Gun Nuts Simulate Paris Shooting, Get Shot by Simulated Terrorists

[asher]

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

It's not really a study.

But that doesn't mean we should discount what happened, all the same.

I like how the guy talks about liking how he did and feeling like his chances went up, even though in every case, he did nothing and simply got killed...

 

[Eliguy666]

Vigilante justice and self defense are two different things.

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

"Self defense" is a concept that's been bastardized again and again. When what Zimmerman did can be considered self defense by a court, and it's him who the gun lobbies stand by, it's time to be ashamed of American gun culture.
And when did I reference the study?

 

[Explorer]

I've been thinking about this, and I'm wondering:

What makes this not a study?

It's poorly designed, stacked in favor of a certain conclusion, and it failed to support the hypothesis which the experimenters wanted to support.

But, it did come to a useful conclusion, and is an actual data point to be referred to.

There are plenty of studies which fall prey to the same problems, and you can find handfuls if you look at pseudoscientific medical studies. However, they are still studies, even if they share the same flaws as this one.

Why should this not be considered a study?

I have other thoughts, but would love to see a definitive answer to this before bringing them up.

Of course, that answer would have to show how this is different from all other bad studies, in order to justify saying it is "not a study at all," as opposed to "a poorly designed study" or "a falsified study."

I'm always hopeful to learn about tools for winnowing out how things might or might not fit certain definitions, so I'm looking forward to that clear "aha!" definition.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Because there's no control group. It's one-sided. To follow scientific method, one should conduct the experiments again without the civilians being armed and seeing how it turns out. (They probably didn't because they just assumed they'd all get shot, but science does not assume.)

I'll concede that it's one data point, but I'd rather see more from disparate groups.

And to my mind, there's no difference between a bad study and one that should be discounted. If you slant the results from the get-go -- even if it turns out in support of the contrary -- that just goes against proper scientific method. The proper response is, what did we do wrong, and how can we conduct the study more correctly next time.

"Self defense" is a concept that's been bastardized again and again. When what Zimmerman did can be considered self defense by a court, and it's him who the gun lobbies stand by, it's time to be ashamed of American gun culture.
And when did I reference the study?

2nd first -- that wasn't directed at you, that was directed at Explorer. Sorry for not being clear.

And: everyone hates Zimmerman, especially those in favor of the right to bear arms -- he gives gun-toters a bad name. He basically murdered and got away with it. That is, indeed, exactly what you describe as vigilante justice, and is a perfect example of why it's wrong. Referring back to the faux-scenario, I think that's pretty clearly an attempt at trying to set up the perfect self-defense scenario.

 

[cubix]

I shouldn't be commenting on this as I don't have much experience in this field (you could say guns are practically 'illegal' where I live) but even so I see a few things wrong with that "experiment". Mostly the fact that the fake terrorists knew someone would have a gun and they would've reacted differently in a real world scenario where they actually could get shot, and I don't think all terrorists are "professionals with a tactical training" ...

 

[asher]

Everyone hates Zimmerman, except he got off because of the Stand Your Ground law that the gun lobby/NRA wrote.

Can't you be cynical and call the control what actually happened in Paris?

 

[Shimme]

I've been thinking about this, and I'm wondering:

What makes this not a study?

It's poorly designed, stacked in favor of a certain conclusion, and it failed to support the hypothesis which the experimenters wanted to support.

But, it did come to a useful conclusion, and is an actual data point to be referred to.

Sure, it's a study, but it clearly isn't a scientific study. No control group, obviously skewed in multiple ways, the situation isn't similar to the actual situation (the shooters went after specific people and not the whole Charlie Hebdo).

Sure this is an amusing anecdote and might be a useful bit of evidence for arguing that guns don't make people safer, but by no means does this satisfy the conditions of being actual science.

Seriously, this is stunning that you seem to think that this could be considered science. Usefulness isn't the only criteria, and you should know that. A clamp is an obviously better way to hold down two planks of wood that you're nailing down than balancing them between your legs, but using a clamp in that scenario doesn't automagically™ turn that into science.

 

[Shimme]

Everyone hates Zimmerman, except he got off because of the Stand Your Ground law that the gun lobby/NRA wrote.

Can't you be cynical and call the control what actually happened in Paris?

They went looking for specific staff members and didn't simply gun down everyone in the office, while in this study they appeared to just start shooting. Not really the same situation.

 

[Shimme]

I don't think all terrorists are "professionals with a tactical training" ...

That might be the one thing that they got right, the Charlie Hebdo killers had actually gone out of the country to (ostensibly) get trained by terrorist groups.

 

[Explorer]

I'm also curious as to why the Hebdo offices can't be considered to be a case where all but one of the victims weren't armed. (I believe there was an armed officer who was killed, wasn't there? I thought the officer was there because there had been threats against Hebdo.

And in that case, the killers not only overcame their error in locating the offices (didn't they get lost initially?) but also the armed officer at the scene.

I don't consider it good science, because those setting it up were stacking the deck in favor of an armed defender. However, since they stacked the deck and still disproved their hypothesis, I think it's actually really good evidence that their hypothesis is incorrect.

----

I might have mentioned this before, but wasn't there a segment on 60 Minutes of 20/20 or some such show, after some college shooting, where they trained a group of of volunteer college students to respond to a a shooting with gunfire? After training them, they had them all in a hall to review the information, and someone came in with a rifle and simulated killing them all. The only ones who would have survived the situation which was simulated were those who ran away.

I couldn't remember what program had the segment, and couldn't find it. Does anyone else remember this and where it appeared?

----

I'm going to go out on a limb, and to say there isn't yet any support for the assertion that more armed civilians will help stop killers with guns, no matter how fervently the pro-gun lobby attempts to make the case. I think that the failure of the volunteers with foreknowledge in the recent Truth About Guns Unless The Truth Disproves Us thing is pretty spot on.

 

[Explorer]

BTW, if you want to make a case about these gun nuts not attempting this study, do it publicly. You can present your ideas better on the open forum rather than privately to me, and find out if your ideas are up to snuff.

C'mon. Take a chance that you're right. You might get some support.

You might also find out you were wrong, and learn from it.

It's a win-win.

 

[FILTHnFEAR]

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.

Yea, well hopefully you're never in a situation where some "kind of person who buys guns" can possibly save your life.

it's time to be ashamed of American gun culture.

I'm not ashamed of protecting myself with a gun, which I actually have done before, maybe you'd rather bend over and let some pos rob and kill you? Idk?

What makes this not a study?

It's half-ass circumstantial BS, and you know it is. Just because the end result was something that went along with your personal view, doesn't mean it's a scientific study to be used to "prove" anything.

Everyone hates Zimmerman, except he got off because of the Stand Your Ground law that the gun lobby/NRA wrote.

While I don't "hate" Zimmerman, I don't actually support his every action in that case. But aside from that, thank God for the Stand Your Ground law. As apposed to what? The "let the pos attack you while you do nothing about it" law that certain states propose? Sorry, .... that.

They went looking for specific staff members and didn't simply gun down everyone in the office, while in this study they appeared to just start shooting. Not really the same situation.

Good point.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Everyone hates Zimmerman, except he got off because of the Stand Your Ground law that the gun lobby/NRA wrote.

He got off because he perjured himself. And because he killed the only witness.

Now, I'm not saying there's a solution to that -- I certainly don't know one. But that's a problem with the system (the whole "prove guilty"/need evidence/witnesses thing) in general, not with gun laws in particular.

Re: "what happened in Paris" -- yeah, exactly, that's what I was alluding to when I said assume.

 

[Edika]

One thing I have to comment that rubs me the wrong way. Stop calling this an anecdote! Anecdote means something that hasn't been published/printed in some form and especially conforms to written word. This is not word of mouth, it is not something that has been published either but it is captured on film for the world to see.

Concerning the actual experiment the main conclusion is the expected one, that no matter how many armed untrained civilians you have it won't make a difference. It might have made a difference if more trained users, like police or military, were on the scene in two to three person groups scattered. The first group might have been taken by surprise with a 50-50 chance of stopping the terrorists but the second and third team would have taken care of them, if there weren't additional terrorist groups attacking the premises.

Knowing how to use a gun doesn't make you an action hero and the police and military professionals do constant drills to react instinctively in these high pressure and high stress situations.

Now there might have been some cases that armed civilians helped but then we do have the actual anecdotal cases were a friend of a friend of a friend held back a horde of villains with his 38 special.

Was this a scientific study? No. Was it a proof of concept though? Yes it was.

 

[asher]

While I don't "hate" Zimmerman, I don't actually support his every action in that case. But aside from that, thank God for the Stand Your Ground law. As apposed to what? The "let the pos attack you while you do nothing about it" law that certain states propose? Sorry, .... that..

More homicides are reported in states where you can ‘Stand Your Ground,’ report finds - The Washington Post

 

[bostjan]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a few "statements of the obvious."

1. Arming a person with a weapon does not make that person an effective fighter, or even necessarily increase that person's chances of survivng a fight.
2. Element of surprise or not, in a gun fight, people on both sides of the fight are likely to get shot.
3. A properly trained gunman will aim to take out armed threats first. Once all armed threats are neutralized, then he will attack the intended target.
4. It is easier to take a life than to protect a life.


Now, it should follow that having armed good guys near the unarmed victims will not cause more harm to the victims, since the null instance is that they are killed. If having an armed good guy stand next to them results in the victim and the armed good guy getting killed, then that is still a net negative, as it increases the number of victims.

What would have been the best way to rewrite history? I think to never have had these two shooters exist. The problem in fighting extremism like this is that if you kill them, they still see it as a win, since they die as martyrs. These guys are just the leaves, their networks are the branches, al queda is the tree tunk, but the real way to eliminate the problem is at the roots.

As far as politics are concerned, I don't see how it hurts me if my neighbor has a gun, unless he points it at me or someone I know. I really don't know what good having that gun will ever do him unless he uses it to hunt game, but that's not really my concern.

As far as science is concerned - I wouldn't dismiss the article, but I think it goes without saying that it has some severe limitations - but then it still teaches us something. It does have the hallmarks of a field experiment, but obviously it is not a root cause search, like a controlled experiment. Whatever, it is still an experimetn of sorts, but still has limited scope.

 

[FILTHnFEAR]

More homicides are reported in states where you can ‘Stand Your Ground,’ report finds - The Washington Post

You think that maybe a rise in homicides might have something to do with law abiding gun owners using deadly force to protect themselves? Justifiable homicides. What is that point of that article? That if someone approaches me on the street and attacks and robs me, I'm supposed to just say, "ok take my possessions and kick my ass" or worse? I might be that person that is dead and has increased the homicide rate. If that statistical rise is due to criminals being killed by people protecting themselves, GOOD! Someone shot and killed for breaking into another persons home or for trying to mug a person and on the other hand someone shot BY someone breaking into their home are not the same situation. And shouldn't be counted together. And it's disingenuous to try to lump them together and call it a statistic that proves that Stand Your Ground laws are wrong.

I understand where there can be cases where Stand Your Ground laws can be taken advantage of. But is, curl up in a ball, take your beating and hope for the best a better solution? Or have a brawl with your attacker instead of using a gun? Give me a break. Situations like the Zimmerman case aren't what I'm talking about either. Zimmerman followed that kid when he shouldn't have, was told not to, and got his ass kicked for it. Treyvon on the other hand attacked a guy with a gun, rebounded his head off the concrete and got shot for it. They both made the wrong decision.

I'm talking about unprovoked attacks like where I'm walking down the street or in my car at a stop light and someone attempts to rob/beat/car jack me.You have zero idea what the motivations/intents of a stranger are, who attacks you on the street or even worse enters your home. You really want to wait around to find out if they just want your money OR if they'd like to kill or severely hurt you as well?

There has been several cases of home invasions where the home owner(s) have killed one or more intruders, here in Indianapolis in the last few months alone. One just a couple weeks ago, IIRC. One case was a woman, another an old man who, if they didn't have those guns to protect themselves in their own home, who knows what the intruders might have done. Or if we had one of these ridiculous laws that other states have where you're going to do jail time for dropping some shitbag that broke into your home and attacked you. .... that.

Do you really want to tell me that I don't have the right to use deadly force with an intruder in my own home, or an assailant on the street? What other option is there? Run and hide? Beg? Tell them you sympathize with their financial/social plight that's led them to steal from you and hurt you to do so?

Stand Your Ground =

 

[lelandbowman3]

This was dumb. If you have a .45 and someone else has a rifle, rifle beats handgun. every single time. I don't care if you're pistol pete with a dead-eye dick aim with the james bond golden gun. You will lose. I'm an avid gun supporter, and as such, I realize that a typical open-carry/concealed carry gun is not going to stand a chance against someone with an auto/semi-auto rifle.

 

[narad]

So you're saying the civilians would need to be carrying auto/semi-auto rifles to stand a chance in this kind of situation? It follows that there's either no need to have civilians carrying guns at all, or they otherwise need to step it up and carry semi-auto weapons, which is pretty ridiculous to imagine.

 

[ghostred7]

This was dumb. If you have a .45 and someone else has a rifle, rifle beats handgun. every single time. I don't care if you're pistol pete with a dead-eye dick aim with the james bond golden gun. You will lose. I'm an avid gun supporter, and as such, I realize that a typical open-carry/concealed carry gun is not going to stand a chance against someone with an auto/semi-auto rifle.

Mostly...depends on distance though. Close quarters can yield different results...but ya, anything > 10' hg would "lose" unless person is a quick-draw. Inside that 10' it can really go either way.

So you're saying the civilians would need to be carrying auto/semi-auto rifles to stand a chance in this kind of situation? It follows that there's either no need to have civilians carrying guns at all, or they otherwise need to step it up and carry semi-auto weapons, which is pretty ridiculous to imagine.

I get what you're saying, but to clarify to the masses that may not get it... all firearms civilians buy are going to be semi-auto (unless they have they have permit to buy other....rare). Semi-auto means 1 trigger squeeze = 1 bullet. 3 round burst (M16A2 for example) may fall into this or be considered full/partial auto. I've never known what to classify those as lol.

I might have mentioned this before, but wasn't there a segment on 60 Minutes of 20/20 or some such show, after some college shooting, where they trained a group of of volunteer college students to respond to a a shooting with gunfire? After training them, they had them all in a hall to review the information, and someone came in with a rifle and simulated killing them all. The only ones who would have survived the situation which was simulated were those who ran away.

I couldn't remember what program had the segment, and couldn't find it. Does anyone else remember this and where it appeared?

I remember that study. I **think** it was 20/20 (right after Sandy Hook maybe?). The problem with using that scenario is that most of the in-class gun carriers were novice or completely untrained prior to the exercise. Their "training" was more or less a crash course and isn't representative of the amount of training most responsible firearm owners have. Most people I know go to the range more than the police force. I would trust the accuracy of the random joe-blow at the range over the police force due to constant training. College students that have had < 1wk (being very bold with the estimate, can't remember how much training received prior to the exercise) stand very little chance in this scenario as was proven. I maintain that I do not think it is representative of anything other than a miniscule population of firearm owners.