Gun Nuts Simulate Paris Shooting, Get Shot by Simulated Terrorists

[asher]

Gun Nuts Simulate Paris Shooting, Get Shot By Simulated Terrorists

 

[AxeHappy]

Too outstanding.

It doesn't really prove anything either way to be fair, but it is hilarious.

 

[Alex Kenivel]

Also worth pointing out that, by nature of the "training experiment," the participants knew the shooters were coming. They still couldn't be successful good guys with guns even when the element of surprise was removed.

 

[Explorer]

Too outstanding.

It doesn't really prove anything either way to be fair, but it is hilarious.

Also worth pointing out that, by nature of the "training experiment," the participants knew the shooters were coming. They still couldn't be successful good guys with guns even when the element of surprise was removed.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree with that assessment from the comments of the original link: The gun nuts set out to prove that someone with a gun could have made a difference.

And they disproved their hypothesis, even when they skewed the volunteer pool towards those who were really invested in proving it. They even eliminated the element of surprise, as a little deck stacking could only help, right? But it didn't.

And now the results will enter the realm of all empirical results which violate someone else's fundamentalist beliefs. A fundamentalist belief means you stop questioning, and have to explain away actual facts which show you're wrong.

Let the apologetics begin!

Couldn't rep Asher because I've repped him too recently, but this was worth hitting the Thanks button, for bringing yet another example of denialism on the part of American extremists to my attention.

This topic made me laugh. Rep to all involved so far!

 

[AxeHappy]

It's hardly a properly controlled scientific experiment or analysis, ergo nothing empirical is proved. And it should certainly *not* be sourced as if it was.

This falls squarely into the realm of anecdotal evidence.

Also, good guy (not plural) with gun. Only one "good guy" had a guy at a time during this grand standing.

I will state that if proper experimentation was to be performed, I don't see the results being much different but let's not engage in the same kind of behaviour that we always accuse the other side of engaging in and pretend that unscientific evidence is valid.

 

[Explorer]

In further reading the links from the article, I like how the groups who complained about Monday-morning quarterbacking and who wanted to show how the situation would work with real American gun-ho gun toters, now they're engaged in Monday-morning quarterbacking.

As they argue that the solution would have been even more armed citizens to fight, they ask what would happen if someone with a gun saw someone else killed by someone with a gun, arguing for the psychological aspects helping slow such an armed person down.

Oh, sorry! The psychological deterrent is clearly that it's a GGWAG (good guy with a gun), and so that removes this from a general question, and moves it all onto the bad guys with a gun.

Even though the Hebdo shooters were good guys when using their justifications for the blasphemy killers.

Do these gun nuts smell what they're shoveling?

There's also argument that in the absence of body armor, there is a psychological suppressive effect on such an unarmored gun user, but (from the way it's being argued) apparently only if that person is a bad guy in the eyes of the gun rights people.

This is amazing. It's a little window into a whole new world of unsupported denialism which I had no idea existed.

 

[Explorer]

It's not an anecdote, as far as I know.

I thought it was actually documented what happened, as opposed to just a story.

Did I read the articles correctly, both pro-gun and independent?

 

[AxeHappy]

Oh .... off man, you know this was not a properly performed scientific study. It's not even pretending to be such.

Treat this as amusing example of how stupid gun nuts are and move on if with your life.

 

[Explorer]

The folks at The Truth About Guns had a theory, and wanted to prove it correct through this study.

Once again, the champions of civilian disarmament reckon armed defenders are surplus to requirements. We need your help to prove them wrong . . .

...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... to make it happen.

...If you’d like to show the antis the error of their ways (presuming), please send your (information).

They had a hypothesis, in which they had confidence: If there had been someone armed to oppose the Hebdo killers, there would have been a different result. That's why they

If the gun toters had been successful, then one could argue that the lack of surprise inflated the positive results. and then do more to control for that.

Instead, they stacked things in favor of the gun toters, and still failed. Hypothesis refuted.

And they even got the media involved to demonstrate how wrong the viewpoint/hypothesis the gun folks attribute to the "antis" is.

From the point of view of those who set it up, they definitely were out to prove or disprove their hypothesis.

 

[Eliguy666]

The kind of people who believe in vigilante justice are both the kind of people who buy guns and the kind of people who should, under no circumstances, be seen as fit gun owners.

 

[AxeHappy]

The folks at The Truth About Guns had a theory, and wanted to prove it correct through this study.



They had a hypothesis, in which they had confidence: If there had been someone armed to oppose the Hebdo killers, there would have been a different result. That's why they

If the gun toters had been successful, then one could argue that the lack of surprise inflated the positive results. and then do more to control for that.

Instead, they stacked things in favor of the gun toters, and still failed. Hypothesis refuted.

And they even got the media involved to demonstrate how wrong the viewpoint/hypothesis the gun folks attribute to the "antis" is.

From the point of view of those who set it up, they definitely were out to prove or disprove their hypothesis.

And yet...they did not setup a proper scientific study.

Seriously, stop it. You're doing *exactly* what you are always bagging on other groups/organisations/people for doing.

Just because they *tried* to do something doesn't mean they did. This could not have been less scientific if they tried. Well...I mean...it could I suppose, but it is certainly not even remotely scientific in any way.

Simply, "performing," an, "experiment," is not what it takes to be scientific. You should know this.

Moreoever, even if this was a completely properly performed scientific experiment, it still wouldn't prove .... all as it hadn't been peer reviewed and repeated.

So, again, seriously, .... off.


Also again,

I am completely for gun control and this attempt to prove that guns would have improved anything failing horribly in the most spectacular way amuses me greatly.

It's just not science.

 

[TRENCHLORD]

I sure like my chances with a gun better than my chances without a gun in a situation where the bad guys have guns,
and I sure don't need some goofy study to confirm or deny such .

 

[flint757]

I find it interesting that they feel the solution to their failure is more people with guns. Acts of violence tend to be a surprise and on top of that this isn't counterstrike where the bad guys look like bad guys and the good guys like good guys. If someone was gung-ho to shoot someone in a dangerous situation and a legal gun owner even successfully popped the bad guy the only thing more people with guns is going to do is potentially get the guy who 'helped' shot.

 

[Necris]

Were this to be made into a proper experiment and the results repeated time and time again even with ideal conditions for the "good guy with a gun" then it would be something of a bombshell.

As it stands it's an amusing story for those like me who believe that the idea that "one good guy with a gun", or more specifically an untrained civilian, could change the outcome of a terrorist attack is deep in the realm of dangerous fantasy.

 

[7stg]

It's better to have a gun than not, but this situation is very difficult to survive, especially if no warning, even if an attack is known to be coming. The attackers come in at the ready and begin shooting. 2 hits per second per shooter is reasonable if they reasonably aim and they may just start blasting at those around the table. If those in the meeting are sitting there having a meeting they will likely be dead before they realize what is going on.

 

[flint757]

Were this to be made into a proper experiment and the results repeated time and time again even with ideal conditions for the "good guy with a gun" then it would be something of a bombshell.

As it stands it's an amusing story for those like me who believe that the idea that "one good guy with a gun", or more specifically an untrained civilian, could change the outcome of a terrorist attack is deep in the realm of dangerous fantasy.

Untrained is the key word. You need very little training to get a CHL. I haven't got a problem in the world with someone trained helping, but that isn't most gun owners. There's a reason we have a police force and military (even if it doesn't always go as expected). They're trained and easily identifiable as to avoid adding to the chaos. Granted the police seem to be on a down hill trend lately, but that only means we need to reform the system, not arm every citizen.

 

[FILTHnFEAR]

I sure like my chances with a gun better than my chances without a gun in a situation where the bad guys have guns,
and I sure don't need some goofy study to confirm or deny such .

This BS study confirms jack shit. But, people can pretend that it does if they want.

 

[Hollowway]

Well, my opinions on this (as with a huge number of things) are all over the board. I'm into vigilante justice. But my reasoning is that that's what superheroes do, so it's a little dicey. I also think that I would rather have a gun on me if I were confronted by someone with one. But I also would worry if someone else had a gun on them for similar reasons, and either got drunk, or misjudged a situation and shot an innocent person, etc.

Obviously this "study" wasn't done very well, because they didn't provr the point they set out to prove, nor did they control it well enough for it to be valid. But it WOULD be cool to do an actual study and see what happens. Has that ever been done? Has anyone ever run a study showing whether a crime could be stopped by a person with a gun?

 

[flint757]

I know a lot of the cases where a civilian stopped a violent crime using a gun usually end up being ex-military/police or off duty military/police. In other words people who have training for such things.

A study honestly wouldn't be possible because the requirements to attain a weapon in a lot of states are practically non-existent and the requirements to carry one with you aren't particularly thorough. This means you have a wide spectrum of licensed to carry gun owners and even more people with guns in their possession. So in any given situation you may or may not have some one who has the skill set to handle the situation and likely you'll have someone there who doesn't in fact know what they're really doing at all.

I'll agree that if I were being directly confronted by someone threatening me with a weapon I'd much rather have one as well, but under the type of scenarios that are much bigger than that, the situation is just too big for an untrained person to really grasp likely leading to more casualties rather than the hero status they were likely looking for.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

... vigilante justice ...

Vigilante justice and self defense are two different things.

And failing to prove one thing, does not mean one has proven the opposite.