Previous Post
Next Post

The question that arises every time there’s a terrorist attack or mass shooting is one of how to stop it from happening again or minimize the casualties. The common response from gun control activists and the media is always to ban guns and further restrict the rights of law abiding citizens, relying purely on a emotional response and lacking any scientific evidence. One study out of Purdue University is seeking to put some actual science behind the question of whether concealed carry or any armed defense would reduce the impact of a terrorist attack like the one in Paris. Their results: yes, guns would save lives.

From a local news article on the study:

The simulation technology allows him to adjust police response time, concealed carry probability, and whether or not security guards are present during a shooting. He said all of these variables are something every venue should consider.

“We want you to use our model to determine what solution is best for you,” said Kirby.

He said overall, the simulations concluded if more innocent people were armed, less casualties would occur. Same goes with more security guards and faster police response times.

The phrase “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” is openly mocked by gun control activists, but the fact of the matter is that it is 100% correct. We’ve seen that time and again, and the Purdue study once again confirms that the faster an armed response can arrive the more lives can be saved.

There’s just one problem: the gun control activists don’t care about actually saving lives. They just want those evil guns banned and the disgusting degenerate gun owners defeated.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. How can any reasonable adult believe that having guns amongst the potential victims will make things worse?

    The leftist thought process boggles the mind.

    • “that having guns amongst the potential victims will make things worse”

      The statist does not seek to make things safer for society.

      The simple fact that the gun they seek to control most is the ar-15 tells you all you need to know. These guns are responsible for almost zero crime.

      But they are what the state worries about having to face turned against themselves, and thus, their highest priority to control.

      They do not care whatsoever about crime, or victims of crime. If they did, they would be handing out ar-15s, 223 ammo and training.

    • For some reason they think it’s better that you be completely defenseless and killed than to have any chance to stop the issue because you “may” risk shooting another innocent person: The same innocent person who is no doubt going to be killed anyhow by the terrorists unless someone stops them.

      In their screwed up logic world, 2 dead is somehow better than maybe none, maybe one, or maybe both.

    • I think you guys are reading too much into the motives of most gun control supporters. I think most of them are just emotionally against guns as a symbol of violence. They do not have guns, they do not like guns, they are afraid of guns, and wish guns would go away. They don’t think it through very well. They are not so much evil statists as much as they are wishful thinkers.

      • Tony, you are talking about gun control “supporters.” Your statements are probably true for most of them.

        The statements above refer to the gun control “leadership.” There are those that are using the idea of “gun” control to solidify “control.”

        That is, they know the rank-and-file anti-“violence” person has an emotional response, and they exploit that. They manipulate statistics and outright lie. They are propagandists whose only real goal is empowering of the State while destruction of individual sovereignty.

  2. Not to be the wet blanket here, but do we have any idea where he gets his data, or what his methodology is? A conclusion without a justification is merely hot air, something that the antis have proven on numerous occasions.

    • He seems more than candid about his process. It would not surprise me if a little Google-Fu would result in the information you are seeking.

      Computer models can be tweaked, of course, to allow for “man-made global climate change”, etc., but if the technology and methodology is made public the results should be easily confirmed or discredited.

  3. Nick, i think you are wrong about one thing: the motives of anti-gunners. i don’t think they care about guns or saving lives. What they want is control. plain and simple. or so i think anyways.

  4. President Jeremy S. would have told all Americans that, especially with the Daesh threats to carry out attacks in the US, every citizen who can legally carry a concealed weapon in his/her state/city should do so as often as possible. I would encourage jurisdictions to lift restrictions on places where concealed carry is not currently allowed. We shouldn’t be filling stadiums and restaurants, malls, theaters, etc with defenseless, sitting ducks.

  5. One of the best ways to earn a Ph.D. is to demonstrate the irrefutable logic of common sense. The Paris attack went on for well over 2 hours. I guess I could have found that out but, until now, I didn’t know that. The truth that gun controllers can never really overcome is that had their been just one “good guy with a gun” in that place, things might well have been very different.

    But what if there had been 7 or 10 armed citizens there? This is the thing about constitutional carry. It’s the irrefutable revolutionary logic of the 2nd amendment which was conceived from the first to be a bedrock guarantee of the rights of common citizens to an armed defense. If we embrace the right for all citizens to be armed—whenever and however they choose—that is the point where the prey grows big fangs. Our revolutionary founders did not want themselves to be prey nor did they intend for us to be prey. As more private citizens begin carrying guns, terrorists and spree killers may start finding themselves outgunned by some seriously pissed-off “prey”.

  6. One study out of Purdue University is seeking to put some actual science behind the question of whether concealed carry or any armed defense would reduce the impact of a terrorist attack like the one in Paris. Their results: yes, guns would save lives.
    Which is why IUPUI is a weapons free campus.

  7. Adam Kirby, the study’s author, says persons in active shooter situations are shot every 20 seconds. I heard that the Paris police waited for SWAT outside the concert hall for 34 minutes without engaging the shooters themselves. The math: 34 minutes times every 20 seconds equals 102 victims shot.

    Truly unfortunate the Paris police never learned the engagement lessons of Columbine.

  8. Careful, they could “climate change” this in the peer review. Just plug in bogus variables until you get your “consensus,” based on models that never pan out. Like this: “hmmm… what if we put nothing but toddlers at the entrance?… Aha! The ice caps ARE melting! (now give us money)”

  9. Good information for anyone planning to, or forced to stick around during an active shooter event. Computer models can be useful.

    All the climate change horror is based on computer models.

    Still, the research does support the idea that armed civilians can be helpful during an attack. The downside is that we will need several more actual events to verify the model (that is, if the attack venues allow people to carry weapons and defend themselves). Might be something we can email around and share on social media. Could get attention outside our circles.

    • Comparing computer models that show climate change to a computer model for an active shooter at a school is like comparing herding a thousand rats to herding a dozen dogs: one has effectively infinitely more variables.

      Additionally, the climate modeling is done with poor-resolution models, whereas the active shooter model is high-resolution: the active shooter model counts every player and his/her actions, while the climate models deal with the players in aggregate, with literally quadrillions of players lumped together in order to make calculations possible.

      This, BTW, is why when increases in computer power allowed the size of the atmospheric “cells” in the model to be reduced from 100 miles on a side to ten miles on a side, the results shifted dramatically. When they got it down to five kilometers on a side, the results shifted again, and when they got it down to five kilometers on a side but only a kilometer thick, they shifted again.

      Only when computers can model the behavior of the atmosphere and oceans and all the objects intruding into them on the molecular level will the climate models be as high-resolution as the shooter model.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here