Posted on 01/16/2015 5:42:41 AM PST by smokingfrog
Could any or all of the victims in the Paris attack have survived if they had guns to protect themselves? One Texas gun group tried to find out by organizing a simulation on a set designed to look like the offices of Charlie Hebdo, hoping to learn how things might have been different in Paris or any other mass shooting. KTVT's Andrea Lucia reports.
Dumb is the first thing that comes to mind. Trying to figure out what might of happened if folks had a gun is simply impossible. The variables are immense.
‘“Still got killed, but did better than I thought I would,” said Matthew.’
That was very interesting. Not at all what I expected. I wonder why they only armed ‘one civilian’? If this had happened in America, would it not be likely that in a group of twelve or more, there would be multiple armed civilians?
I'd settle for the Paris cops to have had guns.
Not really
Carrying a firearm on a daily basis is an enormous PITA. It requires securing the firearm on a daily basis, worrying about concealment and, most importantly, “gun free” zones.
Picking your kid up from practice after school? Going to the post office? Stopping for an adult beverage with friends after work? In a situation where you wish you weren’t wearing your concealment garment?
The end result is that even where employers allow concealed carry, most will leave the firearm in the safe unless they have significant security concerns.
Thank. That was helpful.
I don’t. Concealed means concealed.
Natural reaction is fight, flight or freeze. Training in realistic situations is required to overcome these natural impulses.
Military, FBI and police all use Hogan’s alleys or other technology to simulate shoot no-shoot situations.
Paper targets and pop ups are designed to appear like a realistic target.
Training for most carry licenses when required, typically include similar.
For all of the Democrat Undergrounders appearing here lately, take football.
Coaches study films of opposition so they know how to react. They run plays over and over so they react and don’t have to think about what to do.
Same with preparing for the possibility one may be in a shooting situation.
The odds that you’d be able to defend yourself against a coordinated terrorist attack with a handgun are slim, but slim odds are still better than none.
If they were armed the terrorist may not have attempted.
I was there, but did not go through the “simulation”. They ran out of time. It was a very rushed project, and had a lot of problems.
For example, the “attackers” were instructors at the facility who had done “house clearing” exercises in the same set-up, hundreds, if not thousands of times. There were, literally, lines on the floor to remind them of precisely how to “pie slice” when checking out a room, not that they needed them with that much practice in that setup.
The “defenders” had just got there, and were forced to wear full face covers that many said fogged so badly they could barely see out of them.
The “attackers” wore ballistic sunglasses, that did not fog.
There was good intention behind the “simulation” but as another poster mentioned, the variables are too many for a scientific evaluation.
TTAG expects to run more simulations, but with more time for preparation and more consideration of the protocols.
The project was designed to get into the news cycle with the Hebdo shootings.
Probably the most effective “defense” in the simulation was a woman who decided to flee rather than fight.
She fired “covering shots” in the direction of the attackers while retreating. Several people were able to escape.
The attackers did not advance while being fired on.
If this had happened in America, at a lefty mag/paper, they wouldn’t have been armed either.
Exactly. A pistol is primarily a defensive weapon.
Those folks at the newspaper had to know they were a potential target. What kind of security measures did they have in place, I wonder?
How about a panic room protected with claymore mines?
That is a very good point. I was thinking that if this had happened in the US, at a workplace that had received as many death threats as Charlie Hebdo, more than one permit holder would have gone to the trouble to be armed. I wasn’t factoring in how far left CH is. Yes, that would certainly impact the # of firearms present, and I agree with your estimate...zero.
I’m posting from memory [probably not a great idea] but I recall reading this about the CH security. It was quite good, with coded locks, etc. However, the attackers told one of the women they would kill her child if she didn’t let them in. She felt she had no choice.
Here is a link:
‘Charlie Hebdo cartoonist spoke of how she was forced to let the gunmen who massacred her colleagues into the satirical magazine’s office after they threatened to kill her daughter. Corinne Rey, who draws under the name Cora, was on her way into work with the toddler when men armed with Kalashnikovs demanded she take them inside.
“I had gone to collect my daughter from nursery and as I arrived in front of the door of the paper’s building two hooded and armed men threatened us,” she told French newspaper L’Humanite.
“They wanted to go inside, to go upstairs. I entered the code.” The attackers killed a security guard in reception before going upstairs straight to the newsroom on the second floor, where they reportedly called the names of cartoonists before opening fire in an editorial meeting.’
I doubt that a coded lock is going to stop a determined attack. Not very difficult to blast the door open with a breaching round in most cases.
“I wonder why they only armed ‘one civilian’? If this had happened in America, would it not be likely that in a group of twelve or more, there would be multiple armed civilians?”
I don’t get that either. If it happened in GA in a city I would think with all the CC we have it would be a lot more people armed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.