TTAG Charlie Hebdo Simulation: 7 Out of 9 Armed Defenders Got Hits on One Terrorist

When I asked Nick to conduct a simulation of the Charlie Hebdo attack on short notice I knew we’d be in for a rough ride. The sim pit one handgun-holding self-defender against two rifle-wielding terrorists in a close approximation of the Hebdo offices. As anyone with a passing knowledge of gun fights will tell you, the odds of a successful outcome (two dead terrorists) were heavily stacked against the good guy with a gun. Click here for Nick’s preliminary results. The main takeaway: seven out of the nine armed defenders got hits on one of the terrorists. There may have been one defender who managed both terrorists. Which means . . .

If you define success as two dead terrorists, the scenario we devised – one armed defender with a semi-automatic pistol facing two terrorists armed with rifles in an office environment – it didn’t happen. If you define success as making the terrorists pay for their attack, it was a partial success in two out of nine simulations. In one case, the armed defender’s actions enabled a successful retreat for the defensive shooter and some of the intended victims.

I caution anyone reading this to wait for the complete results, which will include the full protocol, all the significant variables and Nick’s better-informed, expert interpretation of the results. Needless to say, the antis did no such thing. The Young Turks video above leaped straight to the conclusion that an armed good guy would be useless in this situation. And misrepresented the results of our Newtown simulation [click here for our report]. Wrong. And wrong.

Over at addicting info.org, the headline proclaims Texas Ammosexuals Re-Enact Charlie Hebdo Shooting With ‘Armed Civilian’ — Everyone Still Dies. 

Occasionally, stupid people whose love of weapons transcends their sense enjoy attempting to justify a belief that the world would be virtually immune to crime if only we furnished every man, woman, and child with a firearm.

“An armed society is a polite society,” hordes of ammosexuals loudly proclaim, ignoring that drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely to make obscene gestures at other motorists and a frightening 77 percent to follow aggressively than unarmed individuals.

Not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian in 30 years, but right-wing blasturbation club The Truth About Guns decided to play “Charlie Hebdo” on Tuesday in an effort to show that an “armed civilian” would have stopped two heavily-armed terrorists and saved lives.

The experiment was a massive flop. The group did, indeed, gather the requested number of volunteers. Unfortunately for them, that was the most successful part of the adventure . . .

Over and over, the armed civilian was “killed,” along with those “gun rights” advocates claim he or she would have protected. In only two cases was the “good guy” able to remove even one of the gunmen from the scenario.

Only once did the “armed civilian survive” — when she ran away at the first sound of “gunfire.”

While anti-ballistic bile-spewer John Prager got the basic results right, he failed to put those results in context. And context is what’s needed here. I know our readers are ready, willing and able to help Mr. Prager and his ilk with your informed perspective. Sensibly, many of you are withholding comment until you get the complete picture from Nick’s analysis. Ahead of that, here are three key points:

1. The only gunfight you’re guaranteed to win is the one you don’t have

Better physical security would have gone a long way to slowing and/or preventing the first terrorist attack in Paris. A second security door to the Hebdo offices, only operable from inside, could have saved many, many lives.

2. As Ralph points out on a regular basis, a self-defense firearm’s primary role is to aid its owner’s egress from a violent attack.

And, hopefully, help other intended victims escape the crime scene. The one case in our experiment where a shooter used her firepower to leave the simulated carnage was instructive in that regard. A good escape plan is worth, well, see number one above.

3. To counter this kind of terrorist attack, defenders need more firepower, better training

The results of this experiment would have been different if we had two or three armed defenders on site. If they’d had rifles (SBRs?), that would have raised their chances of survival. As would proper training. I’m not saying people wouldn’t have died in those improved circumstances. Or that both terrorists would have been neutralized. But common sense suggests the odds of success would increase dramatically. We plan on finding out in a future simulation.

For me, at this point, number 3’s the most important lesson to be learned: the more good guys with guns, the better their equipment and training, the better. Regular readers will know we made this argument before. After the Sandy Hook Elementary School spree killing, we highlighted the fact that it ]would have been far worse if there’d been multiple attackers. Terrorists. As there were during the Belsan School slaughter. We recommended rifles for school defense and several staff trained to use them.

The simulation of the Charlie Hebdo homicides proves that gun owners living and working in places where a terrorist attack could occur – which could be anywhere – need to think about improved physical security and recruiting armed (and unarmed) co-workers for a joint anti-terrorist strategy. They should also consider adding emergency access to long guns.

No doubt the antis will take that idea and run with it – in the wrong direction. Check out this excerpt from an article at freebeacon.com entitled Europe’s Leading Rabbi: Jews Must Begin Carrying Guns.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said that while guns could help Jews defend themselves against an individual attack, only authorities can protect them against a mass attack like those carried out in France.

“As to personally being armed, such a move could help when a Jewish person is threatened by thugs, but won’t help if G-d forbid, Charlie-type terror attacks are launched,” Cooper said.

“Bottom line: Only the Police and intelligence can protect France’s Jews from terrorism,” Cooper said, noting that it is expected French authorities will continue boosting defenses. “If the government doesn’t, then there is no long range future for Jews there.”

Governments should protect their citizens from mass murder. But any Jew – any person – who leaves it to the government to do so is putting their fate into someone else’s hands. There are times when that defense will fail. And then, armed or unarmed, it’s down to you. And that’s the truth.

comments

  1. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Well 2 insane muslim jihadists who want their 72 virgins might be a bit hard to take down. Add in automatic weapons and it multiplies the difficulties…

  2. avatar General Zod says:

    “Not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian in 30 years”

    Bull crap. But it’s the sort of lie the childish idiots who use the term “ammosexual” live on and cling to. But a simple Google search turns up multiple results including:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/it-true-armed-civilians-have-never-stopped-mass-shooting_690808.html

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit#.gi489Dox1g

    See, the thing is, when anti-rights zealots claim no armed civilian has stopped a mass shooting, they only count incidents where the shooter was successful. They don’t count ones that were averted, or ones where the shooter was stopped before enough people were killed for it to fit their definition of “mass shooting”. Dishonesty touted as fact – or, for people like that, standard operating procedure.

    1. avatar Alex Peterson says:

      To further your point, where is the statistic about how many armed civilians have been killed in mass shootings. How many people were armed in Newtown, Aurora, etc.? The answer, excluding the shooters, is zero. Quick quiz: Why did Holmes pick the movie theater in Aurora to attack? A.) it was the closest theater to his apartment; B.) it was the largest capacity theater within a reasonable driving distance from his apartment; C.) it was the theater with the strictest “no weapons” policy.

    2. avatar ClayinUT says:

      If it is stopped early, it never becomes a mass shooting. Really makes you think…

      1. avatar Jeremy S says:

        1) POLICE ARE FREAKING CIVILIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There have been plenty of mass shootings stopped when the police, the only armed civilians in the scenario, finally arrived.

        2) Yes, of course, you can never prove it was a mass shooting if the person was stopped before “mass” was hit. Lots of examples in the past couple of years like the Clackamas Mall, WalMart shooting couple, new life church, san antonio theater…. just off the top of my head. But nobody reports it as “mass shooting averted” when it’s just a guy with a gun and a bazillion rounds of ammo in a mall and he gets shot immediately or shoots himself as soon as he sees another person pointing a firearm in his direction. It’s just an incident that isn’t noteworthy in that case.

    3. avatar John M. says:

      In other news, 100% of Russian Roulette survivors were unharmed.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Wrong.

        Quite a few R-Roulette survivors, with serious scrambled brains as their ‘stupid prize’…

  3. avatar mike oregon says:

    As to the”FACT” that no civilian has stopped a mass shooter in 30 years, Jeanne Assam, Colorado Springs,

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Closer to home and more recent.
      The Clackamas mall shooter.

      1. avatar mike oregon says:

        I picked that one because there is no room for argument, the Clackamas town center shooting CCW involvement is disputed by some willfully ignorant types.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          “willfully ignorant” lol. It’s just those of us who don’t swallow the hero fantasy when the evidence doesn’t support it.

          There have been armed private citizens who have stopped shooters. Having a gun and not doing anything with it but talking to the press afterwards doesn’t count.

    2. avatar Hank says:

      Yeah, but who needs such facts when you have a blog and a warehouse full of snark?

    3. avatar Jake Tallman says:

      Well, technically, you’re actually wrong, because he only killed two people before taking his own life. As per the FBI’s definition, four or more (including the killer) need to die for it to be considered a mass killing. It’s a great catch-22 for the antis. They refuse to talk about mass shootings that were AVERTED, and the way it’s defined, no mass shooting is EVER stopped, because if they have a bodycount of less than four, it is be definition not a mass shooting. And if they are taken out after they have a bodycount of more than four, well, than they still technically committed a mass shooting. That infuriating definition allows the willfully ignorant savages (yes, the most fervent antis ARE savages; enabling such horrific violence so that they can feel better) to say that no mass shooting has been stopped by an armed citizen, and be TECHNICALLY correct, even if what they are implying is dead wrong.

      1. avatar mike oregon says:

        Again that’s why I picked Colorado Springs 2007 that tragedy hit all qualification for “mass shooting stopped by CCW”

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          That guy was set up to set records which would stand for decades. He could have easily killed over 1000. And the media promptly identified her as a sheriff’s deputy, since she’d spent six months a decade earlier in that job. Never, never admitted that she was a simple CCW licensee, which may be the reason for that claim. She was NOT a normal citizen, she was one of the anointed-a cop.

  4. avatar Mike says:

    In that future simulation, it might be interesting to see the results of different storage options for the long rifles – keyed cabinet, combination, biometric, and simple latch – see how the way in which a long arm is stored affects the outcomes.

    Might do some good to prove (or disprove) any of these safe storage laws people think/dream up.

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      No, it won’t. It will only “prove” to them that it’s hopeless to try to reach the rifle, and you might as well die helplessly like they want you to.

      1. avatar Mike says:

        Well yea, that is their (the anti’s) intended point – they don’t like guns and/or don’t want the proletariat to have them, so make things as difficult as possible for those who do.

        I was thinking more along the lines of the fence-sitters and/or the “It sounds good, in theory” types. Such results would show that it makes it harder to defend ones self/family/others.

    2. avatar Drew says:

      Since addicting info . Com says we think every single person should be given guns and that this test somehow proves that is bad how bout a scenario where everyone is actually armed?

      1. avatar David P. says:

        I’m with you!! They said “every man, woman, and child” so run it that way. I know I am a geek but I really like mythbusters. They take something test it and then keep going beyond the initial test to see what it would have took to make a difference. I would like to see this next time because at some point you would reach a tipping point where the terrorist are both killed. You will know that you succeeded when these antigunners won’t even mention your test because they don’t want people drawing there own conclusions. “One CCW= One dead terrorist- I will take that any day over 2 living terrorist=12 dead people waiting on the government to show up to save them.

  5. avatar Cameron S. says:

    Ammosexuals? Blasturbation?

    Such biased, inflammatory derogatory is being passed of as journalism?

    I truly feel bad for such people with so much hate in their hearts. And am infuriated that they’re the ones the MSM turns to.

    Yes, a single unwary victim reacting to a coordinated, better-armed assault will generally lose, but it’s the principle of the right to stand and fight instead of die a sitting duck that is lost on them.

    They see us as a bunch of jerkoffs playing hero in our heads, dreaming of the day we send a darkie to hell. And that’s just not the case. I really wish the 2nd amendment culture, and more specifically the NRA, would take more of a stand to fight against these groundless cases of libel coming from disgruntled “journalists”.

    1. avatar Alex Peterson says:

      Pay it no mind. It’s just classic projection on their part. These are the same people who equate firearms with phallus.

    2. avatar Roscoe says:

      …and he odds of not dying as a “sitting duck” improve when you can defend your retreat.

  6. avatar Randall J says:

    Now that POTG have a “sexual orientation”, I feels its time that any form of discrimination, or hurtful speech against us be labeled a hate-crime.

    As to the sim, I’m pretty sure deep down, all involved knew what the results would be. Good job for going through with it anyway, knowing it would be twisted this way.

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      In that situation, as in the sim, the best you can really hope for is to disrupt the terrorists’ plan and maybe take one of them with you. Unless you’re unarmed, in which case the best you can hope for is a quick death.

    2. avatar ClayinUT says:

      Agreed, well done TTAG. you could have posted only the results that were successful, or hidden the results. I am sure that no one in the MSM does that. I commend you on your honesty.

  7. avatar tdiinva says:

    I got into a discussion with an anti who thought she had me when she said well what happens if I am the first person shot. My answer which took her totally by surprise was “Sucks to me.” Sometimes your going to lose but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t die fighting.

    There is a good reason why mass shooters are not stopped by armed citizens. Few citizens are armed and shooters seek out gun free zones.

  8. avatar fishydude says:

    You left out one important correct.
    “Not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian in 30 years.”
    This statement is provably false. But also more proof that they lie with statistics.
    When a civilian with a gun kills someone attempting a mass shooting after <3 vicitms, the Antis don't count that as a mass shooting.
    But the stats I read were that average deaths for mass (attempted) mass shooting stopped by a civilian with a gun is <3. The average for those stopped by the police is <14.
    Because a civilian in the vacinity, with a firearm, stopped the incident from becoming a mass shooting, the antis don't even count it.
    A teacher in PA ran to his car, which was parked outside the invisible 1000 foot line, to get his personal weapon and stopped a school shooting from becoming a mass school shooting.

    1. avatar forrest says:

      The Pearl High shooting was stopped when a teacher broke out a window, ran to his car, and brought a pistol to the party. Luke Woodham gave up instead of dying at the hands of an armed civilian.

      That teacher was heralded as a hero, yet still fired from his position with the public school system. The DA flatly refused to press charges for him illegally bringing a firearm onto school property and he was hired the very next day by a private school in the area who reportedly asked him to carry his pistol while on campus. Something about their money being tied directly with parents feeling safe allowing their children to attend that school made the private school decide that armed civilians were a good thing while the public schools decided the opposite, knowing that parents were forced to pay their salaries no matter what happens at those schools.

      Now, I don’t blame the schools for the shooting. This was pre-columbine when people honestly never gave a second thought to school shootings. I do, however, blame them for their reaction in firing the man who saved lives by putting himself and his pistol directly in the line of sight of a crazy, homicidal student.

  9. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    Even if all the facts pointed a postive light for our side I am sure that the “other side” would put their fingers in their ears and scream “LA-LA Can’t hear you”. But what the progressives don’t say but actually want, is that if you are being attacked they would rather you just lay down and die, not go down fighting.

  10. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    Will the analysis discuss the effect of knowing the outcome on the participants’ actions? After all, everyone knew that at the end of the day they would go home alive. In the real world, wouldn’t armed resistance impact a terrorist’s actions? While they might not be afraid of dying, they still want some measure of ‘success’ before their heavenly meeting with virgins.

    PS TTAG, this site is still hanging up my browser. This is only happening on this site.

  11. avatar Adler says:

    “But common sense suggests the odds of success would increase dramatically.”

    Not just that, but the chances of a building, where people are known to wield plenty of firepower, being raided by terrorists, drops asimptotically towards zero.

  12. avatar CarlosT says:

    From what I remember, TTAG made no specific claims about the simulation. That a single pistol-wielding defender loses out to two rifle-bearing attackers is no great surprise. Generally speaking, people of the gun don’t believe that guns are a guarantee of safety. It’s an anti-gun strawman. Being armed simply gives you better odds than being unarmed. The better armed the better and the more armed the better.

    1. avatar paulWTAMU says:

      I don’t know, I’ve seen people on reddit and other gun forums tearing into this because the good guy lost. Which fucking baffles me.

      If I’m carrying my EDC–Ruger SR9c–even if I have 2 spare 17 round mags….I’m ONE person with a handgun against 2 people (presumably working together) with rifles. Those are not good odds, and I’m not a SEAL or Green Beret or anything. I’m a desk jockey.

    2. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

      Run the simulation the way it happened with the same exact numbers of people in the building and two rifle armed attackers BUT give guns to 3 random people. See how it happens then.

  13. avatar doesky2 says:

    No group with any kind of political savvy will run a dog&pony show in front of the press without knowing that the outcome will favor their viewpoint. To boot, it seems like you even hamstrung the victims in your simulation more than what happened in reality.

    This will be a net negative for the cause and you handed our enemies the ammo on a silver platter.

    Hope you had fun.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      The truth has no agenda

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        There is a myriad of valid issues that people have brought up with the methodology of this simulation that I think many people could agree this simulation was not “true” to the CH event.

        So what you label as “truth” may be far from it.

        Secondly, relying on the evening news to demonstrate the “truth” of something is a very foolish idea.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        …then the truth will lose every time.

    2. avatar PubliusS says:

      Even if this were a perfect test, perfectly setup, with perfect results, the gungrabbers and their enablers would find a way to disparage it.

      Which, now that I think of it, doesky, is a bit like your multiple postings.

  14. avatar John M. says:

    In other news, since deadbolts won’t stop a cartel hit squad, nobody should have deadbolts.

  15. avatar IdahoPete says:

    Nobody lives forever, even if you are a vegan, spandexed bike-riding, gluten-free, frequently exercising Progressive with regular bowel movements. Or whatever.

    The question is whether you would prefer to be able to fight back, preserving your human dignity even if you die, or to die like a cowering sheep. I would prefer the chance to take at least one of the bastards with me.

  16. avatar forrest says:

    The only real data that matters here is whether more unarmed civilians would have survived the attack if someone had been armed. If the tests showed that fewer innocent lives were lost when an armed defender was present, then the test came back with a positive result. Not the best result, but still a positive one.

    We all know that the best result would have been two immediate head shots on the attackers, jason bourne style, but that was just not going to happen in a fluid environment without the help of CGI. Injuring a single terrorist is a great start and killing one is even better; but in the end, it’s innocent lives that count. We don’t judge terrorist attacks by how many terrorists died, but by how many innocents died.

    That being said, I am also looking forward to seeing the level of skill the defenders had prior to the test. Reading from the AD they posted looking for volunteers, it sounded like they were given preference to people with zero firearms experience which is NOT who I want armed to defend innocent life. Could the test be redone with someone who has undergone basic, intermediate, and advanced training? Also, what was the skill level of the “terrorists?” From what I have learned, it sounded like at least one of the real world terrorists did have some level of training, but I’m not positive about what that training was. (bomb making experience has nothing to do with this situation so it would have been “none” in my book.)

    Can’t wait for the data. Thanks for your efforts!

  17. avatar Pascal says:

    The only conclusion is the defense must be in layers. If the only armed defender is that conference room, you are screwed to begin with. Yes, Team Jihad forced their way in by point a gun a mother and child and having the mother unlock the door, but you need some others before you get to the conference room. Alarms, doors to make it more difficult to get in, basically enough to allow the good guy with the gun to be ready.

    In any surprise situation involving more than one gunmen versus one good guy, you are always screwed. Real life is not Hollywood.

  18. avatar Blake says:

    It would be interesting to see if someone who shoots IDPA would fair better in this scenario.

    The antis obviously think this simulation proves that one should kneel and wait to be shot rather than die trying. Idiots.

    1. avatar Drew says:

      Yes, it’s not like the armed citizen made things worse as they always claim. They are wetting them selves with joy at the fact that in some cases the armed citizen still loses. This particular simulation may not support the idea a single defender can fix anything but it is even further from proving that guns shouldn’t be available in any scenario.

  19. avatar DrewR55 says:

    I’d still rather die trying to do something then die hiding under my desk.

    My first responsibility is to protect my family and provide for their welfare. I choose to have the tools which will allow me to accomplish that goal.

    Additionally, these people are much to fascinated by sexual proclivity.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Your first sentence is why I thought this whole thing was silly, as I’m sure we all would rather have the chance to fight back- while those who would rather hide under their desks will refuse to believe they had a choice otherwise.

  20. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    RF and Nick, you could have run the simulation a few times increasing the number of ccw pistols that were carried to see how many defenders it would have taken until the treat was ended.

    1. avatar Natty Light says:

      Right? This is common sense, could have provided good data, and would have prevented a lot of this backlash.

    2. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      +1

  21. avatar Taylor TX says:

    Ah The Young Turds, quite the new media koolaid salesmen arent they. This is why you cannot argue with a true believer, as Jeff The Griz points out above, they will refuse any objective positive evidence and begin to use terms like “teabagger”, “ammosexual”(which cracks me up), “gun bully” and the list goes on.

    People on the fence can be saved, the rest of them, not so much…

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Notice how the comments were about the armed citizen dying, with no reference to if the armed citizens got hit on the BG… The idea of self-sacrifice eluded them.

  22. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    I’m waiting for the full right up. I think the scenario was flawed in many ways. As they say garbage in garbage out but I wait to be corrected.

  23. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    You really want stir the pot, change the simulation, make it an attack on an Open Carry Texas event, where everyone has long guns…

    If the results improve, and one would assume they would, we can proclaim, “Assault rifles are better at stopping mass attack, everyone carry assualt rifles… Open carry for all!!!

    See, just gotta know how to spin it.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I don’t think those guys carry any BBs.

  24. avatar Wiregrass says:

    Sometimes you are better off running. Sometimes you’re not better off or you can’t. I like the idea of having as many options as possible. As someone said above, I also believe it is better to die fighting than cowering.

  25. avatar Steve says:

    Doing a scenario where it was assumed the innocent would still lost, and thus giving antis “ammo” against us by saying “See, even they admit it wouldn’t have helped!” was stupid, period.

    Akin to donating money to mad mom’s.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      Yep.
      Consider how much laughing we did when the anti’s made the domestic abuse TV spots that proved our points.

  26. avatar Accur81 says:

    I truly hope TTAG didn’t put the facility instructors against the volunteers. Y’know, the guys who run the place and train on the sim guns for freaking years against folks who’ve never, or rarely, have used sim guns. And who just walked into the facility that day. And who’ve never shot a Simunition round against another person. And who are unfamiliar with their Sim gun / holster / mask combo.

    Against the instructors who run the facility. Shooting guns which are much more quiet than real guns, giving them an additional element of surprise, because real automatic fire is incredibly loud and might have given a CCW holder time to react. Against instructors who have practiced as a team dozens of times. Maybe hundreds of times. Against one single shooter caught by surprise, and not experienced with his equipment.

    Such a simulation would basically have the greatest conceivable advantage for the bad guys – including the anti-gunners who have already “analyzed” the results.

    Meanwhile, some real world CCW carriers and gun aficionados often have more tactical experience and gun prowess than the bad guys they face. And, as has been mentioned, CCW carriers HAVE stopped shootings. And have prevailed. Lanza and Holmes didn’t run scenarios, they just pretty much got guns and ammo and started shooting.

    So if TTAG fueled the anti-gunner by setting up such conditions, I’m going to be seriously underwhelmed. If I had been in the scenario, I would have walked out before it even started.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      That’s EXACTLY how I’ve been reading the posts and seeing the videos and complaining about for the last few days.

      Underwhelmed is being very polite.

      Like I said yesterday or so, it seems like the Patriot Protection business was the smart guys.

    2. avatar PubliusS says:

      +1. IMHO, is the one aspect of the setup that could have been thought over a bit more.

      A good lesson-learned for second go it it, maybe with more details from the AAR on the Charlie attack.

  27. avatar Ralph says:

    Two attackers with rifles, one defender with a handgun? Actually, I’m surprised that the results were so good.

    And if the record of armed defenders stopping mass murder is poor, what’s the record of police stopping mass murder? I’d say that it was non-existent, unless taking down killers after an enormous body count is considered a success.

    Hell, recently the police have killed more hostages than the hostage takers did.

  28. avatar forrest says:

    Another problem with this study is that absolutely nobody knew the layout of the building beforehand. I would expect longtime employees to know the best locations in the building to hide, use for cover, and choke points for attack. Just about anyone who carries a gun for defense will understand this and knows exactly where those points are in their office.

    The best advice I can give to anyone is “have a plan.” Actually, it’s “have multiple plans.”

    This study seems deeply flawed and should be redone immediately!

    1. Allow time for the defenders to study the building to become familiar with the best locations for defensive positions.

    2. Use people with firearms training instead of complete newbies. Many states require instruction before giving a CCW license. These are the people we want to be putting into this situation, not people who have never fired a gun before; they wouldn’t be the ones armed in situations like this.

    3. 1 vs 2 is a bad number to begin with. In offices like this, the more people are armed, the more will become armed. As someone becomes familiar with people of the gun, he or she is more likely to take up shooting and carrying a firearm. Very rarely is there 1 person in an office with a gun. That 1 will normally inspire others to become armed as well.

    4. Use paintballs or make getting hit cost $2. “pretend” is rarely a good simulation of reality. In a situation like this, I’ll be much more willing to get hit while doing something stupid than I would be in real life. Make it hurt and you’ll get a more realistic outcome.

    5. Go back and read #1 and 2. Seriously, this is the main issue I have after thinking about this test. People who had worked in that office for years and had firearms training would have known where to place themselves for maximum effect. Also, they would have known NOT to shoot for the head in a firefight.

    6. Try not to make us all look like idiots in the process.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      This study seems deeply flawed and should be redone immediately!

      Pffft….just imagine if the antis tried to rerun a show that went tits up. We’d be laughing and dredging up the story for years. Expect the same in reverse.

      This experiment screwed the pooch in public and there is no way to “un-see” it.

      1. avatar Brendan says:

        The experiment should be redone. In science, you look at multiple variables. The variable here was 1 untrained defender, unsure of his environment. Do two, then three. Do trained, do untrained. That’s an experiment. I have to agree with some of the people who said this wasn’t well though out. Science demands multiple variables.

        I especially like the paintball idea. I hadn’t seen the video. They didn’t do paintball? Seems to me that invalidates most of the experiment…

  29. avatar GuntotinDem says:

    Im looking forward to seeing the results as well. Since we are all arm chair quarterbacking, I’ll add my two cents. It’s an unlevel playing field to begin with. As the terrorist my job is to kill everybody- no target discrimination required. The armed citizen has to worry about targets, especially if he chooses to “go after the shooter” rather than using the gun as an aid to evacuation. I think the study may show, in this set of conditions, a hero complex in the armed citizen (” can he stop the bad guy”) more than might be the case in an actual terrorist encounter. Im sort of basing that on the readership vs the armed individual who just got the hell out of there.

    Theres nothing on my CCL that says I have to cover your ass, just get me and mine out of there. as always your mileage may vary

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      Screw the “results”.
      Our opponents and the public will only remember the visuals.
      It was INSANE and IDIOTIC to have the press in-house where you can’t control their output.
      Somebody got “star fever” when the idea of TV came up.

      1. avatar Justsomeguy says:

        I like the fact that the guys were very upfront and honest about the initial indications from this and I think it was a valuable exercise. I value abject honesty and fact. Unfortunately one of those facts is that allowing the media into this from the beginning has allowed them to spin things to their point of view. Most of us know that there is more to be learned from this than the anti gun lobby will ever recognize, but as of now we haven’t seen all of the data, but are getting bad press just the same.

        I know….who’da guessed that would happen.

        If there’s a rerun of this, I want in. You do need the quintessential old fat white guy after all.

        JSG

      2. avatar Brendan says:

        I agree. You had to run multiple experiments. At this point, it should be redone. Any scientific paper gets comments, and sometimes the author gets sent back to gather more data. This is one of those times. Do it again, do it right. One defender, two defenders, three…. Trained. Untrained. Mixed. Use paintballs.

  30. avatar the ruester says:

    How interesting that one of the cartoonists proclaimed “I would rather die on my feet then live on my knees.” How many of you actually believe he was standing up when he was shot? I bet every single liberal likes to think he was, and that they, too, would bravely stare into the eyes of their murderer and declare “you will never take my FREEDOOOOM!”

    BTW, I think it was a GREAT idea to use only a single, untrained civilian for the simulations. In their minds they are preparing to ridicule people who point out that more than one gun was needed, but after about the 17 millionth time they will start wondering “geez, WTF?”

  31. “An armed society is a polite society,” hordes of ammosexuals loudly proclaim, ignoring that drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely to make obscene gestures at other motorists and a frightening 77 percent to follow aggressively than unarmed individuals.”

    From a survey. “Science” from a survey.

    “CONCLUSION:
    Similar to a survey of Arizona motorists, in our survey, riding with a firearm in the vehicle was a marker for aggressive and dangerous driver behavior.”

    My conclusion:
    People who carry guns are more honest about their actions when answering surveys.

    I have only had a gun in my car for the last two years. I have driven in the horrendous Atlanta traffic for over 30 years. I would honestly say that I have a short temper with people who try to use their vehicle in order to show displeasure with my existence on planet Earth. I forgive stupid drivers or poor drivers and maybe just mutter to myself “fukin idiot”. But my “road rage” has been the same before and after the presence of a gun and I never show the middle finger to any one unless they started the incident.

    Just this morning, traffic was backing up as usual at the same place. I moved from an exit only lane into the right lane on I75 and got in behind a red SUV. Traffic was slowing in front of the SUV and we were slowing down to under 20mph. Suddenly he hit the brakes hard. I slammed on the brakes so hard that my AR flew off the back seat and into the floor. The guy behind me almost hit me and laid on his horn. Then the SUV driver stomped on the gas then immediately on the brakes again. We were at a full stop in the middle of the interstate. We were being passed on both sides. This guy did more than the typical “break check” and it was not warranted anyway since we were approaching bumper to bumper traffic at a slow speed to begin with.
    He did the gas and break thing three more times and when this did not get me to rear end him he tried another trick. He started to change lanes directly in front of another car trying to pass us and then hit the brakes again straddling the line. The car diverged to pass him on the left and I went into the exit lane on the right and back in front of him. As I sped away he chased me and threw his high beams on. I put my hand on my pistol but did not draw it and said “Hit me motherfuker and I will put a bullet through your head!” I would have been justified but as far as aggression goes, he was the aggressor. I would have been using my firearm in self defense.
    Any idiot like this on the road is also likely to lie about his behavior, so I don’t put much faith in that survey.

    1. avatar Robert says:

      It’s even less cut and dry than you or the anti’s presented it.
      Results:Seventeen percent admitted making obscene or rude gestures, and 9% had aggressively followed too closely. Forty-six percent reported victimization by each of these behaviors in the past year. Males, young adults, binge drinkers, those who do not believe most people can be trusted, those ever arrested for a non-traffic violation, and motorists who had been in a vehicle in which there was a gun were more likely to engage in such forms of road rage.

      The conclusion is intellectually dishonest. They note that males, young adults, binge drinkers, people who are paranoid, people who have a criminal history, AND people who have a gun are more likely to engage in such behavior.
      In their conclusion they omitted 5 out of the six results.

  32. avatar tdgrafton says:

    I saw an article in the guardian. Made the front page of Bing. Kinda chuckled that ttag was labeled a progun group. cause evertown and moms spin themselves as pro gun…..

    Wont be ready the guardian any more. Article failed on several levels.

  33. avatar Another Robert says:

    I find the use of the name “Young Turks” by that particular outfit laughably inappropriate. The original Young Turks rebelled against the established social/political order in order to drag Turkey into the 20th Century. These putzes are so enslaved by the current nanny-state regime that they think Michelle Obama’s lunchroom diktats are a good thing and students (including that 220-lb linebacker who is supposed to subsist on the same diet as the 90-lb piccolo player) should be thankful, not dissatisfied.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      Young Turks was snappier than the much more accurate Young Douchebags.

  34. avatar mk10108 says:

    So the anti’s can only offer one point it doesn’t matter anyway just go ahead and…die.

    This is the point pro lawful self defense advocates should hammer them on in every encounter. Adopting removal of guns leads to death, zero opportunity to live and complete removal of choice for survival. How can the liberal who embraces choice, be so devoid of the slim opportunity to live?

  35. avatar 33AD says:

    1.) a Jew insisting that their protection is best managed by their government? Really? Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.

    2.) Not good results from the test. But also, not surprising by any rational gun owner. Agree with putting it in context – I will take bad odds of living by defending myself than certain odds of death at someone else’s hand (or having to beg for my life by one who does not value it), and we need to defeat the mindset of terrorists that they will be met without resistance. Similar to castle doctrines – without stats handily available I can imagine that the idea of getting shot while breaking in and attacking a homeowner will at least dissuade a portion of potential criminals.

  36. avatar Joe says:

    I have to say, that this “experiment” was flawed as hell, because the terrorists here were expecting someone to show up and fight back with a gun. Did the armed defender charge into a door way or “funnel of death” every time single handedly clearing rooms?! Did they at least once run the test where some one draws from concealment?! Or waits out side the doorway and ambushes from a concealed position?! No shit busting in a doorway with two armed bad guys who no generally when and where you are coming from will get you shot! Next time we do a experiment can we please apply the scientific method properly.

    1. avatar Xanderbach says:

      Also, in the actual incident, the people in the office were herded into an area and executed, not just shot randomly in whatever room they were in. The terrorists in this scenario were trained instructors on home ground with familiar weapons clearing rooms like the military does. Not really the best scenario for anyone in the building- Which is why the military does it that way.
      Though it does make me want to keep a long gun next to my desk at work…

  37. avatar pod says:

    The website, addictinginfo.org is basically clickbait. I wouldn’t consider it a real journalistic outlet. Their formula is to publish some outrageous BS claims, then watch as the traffic comes in and their Google AdWords account starts bringing in the dollars.

  38. avatar John L. says:

    For me it boils down to this.

    If the CH folks had had a gun among them, they would have had a fighting chance. Perhaps not a good one, but better than zero.

    This is the difference between wolves taking on a herd of sheep, and wolves taking on a herd of sheep with an integrated llama.

  39. avatar Parnell says:

    I seem to remember that a former British soldier armed with a Browning Hi-Power was credited with saving 150 people by covering their escape during the Nairobi mall attack. I would think that would qualify as a “Good Guy with a gun” success.

  40. avatar Zack in MD says:

    Anyone else notice that the footage of the included in the video above ISN’T from the Charlie Hebdo simulation but from the Simulated School Shooting simulation instead?

  41. avatar Shire-man says:

    So this might not work 100% so it’s laughable.
    Meanwhile all those gun control regs that don’t work 5% are saving society and will never be repealed.

  42. avatar Another Robert says:

    Hopefully this will turn into a tempest in a teapot. The overwhelming majority of folks out there aren’t the kind who throw around terms like “ammosexuals”, and the not-so-Young Turk-ish “Young Turks” have pretty limited influence I would think. I think the vast majority of folks with any significant numbers of functioning brain cells would realize that pitting one pistol-armed guy against two armored rifle-armed guys is pretty much always a losing proposition for the lone pistoleer. On that basis alone I don’t think the simulation proved much of anything for any thinking person who isn’t blinded by his or her ideology.

  43. avatar pyratemime says:

    Cooper is right in the strategic sense. Only the State has the resources to prevent terrorism through intervention and interdiction. He is, however, very wrong in the tactical sense. Only the person on the pointy end can protect themselves from any kind of violence when it is initiated. So unless you happen to be in the police station when the mad man comes in to stab people (as happened recently in France) the cops are unlikely to protect you.

    1. avatar pod says:

      Remember also that those riflemen are human, with weak points as well. Cooper wouldn’t have backed down from a fight versus a rifleman if all he had was his pistol. He would have used his skills and training to figure out how to best disable those riflemen, and get the heck out of Dodge while they were disabled.

      Most body armor isn’t of the “magic shield” variety, and if it is, it’s so bulky it wouldn’t be practical to move about effectively in it. Body armor is meant to save your life, not necessarily for you to keep fighting. The premise is that you’ll go down and hopefully your buddies will cover you and get you to some semblance of safety. Hammer away on those aggressors with your 9mm (or whichever caliber pistol you have) and they will (hopefully) fall down. At that point you can either get away or, if you have friends with you, finish the bastards off.

      And yes, there’s always a chance that my bright ideas won’t work out in reality and you’ll die. But at least it isn’t a guaranteed death.

      50% chance of survival is better than no chance.

      Oh and yeah, train train train. Even if all you can manage is range time twice a month, it’s better than nothing.

  44. avatar Fred says:

    Interesting to note that while the simulation gave some data on what might have happened if there was one armed civilian resisting the attack, the reality showed what happens when there is no resistance.
    Over two dozen people get shot and the criminals continued their assault at multiple scenes.

    So the “just leave and everyone will survive” and “maybe they’ll let you go” theories have a bit of a flaw.
    Unfortunately this guy wasn’t honest about considering problems with his own ideas. Just the problems with the simulation.

  45. avatar Bonjour from France says:

    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.

    1. avatar Blake says:

      If guns have never been the French way, then please explain Napoleon and his conquests.

      Thanks.

    2. avatar Brendan says:

      Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
      French Soldier: I don’t want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

      Don’t like guns huh? Enjoy your new Islamofascists masters. Apparently they don’t have that problem.

      1. avatar Bonjour from France says:

        Same Holy Grail:

        Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot
        He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Robin
        He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways
        Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin
        He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp
        Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken
        To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away
        And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin
        His head smashed in and his heart cut out
        And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
        And his nostrils raped and his bottom burnt off and his penis…

        Then he “Bravely ran away…”

  46. avatar Pieslapper says:

    Hmmmmm…ammosexual. Sounds a little better than OFWG.

  47. avatar Dale says:

    “hordes of ammosexuals”
    that was about as far as I got.

    One of the issues I have with the simulation is what wasn’t there, things that could be used in a very tactical sense like fire extinguishers to fog up a hallway, items that could be placed or thrown as distractions, lights that could be turned off placing you in the dark while the bad guys are still in a lit area, etc. A modern office is absolutely chock full of things that could be used to tactical advantage.

    Then again I’m perfectly willing to admit that this is the sort of thinking that perhaps most people don’t do ahead of time and probably wouldn’t consider in the midst of a crisis.

  48. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    guns could help Jews defend themselves against an individual attack, only authorities can protect them against a mass attack like those carried out in France. Ok, so TTAG should run a simulation without any of the office workers armed and the cops showing up 15 minutes later.

  49. avatar DMB says:

    What the anti’s don’t mention is that where were the cops in the first place? No where to be found and when they did respond the killing had been down and the cops that responded had no guns.

    And in the old soviet union with so called total control by the state crime, including gun crime, was rampant. Even police states can’t protect the populace.

    Give me a gun and let me defend myself. Even if I can only shoot one of the scumbags its one less scumbag around to kill innocents.

  50. avatar JohnO says:

    There’s a big difference between committed jihads with some training, vs. the sort of lone lunatic responsible for most mass shootings here. A good many of the latter off themselves when resisted.

  51. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

    Did the mock terrorists know there would be an armed good guy? Also did they know thereabouts be only one? This intel would not have been available to the real terrorist but would give the attackers a huge advantage.

  52. avatar Mr.Burt says:

    Again….
    Being one of the volunteers at the sim. Let me express the following:
    We were not prepared for anything or given instructions upon what to do or how to act.
    Protection was provided – head and face masks, groin guards.
    I believe it was excellent that the ‘terrorists’ were the skilled and trained instructors. True terrorists will have had some guidance and direction, and ‘take no prisoner’ mentality.
    How would someone act/react in such a situation? Run or give-up or stand and fight? With or without being armed. Sim results will show responses.
    I have a TX- CCL, never used sim type equipment. Didn’t matter for this sim.
    If I had been in the wrong place/wrong time.. I was armed and did the best I could. I got one but the 2nd followed up and got me. If it gave time for others to get out great.
    What was amazing, was the effect on time my perception and ability to make some decisions. Without any preparation, just my previous range experience, gun use and situational awareness, gave some – albeit limited – seconds for planning, i.e., cover, angle, 1st shot advantage. Damn, I need practice and more practice!!
    Really, what better simulation could there be, then — here it is… bad guys and targets… see what happens??
    Experiencing it was an incredible learning experience for me. Much more then shooting paper targets. And gaining much more respect for guns and circumstances.
    Value… let results show. I applaud the fact media was allowed in. Nothing to hide, let results show as close to immediate type reality as could be and without lots of ‘screwy analytic developmentally designed’ plans.
    Personal reactions… applause and appreciation to Robert and Nick and TTAG and to all
    staff at Patriot Protection also. They fronted the facility and equipment and ammo — which is not cheap.
    The hell with the anti’s and pro this and anti that. Here, there were those who did something to actually make an attempt at research and effect of specific circumstances.
    Not provide creating writing dribble and non sense for selling advertising or gaining attention.
    It would have been beneficial to have been debriefed after it was completed. Perhaps to add incite to the video and monitoring of actual hits and misses of shots.
    At almost 72, I was the ‘old fart’. Did my best and went down with one of the ‘bad guys’.
    If what we did and the resulting news comments have even the most limited positive responses on some individuals becoming more aware of their situation and taking preventive actions. (get armed and trained).. Then we did good!
    And sometimes that’s all one can hope for.
    Thanks TTAG and Patriot Protection!!

  53. avatar Sonny P says:

    PLEASE share this- not just the video of this character spewing COMPLETE lies, but the story that comes with it.

    First of all- video clip he uses in his “report” is NOT from the event he is talking about, and distorting and spinning of it’s results.
    Second- presence of armed individual DID make a difference at least in some way almost every time. At the very least- it slowed the advance down. Some times- significantly so. While TTAG in their “preliminary” report says that one of the “terrorists” was killed 7 times- I will say that the number is lower. Not by much, but lower. Here is why. Few of the armed individuals continued engaging after being hit repeatedly- some more than 5, 10 or even 15 times in vital areas. Reasons are many- all participants, except “terrorists” wore full head protection (terrorists only had eye protection) and didn’t feel, thus didn’t acknowledged some of the hits to the head. Some allowed their competitive nature to take over and continued engaging after being hit repeatedly. That is normal and a serious drawback in a lot cases during force on force training and simulations. And I suspect that there were few cases of just pure panic shooting- pulling the trigger until it clicked regardless of anything.
    Next moment this clown is not accounting for is this- in real life it is possible that demise of one of the bad guys would have some sort of impact on the ability, desire, and method of the remaining bad guy to continue doing what he was doing.
    I will write more detailed account of my impressions from this event, but let me finish with this. I know for a fact I was “killed” twice- one instance I knew immediately and have marks to prove it- as it was 2 rounds hitting my face. The second one I didn’t feel, but after removing my gear discovered 2 paint marker hits on my chest rig. In one additional instance I was hit in the forearm of my support hand, which at the very least would have affected my ability to continue using my rifle, and one additional hit in my upper leg, which at the very least could have affected my mobility. There were few additional hits resulting from armed person continuing shooting after he was hit repeatedly.

    Again- PLEASE share this post, not just the video- as the video does NOT tell the truth. I am guessing the author may have certain bias…

    One of the “terrorists”

  54. avatar Larry Browning says:

    This guys news story is WRONG … First of all you are correct “a defender may be killed” however, if you do nothing you will be shot and likely killed anyway, case in point PARIS. Second check the actual video which this wasn’t … I was there and in that video 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, perhaps two. Note — you will also notice that almost every GG elimated a BG … and the BG’s were well trained military.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email