Gun Nuts Simulate Paris Shooting, Get Shot by Simulated Terrorists

[asher]

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.

I think, given all the stuff that we see and hear, as well as the statistics of accidents, that undertrained and/or irresponsible firearm owners are more common than any of us would like, and certainly not minuscule.

 

[pink freud]

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.

If we use "study" to be synonymous with "experiment" then this doesn't meet some basic standards. If we use "study" to be "we did a thing and this is the result" then sure, it's a study.

 

[ghostred7]

I think, given all the stuff that we see and hear, as well as the statistics of accidents, that undertrained and/or irresponsible firearm owners are more common than any of us would like, and certainly not minuscule.

Miniscule if you were to compare the # of accidents vs. the # of people that actually carry/own. Like with stuff at my job: I have servers that have to operate @ "5 9s"...meaning that they have to be 99.999% uptime/successful. To get these #s we'd take the total and do the percentage math against failed. Using this logic, if there are 1,000,000 LEGAL firearm owners, then there'd have to be 10 accidental shootings per 1M people to stay w/in that parameter. The US population is > 300M. At 25% ownership, that'd have to be > 700 accidental shootings per year. To me, that's miniscule in the grand scheme (disclaimer: still too many. there should be NO negligent firearm issues) by my personal definitions. Note, this is only addressing legal firearm ownership and arbitrary percentages b/c I dunno what the percentage of ownership is.

It does sadden me though. As a firearm owner, it is your RESPONSIBILITY to train to maximum efficiency. If one does not, then one is potentially susceptible to causing collateral damage.

 

[Mordacain]

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

I wouldn't say it confirms jack shit. I'd say it suggests that one needs proper tactical training to even stand a chance while it strongly suggests that your average armed citizen with no true tactical / military training is largely ineffectual in an armed attack involving multiple assailants.

It's obviously not a true scientific study, but it doesn't really need to be to suggest findings. They had a fairly large sample set and the results were statistically significant across repetition.

 

[AxeHappy]

Funny how, "...confirms..." turned into, "...suggests..." really quickly there.

It does indeed suggest things. But it confirms *nothing*.

 

[narad]

It does sadden me though. As a firearm owner, it is your RESPONSIBILITY to train to maximum efficiency. If one does not, then one is potentially susceptible to causing collateral damage.

This is part of the problem from my perspective: as long as you have a gun you always have the potential to cause collateral damage. The way you phrase it there's this implicit notion of a guarantee - that your training prevents you from harming bystanders, let alone actually react in a beneficial way when you find yourself in a deadly scenario.

Now, if you go off to war and come back then I'm entirely convinced you know how to handle your weapon. But as far as the usual backyard training drills and shooting range experience that covers a large portion of the gun-owning population, this is always going to pale in comparison to a real threat encounter.

 

[Mordacain]

Funny how, "...confirms..." turned into, "...suggests..." really quickly there.

It does indeed suggest things. But it confirms *nothing*.

That was indeed my point. However, strongly suggesting that relatively untrained civilians would be largely ineffectual against armed assailants is enough to refute the certainty that many gun advocate groups espouse that an armed civilian presence would prevent scenarios like this from happening.

To wit: I personally know many people that carry concealed weapons (legally) and they train routinely in the use of said weapons. However, none of them receive any tactical / military training for fighting in an urban environment against an armed force. I feel that sort of training is the difference and yet few gun advocate groups ever suggest that.

 

[AnP Hardcore]

This is just dumb! Why do people even need guns? People say they needs guns to protect themselves. Protect themselves from what? If other your neighbor didn't have a gun, you wouldn't feel the need for a gun. People are afraid of criminals with guns, so what do you do, you just give these guys guns??? They aren't any better than the guy next to them with a gun. America should put stricter guns laws so I don't have to know that there's a school shooting every f*cking day. Some Americans think that, to counter gun related violence, you have to have more guns. It's just dumb and hypocrite.

Back to the problem though. The problem is not having terrorist with guns, it's having terrorist. You have to trace back the root of the problem. The problem is not having guns in Europe (They're almost existent due to strict gun laws), the problem is having people leave to fight in Syria and then come back and commit terrorist acts. We have to stop radicalism. Don't blame this on the guns since our gun laws work just fine, blame it on radicalism.

 

[Konfyouzd]

Funny...

But the point is...?

 

[ThatCanadianGuy]

We all know the best possibility would have been everyone armed with cuddly, fluffy bunnies that shit rainbows and eat four-leafed clovers, but armed people came into a building and held people hostage.

There's nothing funny about anything to do with this situation whatsoever. This also doesn't prove anything, but I'm shocked to hear how many people think only the terrorists having guns is a good thing. Ultimately, the terrorists found a way, and literally met zero resistance.

This study "proves" good people shouldn't have firearms in the same way that the fact the attack didn't happen in Switzerland "proves" everyone should be forced to carry a gun.

 

[pink freud]

This is part of the problem from my perspective: as long as you have a gun you always have the potential to cause collateral damage. The way you phrase it there's this implicit notion of a guarantee - that your training prevents you from harming bystanders, let alone actually react in a beneficial way when you find yourself in a deadly scenario.

Now, if you go off to war and come back then I'm entirely convinced you know how to handle your weapon. But as far as the usual backyard training drills and shooting range experience that covers a large portion of the gun-owning population, this is always going to pale in comparison to a real threat encounter.

My problem with gun-ownership is this:

If you have a firearm because you want to fight off robbers then you are more likely to provide robbers with a firearm stolen when you aren't home than you are to use it fighting off said robbers.

 

[ThatCanadianGuy]

My problem with gun-ownership is this:

If you have a firearm because you want to fight off robbers then you are more likely to provide robbers with a firearm stolen when you aren't home than you are to use it fighting off said robbers.

But gun owners don't tell you where they live, while leftists apparently have no problem releasing that info.

 

[pink freud]

But gun owners don't tell you where they live, while leftists apparently have no problem releasing that info.

Which has no impact on my statement, how fascinating.

 

[ghostred7]

This is part of the problem from my perspective: as long as you have a gun you always have the potential to cause collateral damage. The way you phrase it there's this implicit notion of a guarantee - that your training prevents you from harming bystanders, let alone actually react in a beneficial way when you find yourself in a deadly scenario.

Now, if you go off to war and come back then I'm entirely convinced you know how to handle your weapon. But as far as the usual backyard training drills and shooting range experience that covers a large portion of the gun-owning population, this is always going to pale in comparison to a real threat encounter.

OK, so higher chances of causing it.

As for the "usual backyard training/range experience" ....what I'm talking is training often taught at ranges. Like I said earlier in the thread, there are threat-based scenario training often offered at many ranges. This includes firing from under cover, night firing, home invasion training, etc. I agree that no training will completely train you for the real thing, but it can certainly help you.

Your "go off to war and come back" statement outlines your lack of military knowledge. Believe it or not, it's really a very small percentage of those deployed to combat theaters that do any actual firearm combat and I'll still maintain that a vast majority of private firearm users have had more experience and in a lot of cases more training than even those that have been deployed. Not everyone is Infantry or ground Cav. That being said...most combat our troops get in isn't happening inside small hallways of a friendly domicile...they're going in there as a hostile environment. It's really not comparing apples to apples here. Being deployed in a hostile environment places you in a higher situational awareness state to begin with. I honestly wish they'd take soldiers to the range more, same with LEOs. Bi-annual qualification isn't gonna do much for improving accuracy.

This is just dumb! Why do people even need guns? People say they needs guns to protect themselves. Protect themselves from what? If other your neighbor didn't have a gun, you wouldn't feel the need for a gun. People are afraid of criminals with guns, so what do you do, you just give these guys guns??? They aren't any better than the guy next to them with a gun. America should put stricter guns laws so I don't have to know that there's a school shooting every f*cking day. Some Americans think that, to counter gun related violence, you have to have more guns. It's just dumb and hypocrite.

Back to the problem though. The problem is not having terrorist with guns, it's having terrorist. You have to trace back the root of the problem. The problem is not having guns in Europe (They're almost existent due to strict gun laws), the problem is having people leave to fight in Syria and then come back and commit terrorist acts. We have to stop radicalism. Don't blame this on the guns since our gun laws work just fine, blame it on radicalism.

School shooting every day? Really? Is that how slanted the media is over there?

Stricter gun laws? Worked well for Paris didn't it? Chicago, IL, US has some of the strictest laws in the country and didn't help their gun violence. Guess what....criminals don't follow the law. Stricter laws isn't going to do anything with criminals doing what they do. If they couldn't get it in the US, it'd come from black market arms dealers. Yes, they do exist and with the right amount of $$$ you can get whatever you want.

My problem with gun-ownership is this:

If you have a firearm because you want to fight off robbers then you are more likely to provide robbers with a firearm stolen when you aren't home than you are to use it fighting off said robbers.

Don't know how you use your firearm, but most people I know that have a firearm take it with them instead of just leaving it laying around the house when they're not home. Most people that buy a firearm to "fight off robbers" is going to be a handgun that also doubles as a carry weapon. Sure, there are some that don't carry/use outside of their home. If not there, they should lock them up. It's not like most petty criminals are going to be carrying around acetaline (sp?) torches lol. Mine pretty much is a "where I go, it goes" thing so zero likelihood of it being taken in a robbery that happens when i'm not home.

 

[1b4n3z]

Stricter gun laws? Worked well for Paris didn't it? Chicago, IL, US has some of the strictest laws in the country and didn't help their gun violence. Guess what....criminals don't follow the law. Stricter laws isn't going to do anything with criminals doing what they do. If they couldn't get it in the US, it'd come from black market arms dealers. Yes, they do exist and with the right amount of $$$ you can get whatever you want.

Well you could argue that it would have not made any difference if everyone inside the building was packing. Those were trained guys who assaulted and took the office by surprise.

And with a lot of guns around the price for one is small. Probably anyone could get one cheap legally or not. With few guns around the price for a gun rises quite a bit - only those who "need" one would acquire one. Professionals, yeah, but maybe not broke wannabe thugs.
So the right amount of $$$ is very small in the US - due to excess supply, high around here.

Definitely strict gun laws doesn't rectify the situation perfectly, but violent crime is down quite a bit in the US, I gather? I mean the trend specifically. A different social policy would be in order to reduce it further I suppose. Gun related deaths are rising though, probably due to accidents. States with Weak Gun Laws and Higher Gun Ownership Lead Nation in Gun Deaths, New Data for 2013 Confirms (1/29/2015)

 

[Eliguy666]

Stricter gun laws? Worked well for Paris didn't it?

Actually, according to this, absolutely.
List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Grief]

Actually, according to this, absolutely.
List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although you can get guns in France:

Overview of gun laws by nation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The wiki tells us up to 12 guns and 1000 rounds per gun. Pistol, rifle, shotgun and semi-auto

But I woud say the Charlie Hebdo attack is not a very useful example of much else because of the type of attack. "Terrorism" doesn't fully explain it in my view. A better term might be "Politically-motivated assassination." They would likely have faced planned attack in one form or another at some point and their attackers would plan accordingly. So if shooting them at close quarters wasn't an option they might have been bombed, gassed, poisoned or attacked in some other way. Most of us don't face attack from multiple highly-trained, well-equipped assailants.