Paris Simulation vs Armed Civilians

[fredj338]

TTAG is a hard left group? Are you kidding or serious?

More harsh rant than anything else. They act like it portraying that ridiculous sim. I know they try to be straight talkers but that isn't helping anyone but the antis argument. They portray it as a posetive, but the news & antis took the poor results & spun it as a neg gun issue. They should know better, but I suppose there was a point.

 

[Fastbolt]

Some good observations and comments.

Having a gun may only mean you die with one. Maybe having been able to draw and effectively use it before being overwhelmed by superior numbers and weapons ... but then maybe without having been able to even have had the time to draw it. No guarantees in life.

Running simulation scenarios can create a wide range of possible circumstances, and there should be a purpose behind their creation. It's counter-productive to only 'teach' no-win scenarios, but that certainly doesn't mean 'win' scenarios are necessarily anything approaching 'easy' to accomplish, nor even likely, especially if you're under-gunned, out-numbered and caught in worst-case conditions.

It's certainly not uncommon for even highly skilled LE (operating as both individuals & small teams), participating in scenario simulations where they're making an 'entry' in an enclosed environment, where somebody(ies) may be inside and is aware of their approach, and usually better familiar with their environment, to 'lose' when someone is waiting in ambush and 'kills' the LE coming to them.

Remember, movement attracts the eye, and stillness can sometimes let someone new to the situation miss a still object (person) during a rushed entry & 'scan' of a room, area, etc.

Action often beats reaction, too. (But if both occur close to simultaneously, a 'dead draw' may result. Remember that 'no guarantees' thing?)

Such scenario training can be used to teach even skilled and experienced cops how vulnerable they may be, even to a lone subject intent on ambushing them, as the cops advance into any areas where the ambusher(s) may be waiting. Not knowing how many ambushers may be present is another problem. (Why do you think dynamic entries and distraction devices may be effective tactics?)

Now, training to develop a solid foundation in a handgun skillset, combined with an understanding of tactics and some practice in using them (and how different situations can affect their implementation and desirability) ... and learning to cultivate an optimal mindset and awareness of your environment (who's around you, and what/who - especially innocent third persons - may be 'downrange' at any given moment?) ... are probably better goals and practices than the lack of them.

No definitive answers. Not that I have to offer, anyway. Harder to hope for the best if your 'acceptable' skillset (to you) isn't as optimal as possible for you to develop, though.

Kind of like only developing the driving skills to handle normal, daily non-emergency driving chores ... and then one day/night, when you find yourself in an unexpected emergency situation, your 'normal driving skills' and reactions may not be up to the task of saving you, or others, from serious injury or death.

Things to think about, maybe?

 

[Duelist]

Having a gun doesn't guarantee that you win, it just means you get to play.

I'll take a Pyhric "victory" over waiting for my turn to be shot or beheaded any day.

 

[Shorty 45 MK2]

I have no delusions of grandeur about me and my CCW (even my full size pistol) taking on several terrorist armed with rifles Hollywood style, but I'd like to at least have the sporting chance of trying to stop them verses cowering in a corner hoping they will run out of ammo before they get to me.

I hope that none of us never have to find out how we'd react to that situation or any situation where we have to use deadly force, but if you are in such a situation I hope we do as Ed Lovette says in one of his books "create a bit of hell in a small space." and show them that this is the worst choice they made.

 

[badge]

As someone previously mentioned, the Israelis have done an admirable job protecting themselves by carrying firearms. Me personally, I'd prefer to have one and take my chances as opposed to letting some terrorist murder me. That's just me,........ CBS,.... yeah, their unbiased.

 

[wheelyfun66]

I don't carry a gun to defend against mass shootings......
But I do train hard for more common scenarios....

 

[walkin' trails]

It sounded to me from the article that none of the victim role players had any background or training in armed self defense, and that certainly ensured the outcome of the test. Likely no one had more than a parking permit... The French tragedy shows what can happen when people do not take measures to protect themselves. One of the first rules at the top of a number of preparation lists going around is to have a plan. That tradegy has happened here in the US when home grown garbage targeted places least likely for anyone to offer armed resistance. And for LE, the French tragedy shows the importance of good personal and team tactics and gun handling/marksmanship skills. If you're going to carry a handgun, make sure you have the mental preparedness and skill to use it to make the best of a horrible situation.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

There is a major difference between acts of terrorism and common criminal acts. These terrorists sought to kill as many as possible before they were killed, and they fully expected to be killed. There is only one way to stop someone who is willing to die, and that is to take him out. That you personally may not be able to accomplish this does not change the intent or actions of the terrorist; he will simply continue until he has been put down.

To suggest general disarmament as a response to terrorist attacks, just because armed citizens are not 100% effective as a deterrent, makes absolutely no sense. "They are going to kill you anyway so just run, hide, and die" will not be my chosen course of action under any circumstances.

 

[Ross3914]

There's no doubt you are on the short end of the stick in a situation like the Paris attack, but being armed does several things.

1) It causes problems for the terrorists during the actions at the objective. Terrorists are in complete control during resourcing, recon, planning, etc. but once the shooting starts, people do crazy things. They may know about the bodyguard, or they may be strong enough that it doesn't matter, but armed resistance means there will be more risk to the terrorist at the objective. If the target doesn't justify the risk, they may move on to another target. Basically, having armed people results in a harder nut to crack. It's not uncrackable, just less likely to be attacked if they have limited resources. It also forces them to do the payoff calculation. Is it worth the risk/effort for a low payoff, or should they expend the same risk/effort on a higher payoff target. Either way, having armed people increases the chances they will go somewhere else.

2)Engaging the terrorists with force changes the tempo of their attack. Think of "speed bump". The terrorists now have to deal with someone else with a gun. They may kill you quickly, or they may need some time to do it. Depends on the situation, and frankly some luck, as to how fast it is. But changing the tempo of the attack will result in changing the entire attack. If they get into a gunfight with you, no matter how short, that buys time for others. More can escape, more time means more help may arrive. During the Cold War, the 11th ACR wasn't in the Fulda Gap to stop the Soviets. They were there to buy time. They were toast, and everyone knew it. Buying time was their mission. Sure, an armed citizen might be dead meat, but he might cost the terrorists enough time that others might live. He might still make it as well.

3)Fighting back is important in the bigger scheme of things. No one is under the illusion of what an airliner hijacking means these days. No one is going to just sit there passively and let it happen. Terrorists now have to forget the idea of taking over an airliner with a couple of box cutters. Once the mentality of fighting back is ingrained in the target, the terrorists have to factor it in at every target. That causes an evolutionary effect on terrorist attacks. How that evolves is up for grabs, but if it doesn't work they way they want, they have to take a different route. Fighting back causes that evolution.

I make no illusion about the chances of staying alive with my LC9 and two spare mags. I do think the situation improves if I have them compared to not.

 

[Ranger514]

Terrorists rely on surprise and confusion to achieve their goal. They often choose soft targets, anticipating little or no resistance. If you disrupt their plan with armed resistance, it may buy needed time for others to escape, or for armed support to rally. Build your mindset, as well as your combat shooting skills. You'll need both. You CAN make a difference in the outcome of an attack. We are neither helpless nor hopeless unless we choose to be.

 

[islamoradamark]

if all 12 were armed the outcome may have been different

 

[BU1]

In a life or death situation, one's perception of time slows down. I choose to die with my gun in hand, trying my best to kill that criminal or terrorist. In that moment of time that slows down, I will experience the satisfaction of fighting back. That satisfied feeling will carry me to the next life.

Well spoken.

 

[Bat Guano]

Don't Make It Easy For Them

There's no doubt you are on the short end of the stick in a situation like the Paris attack, but being armed does several things.

1) It causes problems for the terrorists during the actions at the objective. Terrorists are in complete control during resourcing, recon, planning, etc. but once the shooting starts, people do crazy things. They may know about the bodyguard, or they may be strong enough that it doesn't matter, but armed resistance means there will be more risk to the terrorist at the objective. If the target doesn't justify the risk, they may move on to another target. Basically, having armed people results in a harder nut to crack. It's not uncrackable, just less likely to be attacked if they have limited resources. It also forces them to do the payoff calculation. Is it worth the risk/effort for a low payoff, or should they expend the same risk/effort on a higher payoff target. Either way, having armed people increases the chances they will go somewhere else.

2)Engaging the terrorists with force changes the tempo of their attack. Think of "speed bump". The terrorists now have to deal with someone else with a gun. They may kill you quickly, or they may need some time to do it. Depends on the situation, and frankly some luck, as to how fast it is. But changing the tempo of the attack will result in changing the entire attack. If they get into a gunfight with you, no matter how short, that buys time for others. More can escape, more time means more help may arrive. During the Cold War, the 11th ACR wasn't in the Fulda Gap to stop the Soviets. They were there to buy time. They were toast, and everyone knew it. Buying time was their mission. Sure, an armed citizen might be dead meat, but he might cost the terrorists enough time that others might live. He might still make it as well.

3)Fighting back is important in the bigger scheme of things. No one is under the illusion of what an airliner hijacking means these days. No one is going to just sit there passively and let it happen. Terrorists now have to forget the idea of taking over an airliner with a couple of box cutters. Once the mentality of fighting back is ingrained in the target, the terrorists have to factor it in at every target. That causes an evolutionary effect on terrorist attacks. How that evolves is up for grabs, but if it doesn't work they way they want, they have to take a different route. Fighting back causes that evolution.

I make no illusion about the chances of staying alive with my LC9 and two spare mags. I do think the situation improves if I have them compared to not.

John Boyd would like this. So would Admiral Farragut. Murphy never sleeps, and he doesn't have favorites.

 

[Lockback]

Fascinating thread.
As others have said, I have no illusions or delusions about looking like Liam Neeson and fending off multiple terrorists armed with AK's with my Shield 9mm or 7-shot Glock 36 .45.
But, by God, I'd rather have a fighting chance with my handgun than absolutely no shot whatsoever at defending myself, on my knees, begging for them not to shoot me.

 

[Louchia]

how's this for a dream ending?
One BG enters your room and you are ready because you heard some gun fire. You hide and jump out and take your shot. One to the head, he's down. The other BG does not know this . Because of all the gun fire, he thinks his friend is shooting everyone.
You grab the rifle of the BG you took out and go after the other.

 

[aphelion]

G
So much for "a good guy with a gun" making everything all better.

Who says that?

Do you have a point you are trying to make? Anyway, why just one good guy with a gun? How about more than one?

Tell me again these two are trained operatives?? Watch he video,the one guy can't even load his own rifle.
New Charlie Hebdo Paris Shooting Video - Business Insider

When I see these videos I think what if somebody who is a decent shot had a gun instead of just a cell phone to shoot a video? The bad guys aren't looking and the angle is good. What if more than one somebody had a gun?

 

[Duckford]

Two men were jogging in the woods, when a hungry looking bear started to follow them. The first jogger turned to the other and said "Don't worry, I read a report on the internet that bears don't attack humans".

The second jogger said "I just hope the bear read the same article you did."

I thought of this old joke, and thought it relevant. Despite all the theory we put into this, the should's and slated advantages, I suppose its good to remember that sometimes people forget to read the script.

 

[fredj338]

^^^what???

 

[Duckford]

What I mean is, what is theoretical, conjured up in boardrooms, simulated, and carefully pieced together hypothetical outcomes are meaningless, and only the situation determines what happens. Certainly, men with body armor and rifles have a clear advantage, beyond argument, certainly they should be able to overwhelm minor civilian resistance with their combat advantages and surprise; but what happens if one of those being attacked, with all the seemingly impossible odds against them, manages to pull themselves together and actually manages to successfully neutralize both attackers, or at least drive them off?

The theme or idea of my post was that person beat the expert's theories and commentaries, that apparently he didn't read the study by Truth About Guns, and he didn't follow the script we wrote for the terrorists winning automatically with their advantages, and he must have forgotten to play his role and die.

The jogger in the joke is making an assumption based on a theory he read somewhere, with the second pointing out that this particular bear may not act the way the article suggests he will, and the bear may not act the way he is "supposed" to, and is not well informed by the experts enough to know he shouldn't eat the joggers. The entire relevance is that the concealed carriers in the US can easily upset massacres, even well planned terrorist attacks, because even though they "should" die, as the experts say they will be bowled over and helpless, maybe an average citizen might fight back, and win, because he was not well informed enough to know he was helpless.

 

[fredj338]

^^Then we agree^^. The point always missed by the anti or even sporting gun crowd about ccw is the surprise element. A perfect scenario argument against OC, you are the first one shot in that scenario. Bide your time, cause or wait for a distraction, action beats reaction. Die fighting or just die, I like options.