terrorist attack vs. armed citezenry simulation....

[Koda]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-te...-by-gun-group/
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/texas-gun-group-simulates-paris-shooting-3/

Recently a group called The Truth about Guns did a simulation of the Paris terrorist attack except where random staff were armed to see what effect and armed citizenry would have on such an event.

The results of their efforts, by their own admission were less than impressive where after many attempts only 2 times resulted with only 1 of the attackers being "killed". From 12 volunteers only 1 survived by running away.

my first thought was... so much for the rifle behind every blade of grass. But thinking about this realistically the simulation is far from complete based only on the vague information in the article I'm assuming only 12 attempts with random volunteers of various training and skill.


Question: what can armed American civilians do collectively to better prepare to defeat such an attack or is it unrealistic to think so?

Please note: this question is NOT a "what would you do" scenario. This is about: is it realistic to think that an armed citizenry can be effective against random terrorist attacks and if so how? Please do not post what you would have done if you were armed in the scenario or the Paris attack.

Read More

 

[Just Jim]

How did it work out for those that didn't have guns in Paris? At least here we have a choice...for now.

 

[Koda]

My thoughts:

Im thinking that it is possible that an armed citizenry would have an impact on terrorist events... but its complicated.
First, we'd have to reverse much of the current hostile political environment towards guns in America... and really that ain't happening. Because of this, its not as likely that in most any given office environment even one employee will be armed. That said, IMO it would only take 1 or 2 of these type of attacks for many people to say screw politics, Im pakin. Even many of the folks that otherwise support more gun control would hypocritically start exercising their rights.

Second. For an armed citizenry to have any impact more and more concealed carriers are going to need to get more training plus maintain a level of proficiency through regular practice.
training like this:

 

[Joe13]

Pssh... I'm armed with cans of corn and peas! Just try anything while I'm around


Seriously though, everyone should be required to own a gun. If they choose to use it or not is up to them.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Lmao..yes try that with a room full of guys from this forum and see how far those terrorists get via small arms.

I love these "scenarios" with random clueless and untrained individuals. Whata joke.

 

[blackadder]

Regardless of the outcome for me, if I can gain cover and return fire, it's going to give myself and others a chance to survive. That's all I ask for, the option to defend myself with an effective tool.

 

[bakersman345]

The first time I read a negative story about it on some liberal site, then I got ot from the horses mouth. The bad guys were highly trained where as the people in the office were not. The face masked got foggy, and people didn't stop shooting when they were hot multiple times. In reality the protector would hopefully have more training or a few more guys packing heat.
We all are in agreement that more guns is good use the weapon as cover fire move to safety.

 

[The Heretic]

It doesn't matter whether it is effective or not - every person has the right - the NATURAL right (some would say "God given" right), to own and possess firearms for your protection against "terrorists" whether they be the the kind that were in Paris, or the governmental kind (Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Janet Reno, et. al.).

I don't need to justify my rights to anyone as something that is effective, or wise, or preferable by society. As long as I do not harm someone else in my exercise of my rights, I can do things that are stupid, unwise, ineffective or wasteful. I can even harm myself - it is my body, my life - no one else owns me. As long as I am a mentally competent adult, and I do not harm others (directly or indirectly), then what I do (including who I marry, what I smoke or drink or eat, what I say or write, what I look at) or own is nobody else's business.

I don't need a study, or simulation, or approval to own a firearm - or any other weapon for that matter - it is my natural right.

 

[Koda]

Heretic, I 100% agree with what you said but my question wasnt about justifying our right or about rights the question is about what can we do to be more effective in that situation.

 

[Koda]

The first time I read a negative story about it on some liberal site, then I got ot from the horses mouth. The bad guys were highly trained where as the people in the office were not. The face masked got foggy, and people didn't stop shooting when they were hot multiple times. In reality the protector would hopefully have more training or a few more guys packing heat.
We all are in agreement that more guns is good use the weapon as cover fire move to safety.

agree, Hopefully as more Americans get CCW permits more will take the time to train or practice.

 

[The Heretic]

Heretic, I 100% agree with what you said but my question wasnt about justifying our right or about rights the question is about what can we do to be more effective in that situation.

Considering I am more likely to get hit by lightning than be attacked by a terrorist, I don't worry about being effective in that situation.

A lot of it is about context. Terrorists know places like France are a soft target. The US is not.

 

[Koda]

Considering I am more likely to get hit by lightning than be attacked by a terrorist, I don't worry about being effective in that situation.

A lot of it is about context. Terrorists know places like France are a soft target. The US is not.

true, but I don't think its unrealistic to think that it wont happen here even in the near future. Were just simply much farther away from where the terrorists call home than Europe is...

 

[CoastRange57]

Heretic, I 100% agree with what you said but my question wasnt about justifying our right or about rights the question is about what can we do to be more effective in that situation.

I do not think that situation is any different from a bazillion other scenarios you could encounter. You need to be prepared for reactions on a number of different levels. Trying to replicate every situation in a training scenario is not going to happen. Being able to apply different reactions in different scenarios based upon baseline training and making that decision in miliseconds is what counts.

There are some scenarios relating to that that shows what you could do with a long gun in that situation. Well duh....you will have different decisions if you have your fully equipped AR in your hands versus your carry pistol. In your office, it is probably your carry pistol, and I do not want to engage with that at the ranges and angles shown. Sometimes non engagement and fleeing is the best option, but if not, then engaging in the most effective manner is the choice.

 

[MikeE]

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

1. These are not random terrorist attacks. They are acts of asymetrical warfare.
2. The goal is to control the ground and resources in the Middle East and Africa, overthrowing existing regimes there. Most of the terror is happening there (on all sides).
3. Mass murder and atrocities are used as a force-multiplier against the armies of the states of Iraq and Syria, and their allies.
4. Terror attacks in the west are designed to create an anti- Islamic backlash in the west and drive some of the mostly secular muslim populations towards the jihadis.
5. The western powers can project force into the middle east. Terror attacks are how the jihadis project force into the west.
6. The so-called Islamic ideology that jihadis espouse is just a way to gather cannon fodder. The people running ISIS care about it as much as Hitler cared about ancient Germanic Gods, or Stalin cared about 'world socialism' - i.e. not very much.

 

[Riot]

Avoiding being a victim has a lot more to do with being a "Hard Target" than it does being armed...a locked door, for example, can provide much more protection against an outside attack against an armed assailant...HOWEVER, once that armed assailant is in your perimeter the only thing that will stop them is an armed response.

Take Elliot Rodger for example...


This little mouth breather tried to shoot up a sorority house after stabbing his roomies to death...but one locked door thwarted his efforts and he was forced to shoot and run over random people.

If he would have tied a chain to his car bumper and the sorority door- pulled it open then continued then all the door would have provided was a delay to his plan...sometimes, however, that's all we can do to these types of attacks...delay them. But these delays give us an advance notice to respond. If you lock and bolt your door...when it gets smashed in you better have a gun out and ready to respond.

Sometimes it is better to run...but sometimes you just end up with bullets in your back. There were survivors in the Paris attack, but they had to run to the roof and hide.

So in conclusion...

Be a hard target...put impliments in place (locked doors and gates) and have an evacuation plan. Then practice it! This will save you...not a gun...a gun is just a tool and it doesn't do you any good when you don't give yourself enough time to use it.

 

[Riot]

Surprise, Speed and Violence of Action...that's what you need to win a gunfight.

Paris terrorists (and most active shooters) have all three...you have to disrupt one, or more, to win and turn the tide in your favor. This is one of the main reasons why I will never be for open carry (because you take away the surprise element and identify yourself as a threat immediately).

Putting in barriers (locked doors/gates) reduces an attacker's Speed and Surprise...running away instead of fighting takes away your Violence of Action. Hell, an argument could be made that it's best to keep a fake blood pouch on you and play dead than it does to run or fight an attacker...but I would never advocate that!

What people need to inheret from all these attacks is a mindset that refuses to be a victim. Just because your work doesn't allow you to have a gun or a knife or pepper spray doesn't mean you have to pack yourself in and accept that if someone came in your job sight with a gun that you're going to die...I'm not saying that the Paris comic writters accepted death, but I am going to say that if they were going to poke at the tiger, they better be wearing gloves!

 

[The Heretic]

Most workplaces prohibit possession of "weapons", especially firearms. Possessing firearms on the premises is usually will not only result in you being terminated without notice, but also quite possibly being blacklisted with other potential employers. My employer is no different.

It would take me several minutes just to get to my vehicle, which is hundreds of yards away from my workplace.

An active shooter in my workplace means I would not be able to respond armed.

 

[Joe13]

Most workplaces prohibit possession of "weapons", especially firearms. Possessing firearms on the premises is usually will not only result in you being terminated without notice, but also quite possibly being blacklisted with other potential employers. My employer is no different.

It would take me several minutes just to get to my vehicle, which is hundreds of yards away from my workplace.

An active shooter in my workplace means I would not be able to respond armed.

Yea, it was that way at my last job.

However, I valued my life more then my job so I still carried - I just never told anyone about it.

I still think everyone should have to carry a gun at all times

 

[Koda]

Most workplaces prohibit possession of "weapons", especially firearms. Possessing firearms on the premises is usually will not only result in you being terminated without notice, but also quite possibly being blacklisted with other potential employers. My employer is no different.

It would take me several minutes just to get to my vehicle, which is hundreds of yards away from my workplace.

An active shooter in my workplace means I would not be able to respond armed.

First, we'd have to reverse much of the current hostile political environment towards guns in America... and really that ain't happening. Because of this, its not as likely that in most any given office environment even one employee will be armed. That said, IMO it would only take 1 or 2 of these type of attacks for many people to say screw politics, Im pakin. Even many of the folks that otherwise support more gun control would hypocritically start exercising their rights.

the reality is I don't think the political situation is going to change anytime soon.

 

[Just Jim]

It doesn't matter whether it is effective or not - every person has the right - the NATURAL right (some would say "God given" right), to own and possess firearms for your protection against "terrorists" whether they be the the kind that were in Paris, or the governmental kind (Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Janet Reno, et. al.).

I don't need to justify my rights to anyone as something that is effective, or wise, or preferable by society. As long as I do not harm someone else in my exercise of my rights, I can do things that are stupid, unwise, ineffective or wasteful. I can even harm myself - it is my body, my life - no one else owns me. As long as I am a mentally competent adult, and I do not harm others (directly or indirectly), then what I do (including who I marry, what I smoke or drink or eat, what I say or write, what I look at) or own is nobody else's business.

I don't need a study, or simulation, or approval to own a firearm - or any other weapon for that matter - it is my natural right.

Aaaaaaàaamen