Posted on 01/16/2015 5:42:41 AM PST by smokingfrog
Left out of this analysis is the psychological effect on the gunmen of suddenly realizing that they might be facing armed opposition. According to various accounts I have read, the realization by a gunman that he is being confronted often wrecks his discipline and instills panic. Many's the case where upon being confronted, the gunman turns from attacking to fleeing.
To more accurately re-create the event they should have told the volunteer gunmen that everyone was completely unarmed so that when confronted with the reality that they are getting shot at, they would have a more normal reaction to the surprise this constitutes.
It would have thrown off their aim at the very least.
Not a good plan if it introduces the wrong results into the news cycle. That they picked top-notch and experienced professionals as the gunmen is an obvious mistake. That they knew there was an armed "victim" is another mistake.
Really?
I have never found it so. I live in a "Shall Issue" CCW State, actually hold a "Concealed Pistol/Revolver Permit", and exercise my (uncontitutionally restricted) right to keep and bear arms on a routine basis.
How about you, New Yorker?
‘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.’
Blasting the lock off would at least give the intended targets a moment’s warning. But you are right; a coded lock didn’t help in this case at all. The terrorists simply waited for someone to go in or out, and took it from there.
The security guard didn’t help either; I wonder, since French police are not armed, whether the guard was armed?
Your thought was mine exactly. On the one hand, if the establishment at which you work has been often and frequently threatened with annihilation—by people with a record of carrying out their threats—you’d think the CCs would overrun the place.
Otoh, as was pointed out, these were far left liberals. They evidently rely on gun control—and by that they don’t mean accuracy in discharging their weapons. [& I do know that we are contrasting what would have happened, had this occurred in the US. But our far left libs are also pathologically anti-gun. (Though as has often been pointed out, some of Hollywood’s moonbattiest leftists employ armed bodyguards.)]
Full, unrestricted permits in multiple states including NY.
Wind up carrying a handful of days every month, typically when I know I will be legal for the entire trip and there is some element of risk. To carry daily is a lot of effort to counter a miniscule possibility of a problem.
I am typically not in high crime areas. Awareness and avoidance is preferable to deployment and all that entails.
‘Left out of this analysis is the psychological effect on the gunmen of suddenly realizing that they might be facing armed opposition. According to various accounts I have read, the realization by a gunman that he is being confronted often wrecks his discipline and instills panic. Many’s the case where upon being confronted, the gunman turns from attacking to fleeing.’
This is the best point yet. No reenactment could simulate the shock of people who expect to be shooting fish in a barrel, when the fish unexpectedly start firing back. I have read countless incidents in which the would-be shooters—or robbers, whatever—go into complete panic at encountering unanticipated armed resistance.
So now I agree with whoever it was that made the very first comment, that this was a pointless exercise. Not even telling the pseudo terrorists to expect unarmed targets would do the trick. They know only paintballs are coming at worst. The real gunmen would be facing sudden, unexpected death—and that changes things.
If you have to get a permit to exercise a right, that right is being restricted. There's no such thing as an "unrestricted permit"; the term is an oxymoron.
That said, I "carry" a lot more than you do, apparently. I just don't find it to be a big pain. YMMV. Obviously.
Most NY permits are restricted to “Target and Hunting” or “Present Employment” or “Premises”. It sucks, but it is what it is.
Hence “Unrestricted” may mean something different here.
I hear there were at least 50 people in the offices at the time
Exactly. I too initially thought the first commenter was off base. It never occurred to me that a gun group would release a re-creation that didn't show armed victims making a real difference. I now have to agree that what this gun group did was wrong headed and foolish.
They used their best guys as the "terrorists" and they used average people as the "victims." They did not set up a realistic test at all, and they have done more damage than good in the propaganda wars with the left.
Now they need to do the scenario a few more times and at least once tell the aggressors that the others are unarmed when they aren’t.
That would be very interesting.
I had no idea there were so many. Thanks for that info. (It does affect the calculus of, ‘Had this been the US, how many CCs would there likely have been?’.)
Everything you said: +1
Very much so. In most States (WV, for example), there's no such thing as a permit to own a gun. If I want to buy a gun at retail I go to the gun shop, pay, file a 4473, pass the NICS, and take it home. Carrying openly is legal. The (unconstitutional) law requires a permit to carry concealed. This last item is what I'm calling a "restriction".
Yes, it would be interesting. Otoh, there is a big difference between being unexpectedly hit, in a mocked-up scenario, with a paintball, and unexpectedly hit in a real life death-drama with a bullet. A huge difference, it seems to me.
The place that I feel the safest in the world is Pro Bass. Half the people in there are CC. You will never hear about anybody trying to rob Pro Bass or pull off a terror attack there. Well unless they are trying to commit suicide. :-)
Exactly. When the bad actors know there are guns around, they look elsewhere for victims. This is why pizza delivery people are targeted with tragic results: the robbers/killers don’t expect resistance. They got quite a surprise with the armed Pappa Johns delivery-woman, though. Instead of ‘two in the hat’ it was ‘one in the face.’
And the delivery-woman is A-Ok.
Not all firearms owners get regular range time, but I suspect the vast majority of people who carry are excellent shots who stay in practice. I get a minimum of 500 aimed pistol rounds a week, and I like my chances at close range against people with limited experience, even if they have rifles so long as they don't expect opposition.
Note: I live in Maryland, so chances are I'm unarmed outside my home.
In Maryland, a person may transport a handgun if they can demonstrate that the handgun is being carried, worn or transported: (a) To or from a place of legal purchase or sale, or repair shop. (b) Between a person’s bona fide residences, or between his residence and place of business, if the business is operated and substantially owned by that person. (c) While engaged in, or traveling to and from a target shoot, formal or informal target practice, sport shooting event, hunting, trapping, or dog obedience training class or show. (d) By a bona fide gun collector who is moving any part or all of his gun collection from place to place for public or private exhibition. During transportation to and from the above places the handgun must be unloaded and carried in an enclosed case or enclosed holster. An additional penalty is provided for any person convicted of unlawfully wearing, carrying or transporting a handgun, if his deliberate purpose was to injure or kill another person.
I'm not going to risk the loss of my God-given human right to defend myself. I just don't go anyplace dangerous while in the People's Republic of Maryland. However, in the extremely unlikely event that terrorists with only a little training hit my home, it would not be easy for them.
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.