is going to reduce casualties and slow the assault over no resistance at all, depending on the mindset of the attackers. I think trying to measure that effect is the most interesting.

    • I’d rather see options where the attackers have to come up steps or down a hallway.
      There is clearly a hallway present.

  16. NRA site has some Life of Service (I think) videos, and I recall one:
    a group of guys around a table where a trainer describes a similar sscenwrio setu to train the cops in a “many vs organized gunmen”.

    (Cant find it…odd, google got dumb, al o a sudden…nra censorship..?.)

    But I digress,

    tl;dr – unskilled cops sufered 50% casualties….

    Just another example of just how much bigger challenge than a single mentally disturbed person, acting out.

    That is also conveniently glossed over by the gun-grabbers who think it would be best to hide under desks….

    • I’d guess its both due to generosity of the host, with a fortuitous just post holiday hole in training site availability, plus high viz on the topic, plus free PR via the #1 independent gun site.

      I would like to see a repeat, with more warning, to advance lessons learned, or a different take on strategy, ideally closer to West Coast…;) speaking purely in self-interest, of course…

      Lots of ways to approach it, and as one poster noted, there aren’t a lot of definitive tests published in the public domain…

      Maybe those guys in Phoenix? who helped draft the NRA supported review of police dept training for school shooter at various schools around the country, in their report, here:
      http://www.nraschoolshield.com/

  17. I think this misses one important point. It was not a random office they attacked. It was office of 20 people who were getting DAILY death threats. They were firebombed in 2011. They were ordered to move to a new secret location by the government, with all publicly available contacts redirected to the original one (where the terrorists originally showed up before someone told them at gun point where the newspaper really is).

    Now imagine an office in similar circumstances (death threats, firebombing, forced move) in Dallas (or Prague, Czech Republic). Even with the most pessimistic scenario it would be at least 6 CCs between the 20 people inside. On the more optimistic side I see somewhere around 12 with CC pistols and at least 2 SBRs.

    You don’t need to run simulation to know that one compact pistol won’t do much against two select fire AKs held by well trained guys in body armor. If you really want to simulate situation in country where CC for self-defense is easily accessible and well understood by society, then having 1 person armed between 20 that are on Jihadist blacklist is just wrong.

    One CC may be good for simulation of the situation in the supermarket – which was more of a random attack. But given that there were 3 terrorist attacks against Jews in France just in December 2014 (knife attacks, car driven into crowd), not to mention all the previous ones, I would still like to believe there would be more CCWs in the supermarket than just one, had the law allowed it.

  18. I think you guys forgot to mention that someone at the office was armed… and that he was also killed. What you also forgot to mention at this time is that your experiment failed. Everyone died.

    • They didn’t test the most obvious one. The guy on the balcony, who did see everything. He would have the chance to stop them.

  19. Interesting you say that they failed. The test seemed to be pretty heavily slanted to the bad guys. First only one out of 20 armed. They sat in the room waiting to be surprised as if they heard nothing. The two AK guys had no real fear of death or failure so no trepidation. Yet instead of 100% success one person did escape and one bad guy was killed. So even in that slanted environment a good guy with a gun had some success.

Leave a Reply

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