Armed citizens can't stop bad guys - Gun Nuts Simulate Paris Shooting, Get Killed Every Time [Video]

[h1]GUN NUTS SIMULATE PARIS SHOOTING, GET SHOT BY SIMULATED TERRORISTS[/h1]
In an attempt to prove that good guys with guns could have altered the dynamics of last week's deadly Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, a Texas-based pro-gun group reenacted the shooting a dozen times with armed citizens and mostly discovered that armed citizens suck at stopping terrorists.

Dallas CBS affiliate KTVT  reported on the backfiring plan  by some guys from The Truth About Guns, who put out the call last weekend for "40 warm bodies" to prove "the champions of civilian disarmament" wrong:

Volunteers took turns on a set designed to look like the offices of the French satirical weekly magazine. But unlike the terrorist attack that killed 12 people, volunteers played the role of armed civilian.

"He started shooting – and I started shooting," said volunteer Linda Cruz.

Time and time again, the armed civilian "dies" – shot by a round that marks him or her with paint.

In only two cases volunteers were able to take out one of two gunmen in the process...

Twelve volunteers participated in the exercise. Only one survived after running away. No one was able to take out both shooters.

Click to expand...

The Dallas Morning News  interviewed one of the volunteer armed citizens, who expressed pleasure with his performance, despite the terrorists' success in aerating his brain stem:

Parks Matthews, 37, of Wylie was the first person placed in the scenario. He fired at the gunmen but was shot in the finger, forearm and back of the head.

"Problem was, I ran out of ammunition, and they kept coming. I wasn't smart enough to get out of the way and take cover," said Matthews, who has undergone firearm training. "But I did better than I thought."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

As you can see in KTVT's funnysad video above, the poor gun guys (and gals) fared about as badly as you might have expected. Having owned guns all my life and thought myself into these kinds of situations, I pretty much came to the same conclusions last year. As did some other folks,  time  and  again.

But the geniuses behind "The Truth About Guns" seemed reluctant to accept, well, the truthabout their guns' limited utility in saving innocent lives. "[G]iven the circumstances,"  one of them wrote after the failed Paris experiment, "more than just one good guy with a gun would likely have been needed to save lives." Verily, the only thing safer and more conducive to the public welfare than one lightly trained, well-intentioned stranger spraying walls with a Smith 5906 is  two  strangers doing it at the same time.

Click to expand...

Also worth pointing out that, by nature of the "training experiment," the participants knew the shooters were coming. They still couldn't be successful good guys with guns even when the element of surprise was removed.

A friend of mine just took active shooter training for work - what to do if someone comes in, shooting his building up. Guess what? You run. If you can't run, you hide. Otherwise you're dead, or if you're lucky, injured.

Click to expand...

RIP sleazyy said:

ACR with silencer

Stopping power
Slight of hands
Cold blooded

would have rektum all ez.

Click to expand...

NazDrowie said:

goldeneye > COD, its more realistic and uses civilian shooting tactics, not so militaryism strategy like COD

Click to expand...

NazDrowie said:

goldeneye > COD, its more realistic and uses civilian shooting tactics, not so militaryism strategy like COD

Click to expand...

NazDrowie said:

 
goldeneye > COD, its more realistic and uses civilian shooting tactics, not so militaryism strategy like COD

Click to expand...

WorldBreaker said:

NazDrowie said:

 
goldeneye > COD, its more realistic and uses civilian shooting tactics, not so militaryism strategy like COD

Click to expand...

 I use to actually think this until I played Goldeneye recently on some nostalgia tip and quit after 10 minutes. It was unbearable.


In regards to the experiment, the lady at the end said the "terrorist" were played by a tactical training company. To me that means they are pros and run simulations like this a lot so I don't think it was a fair experiment. It's like SWAT team verses civilians that simply know how to use a weapon. 

They should have switched roles and compared or had regular civilians play both roles and see how they do against each other. Just my two cents.

Not a gun nut or even a gun owner btw.

Click to expand...

Tr1ll said:

WorldBreaker said:

NazDrowie said:

 
goldeneye > COD, its more realistic and uses civilian shooting tactics, not so militaryism strategy like COD

Click to expand...

 I use to actually think this until I played Goldeneye recently on some nostalgia tip and quit after 10 minutes. It was unbearable.


In regards to the experiment, the lady at the end said the "terrorist" were played by a tactical training company. To me that means they are pros and run simulations like this a lot so I don't think it was a fair experiment. It's like SWAT team verses civilians that simply know how to use a weapon. 

They should have switched roles and compared or had regular civilians play both roles and see how they do against each other. Just my two cents.

Not a gun nut or even a gun owner btw.

Click to expand...

I think it was fair.

Most terrorist have SOME type of training versus, just playing COD and going to a gun range.

You sound like them, TOTALLY underestimating the opposition.

Click to expand...

WorldBreaker said:

 

NazDrowie said:

 
goldeneye > COD, its more realistic and uses civilian shooting tactics, not so militaryism strategy like COD

Click to expand...

 I use to actually think this until I played Goldeneye recently on some nostalgia tip and quit after 10 minutes. It was unbearable.

In regards to the experiment, the lady at the end said the "terrorist" were played by a tactical training company. To me that means they are pros and run simulations like this a lot so I don't think it was a fair experiment. It's like SWAT team verses civilians that simply know how to use a weapon. 

They should have switched roles and compared or had regular civilians play both roles and see how they do against each other. Just my two cents.

Not a gun nut or even a gun owner btw.

Click to expand...

omariwestafari said:

it's more about the fear the bad guys will have of an armed civilian population

Click to expand...

Nako XL said:

 
The attackers in Paris were trained... they handled military grade weapons with precision. They also breached and took out their targets like trained military personnel would.

The whole point of the experiment was a bunch of gun advocates trying to prove that a civilian with a gun would have stopped the attack. Instead they proved that a civilian with a gun would have just gotten themselves killed faster, as if years of actual documented real life examples didn't already show that.

Again, also, the Charlie Hebdo workers didn't know the attackers were coming. The armed civilians in the exercise here (with weapons training themselves) were expecting an attack and still died. Only 2 of them even killed one of the terrorists.

You see the point?

Click to expand...

Tr1ll said:

omariwestafari said:

it's more about the fear the bad guys will have of an armed civilian population

Click to expand...

You do realize most terrorist go in WANTING to die right?

Click to expand...

Tr1ll said:

You really think terrorist plan on getting away with this type of ****?????

Click to expand...

omariwestafari said:

Tr1ll said:

You really think terrorist plan on getting away with this type of ****?????

Click to expand...

Why not? they obviously aren't right in the head so to them it seems plausible.

if they had enough sense to know they were going to die they would have chosen a better career

Click to expand...