Pic Of The Moment: Gun Group Simulates Paris Attack, Adds "Good Guy With Gun," Nothing Changes

[EarlG]

Texas gun rights group reenacts Paris massacre with 'armed civilian' — and everyone still dies

Follow @demunderground

[louis-t]

1. And the volunteer knew they were coming.

Big advantage.

[ErikJ]

42. Should design a test that factors that in somehow.

Maybe some anti-gun group could re-enact lots of these under different circumstances.

[isobar]

2. This clearly shows that we need EVERYONE armed with automatic weapons.

If you can lift the gun, you should carry it!!

Women, children, even smart dogs should be armed to the teeth!

More guns = safety

Heavy weaponry should be made available to any one who wants it.

Also. body armor for all!!



This message brought to you from your friends at the N.R.A. !!

God bless the N.R.A. and all those who love them some gunz!!

[SunSeeker]

3. Yes, and armor piercing bullets...to get those terrorists hiding behind the fridge!

[isobar]

10. Behind the fridge??

Rocket propelled grenade!!!!

No sense in foolin' around!

Collateral damage??? who cares!

[tclambert]

14. But my yogurt . . .

[blackspade]

36. LOL!

[Turbineguy]

37. You mean...

shoot holes in my beer to get them terrists?

There are limits!

[NewJeffCT]

40. Not to mention those dressed in bullet proof vests

or maybe they just take off & nuke the whole site from orbit? Only way to be sure.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. we weaponized our cats. It turns out that is a very bad idea. nt.

[isobar]

11. That is why I made no mention of arming cats.

Cats will turn on you in an instant.

[tclambert]

15. The 2nd amendment is very clear. You're only supposed to arm bears.

[isobar]

16. I'm not so sure that's a good idea....

[F4lconF16]

32. Who drew this?

I love the art style.

[isobar]

33. It was an internet "steal".

[Dont call me Shirley]

29. ...

https://m.

[NewJeffCT]

39. What about sharks?

Sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads?

[SunSeeker]

4. K & R

[exboyfil]

5. So how did the terrorists get their guns?

Another point to remember is that they killed half the number that a lone nut did at Sandy Hook.

[Fred Sanders]

6. Less "target rich environment" at the publication building?

[isobar]

12. Mail order.

[tclambert]

17. At Charlie Hebdo, the shooters called out the names of their targets.

They wanted to kill specific people. It wasn't a "shoot everything that moves" situation. It was a hit rather than a rampage.

[isobar]

18. Is there a point to that observation?

[tclambert]

19. I was replying to the observation that they killed fewer people than were killed at Sandy Hook.

My feeble point was that the Charlie Hebdo shooters weren't just shooting as many as they could, they started out wanting to kill specific people.

[isobar]

20. gotchya.

[2naSalit]

22. Weren't there also

eleven injured besides the twelve killed?

[bobclark86]

7. CORRECTION

It's not a "pro-gun activist group," it's a for-profit Web-based publication focused on firearms. One implies it's non-profit.

[BrotherIvan]

8. Big K&R!

You can't make this shit up!

[Rozlee]

13. This Bruce Willis fantasy world they live in doesn't hold up to reality very well.

Their overweening machismo and belief that a gun makes them god vanishes in the real world where Hollywood doesn't direct the scripts. A gun doesn't give you any power if you're facing an equally armed assailant. Only unarmed targets can be a sure thing and that's no guarantee if they can move fast and disarm you.

[TRoN33]

25. Now that's hilarious!!!!

[nolabear]

27. ^^^A thousand times this.^^^

People are terrible at separating fantasy from reality, and the illusion that "I'd be the hero if I had a gun" is no more realistic than "I'd make the perfect decisions if I was in charge." We get bathed in those fantasies enough and we get even more delusional.

[turbinetree]

21. Only in Texas

Only in Texas can they screw up a "simulation", they probably even drew pictures for each other, with big old crayons, red (bad guy), blue (good guy) and still blew it, and had on different clothes to distinguish the (good guy)+ (bad guys) and they still blew it.
Then they re-grouped had big black arrows pointing to where everyone was suppose to be, and blew it again, if you fail the first time you try, try, and try again and they still failed.
Then they re-grouped again looked at the box of crayons to make sure they had the colors right and blew it again
I wonder if they any of them went to a penny arcade to get there idea?
Probably came from the NRA head office, just shows what failure means and how to exploit a murder scene anywhere in the world, without any thought for there actions----none, just to exploit deaths for an end game is truly outrageous.
Now we will get the talking heads coming out of the front office of the NRA, with a big old NRA Flag in the background and hear more whining and blaming someone.

[Ford_Prefect]

23. So much for the concept of "Live and Learn"...

Last edited Thu Jan 15, 2015, 04:35 PM - Edit history (2)

People so often forget that the "good guy with a gun" scenario never really works. This was demonstrated in John Hinckley Jr's attack on President Reagan in 1981.

The whole basis for an armed "good guy" situation depends on a fantasy that the attacker's actions would be completely and competently anticipated by the so-called good guy. It is a revenge film fantasy that the hero would act in the only split second that could avert innocent deaths by firing a weapon of his own that would only kill the attackers. It also assumes the bullets released in this noble defense would not pass beyond the bodies of the attackers. It requires a level of situational awareness difficult for professional body guards to maintain, let alone the casual participant. It also depends entirely on a situation that goes to plan in which no one panics or does anything the "good guy" and the attackers did not anticipate. It also depends on perfect accuracy and weapon control in emergency conditions, 2 things which any weapons training officer will tell you are rare to the point of myth. In the field nothing goes perfectly including your control of a weapon or the movements of a target.

Arming civilians cannot prevent an attack by a trained and determined terrorist. It has not in Israel, Columbia, Europe, or sadly the USA. What you get instead is a bunch of potential shooters in a situation where the targets are not identified nor is the field of fire restricted to combatants.

Reducing the threat of terrorist attack involves removing the motivation of the potential terrorists. Hardening the "target" only invites a more profound level of attack.

[daleanime]

30. +1

[TRoN33]

24. I'm more surprised that Open Carry nuts would display the end results instead of hiding it.

[louis-t]

26. Reminds me of the Star Wars missile defense tests.

They got the success rate up to 35% by programming in the codes of the target missile....

[daleanime]

28. K&R....

[7962]

31. So sometimes "nothing changed", two times one was killed. Whats the point

NOT having the gun ensures the same results. In a real life situation, the two times one got killed could also have resulted in theother leaving the scene. Presence of another gun didnt result in MORE deaths, so its moot.

[Moonwalk]

34. Clearly, the mistake here is having only one "good guy." The current movie trend...

...is a team of good guys. They should have armed everyone in the simulation. That would've worked. Right?

[blackspade]

35. Well played, gun nuts, well played....

[oberliner]

38. Did you know that there is video of this simulation on their web site?

You can actually watch the simulation here:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com

[ErikJ]

41. Politico: Guns are more likely to do more harm than good.

Guns are more likely to do harm than good.

In the early hours of Nov. 2, 2013, in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, a pounding at the door startled Theodore Wafer from his slumber. Unable to find his cell phone to call the police, he grabbed the shotgun he kept loaded in his closet. Wafer opened the door and, spotting a dark figure behind the screen, fired a single blast at the supposed intruder. The shot killed a 19-year-old girl who was knocking to ask for help after a car accident.

Shortly after midnight on June 5, 2014, two friends left a party briefly. Upon returning they accidently knocked on the wrong door. Believing burglars were breaking in, the frightened homeowner called the police, grabbed his gun and fired a single round, hitting one of the confused party-goers in the chest.

On Sept. 21, 2014, Eusebio Christian was awakened by a noise. Assuming a break-in, he rushed to the kitchen with his gun and began firing. All his shots missed but one, which struck his wife in the face.

What do these and so many other cases have in common? They are the byproduct of a tragic myth: that millions of gun owners successfully use their firearms to defend themselves and their families from criminals. Despite having nearly no academic support in public health literature, this myth is the single largest motivation behind gun ownership. It traces its origin to a two-decade-old series of surveys that, despite being thoroughly repudiated at the time, persists in influencing personal safety decisions and public policy throughout the United States.
........................
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262.html

[Spitfire of ATJ]

43. Meanwhile, on the link the argument from gun guys is the volunteer was outgunned.....

Because,....you know....

[polynomial]

44. The self of fear, or did FDR know about Jihad

America needs to understand this Jihad stuff. Better put the one percent wealthy has a screwed up via a mental greed about it.

The Mainstream-Media that is the one percent, mixed with some diversity the extreme right a combination is poison to any society.

Our academics are loaded with a first amendment right yet silenced by payroll, and community with far too many government people that don’t understand this convergence in the life force openly continue to lie in a cycle of media advertisements that don’t even serve a basic interest to sustain their own billions.

The argument can be that America is anti-Jihad but is not applying Newton’s third law very successfully.

After reading an article in the Blog link http://corporeality.net/category/history-of-science/ the moment of inertia changed for me.

This is an article about Jihad with anonymous blogger Fjordman, who has been a leading intellectual in the international anti-Jihad movement for almost a decade.

Please understand my approach is not to be extreme right like the Bush Cheney syndrome excuse to profiteer, do what we did and would do it again. Essentially play both sides with arrogance and defiance and the media covering up all those ties to profiteering.

That is obviously a waste of men and women, money to profiteer, and psychotic stress in the American culture that will destroy the American dream which abuse more than basic American Constitutional values.

The high light of the article by the anonymous blogger Fjordman says that progress in human endeavor would not benefit under Islamic law as much as Christian belief.

It is Christian belief that make life move forward. The first amendment right to freedom of religion in America is now trying to make a sort of religious soup. Obviously it’s not soup yet, perhaps it is not a soup…we are in a stew that has more poison in it than realized.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. One guy with a pistol against two guys with rifles?

Yeah. You're gonna die. You're gonna die badly.

Even incapacitating one of them should be considered a massive victory because the odds are so massively stacked against you. Doesn't change the outcome though. You still die, everyone else probably still dies.

All this really proves is that 'The Truth About Guns' members don't understand the terms 'poor taste' or 'too soon'.

[mwrguy]

46. good luck convincing the gun fetishists

[JohnnyRingo]

47. I'm reminded of that mass shooting at a Colorado theater...

This was in Colorado, the heart of the wild west, and I have no doubt there were multiple "good guys" with sidearms in the audience when the gunman walked in the back door wearing "Joker" make up and began shooting.

Not one of these vigilantes stepped up and attempted to stop the massacre. Apparently they ran for the exit with everyone else, just as I would have done BTW.

[Shamash]

48. Your telepathic abilities are duly noted as a useful tool for formulating public policy. n/t

[JohnnyRingo]

52. I guess there's a chance that not one person was carrying there.

But it is a very slim chance in Colorado where only cowboy hats outnumber pistols, and playing the odds isn't a claim of telepathic skills.

Common sense dictates that a good number of armed citizens left their gun holstered and ran the other way that fateful day. Given how firing on the gunman would likely have made them the next target, it was probably wise, but saying CCW laws makes the public safer is a gross exaggeration of fact.

For the record, I'm not an anti gun advocate. I personally own a number of Colts, both single action army and semi-auto, that I treasure and enjoy using. I don't carry in public, but I feel I have no reason to, and at 60 years old, it appears I've been correct in that assumption.

I have friends who do carry however, including one who won't mow the lawn without his concealed .380 (not kidding), but they aren't the armed heroes they like to visualize themselves as either. Instead I just see them as insecure followers who jumped on a passing bandwagon. Most of them didn't even buy a gun until the CCW law passed here in Ohio and would probably just piss themselves if faced with a shooting situation.

[Flatulo]

49. If you really want something to worry about, stand up and look straight down.

About 2/3 of you cannot see your feet. That's because you're obese and on track for cancer, a coronary event, or a slow, painful and expensive decline from diabetes.

Americans who are obsessed with the fear of gun violence would do well to put down the saturated fat-laden, sugar infused garbage that passes for food and instead take a walk, or a run, or a bike ride, or a swim.

600,000 of us will die from heart disease this year, and another 1.6 million will be diagnosed with cancer - 580,000 of whom will die. 30,000,000 are diabetic, and 70,000 of us will die from the disease. Those of us who live with it put a terrible strain and expense on our health care system.

I could go on, but hopefully im making my point.

I am not the least bit concerned with guns. Guns are a statistically meaningless threat to me.

I am concerned about my health, so I eat right and exercise every day. I'm 60 and weigh what I did 40 years ago. I avoid all sugary, starchy foods and eat veey sparingly. I absolutely never eat until I am stuffed. I keep a healthy mental attitude, and that includes not bitching and obsessing over statistically meaningless threats.

So look down, and worry.

[Lithos]

50. There was a good guy inside with a gun

he was shot and killed before he could draw. One thing this study does not show is the uncertainty of when. Ie the assigned protecting officer did not know it was today, next week or next year. This makes even these results highly best case.

[Initech]

51. If I may borrow a quote from the show Burn Notice:

"No matter what the situation is, a guy with a gun is a guy with a gun."