RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks.

RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 4:17:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 As I said earlier, this just goes to show armed civillians wouldnt have been able to stop the attacks. Well no, bozo. It doesn't show that. It shows that a single armed civilian acting alone wouldn't likely have been able to do so. For further assistance, see here. K.

BamaD -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 4:25:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers The guy at the Walmart if you recall...would disagree. He's dead and it took several police to take out the perp(s). The idea that an armed citizenry would stop most of this shit let alone any govt. is unmitigated bullshit. The greatest chance for any armed citizen, is of being killed themselves...not stopping people out to kill. Unmitigated bullshit......supported by the facts. Yep,what he said is supported by the facts. Though it surprises me to see you admit this. Why you refer to it as "unmitigated bullshit" though is beyond me. Is that some local backwoods idiom thing or something [8\|] I didn't come up with the term, note I put in quotes, as for it being a backwoods idiom, I don't know where Mr Rogers neighborhood is located.

bounty44 -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 4:59:07 AM)
there are hundreds into the thousands of stories like these---and while the criminals below are not terrorists in the strictest sense, there is enough overlap between the two so that it should nonetheless call into question the premise of the OP and since this information is so readily available, his (and the other leftists here) ability to deal with the facts as well. "Regardless of where you stand on the issue, it is interesting to note the high number of incidents where legal gun owners were able to use their weapons to stop some horrible crimes. Here are just 8 such stories for you to consider. "1. Marine opens fire in apartment parking lot "An Oklahoma City marine who was on leave suddenly began opening fire in the parking lot of his apartment complex late last year. Witnesses said he originally tried to go into the apartment complex’s main office, but after employees locked him out, he started to fire his gun in the parking lot. As he was firing, another citizen with a concealed handgun came around the corner and ordered him to drop his weapon. It worked and no one was hurt. "2. Restaurant owner shoots, kills armed robbers "Just a few short days ago, 2 suspects walked into a restaurant to order food. When the employee opened the register, one of the men pulled a handgun and threatened the employees. The suspect then reached over the counter and grabbed the money. He then turned and pointed the gun toward the owner of the restaurant who was sitting at a table in the middle of the restaurant. The owner pulled out his own gun, shot the criminal in the chest, and killed him. "3. Man killed in attempted robbery "In November 2009, career criminal Kevin Duane Dudley walked into an Alabama business with a sawed-off shotgun to commit armed robbery. Thankfully, some shoppers were able to distract Dudley long off for the owner of the store to retrieve his gun and defend himself. The owner ended up shooting and killing the criminal. Dudley had been tied to several other robberies in the area as well as a recent murder. "4. Two armed robbers get shot during home invasion "When two masked men with guns broke into his home and pointed their weapons at one of the residents, Cody Buckler immediately took action. He retrieved his gun from upstairs and began shooting at the criminals. The crooks fled the scene, leaving a trail of blood behind them. The criminals were eventually apprehended. "5. Mass shooting stopped by armed volunteer security guard "In December 2007, Matthew Murray pledged he wanted to kill as many Christians as he could. The 24-year-old went to New Life Church in Colorado Springs and opened fire, killing 4 people in the process. Thankfully, an armed security guard was able to get his her weapon and shoot Murray several times, stopping him from killing any others. However, in the end, it was Murray’s own self-inflicted gunshot that ended up killing him. "6. School shooter stopped by armed college students "In 2002, a shooting at Appalachian School of Law left 3 people dead. However, the shooter was stopped before he could kill any more people. Thankfully, 2 students were able to run to their cars, get their guns, and use their weapons to halt the rampage. "7. Grandma stops intruder "When 69-year-old Ethel Jones heard her doors rattling at 3 a.m., she grabbed her gun from underneath the pillow next to her. She ended up finding an intruder inside her bedroom, forcing her to shoot the teen in the abdomen. The teenager survived and faced charges of second-degree burglary. "8. Pizza Hut delivery driver says his gun saved his life "An unnamed Pizza Hut delivery driver started carrying a legal concealed handgun to work after being robbed twice in the last 2 years. Just last week, he was robbed by 2 armed men inside the restaurant. The men pistol whipped him and as they started to lift the driver’s shirt exposing his gun, the worker pulled out his weapon and opened fire. He said he had no other choice but to act and save his life."

bounty44 -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 5:10:00 AM)
this is just within one week in one place for goodness sake, and note what the police chief has to say at the end: "In the last week, legal gun owners in Detroit put a stop to several violent crimes, underscoring the fact that in a dangerous city where police protection has become unreliable, self-defense is the answer. "Two of the instances occurred on Saturday morning. Two men — one armed a tire iron — attempted to rob a home in southwest Detroit and attacked the homeowner. Luckily, he was armed with a gun, and shot back. One of the criminals was killed; the other fled the scene. "A woman in west Detroit parked her car a in a garage and was immediately confronted by a man with a gun. According to WXYZ News, she dropped her belongings so as to confuse the man, and then shot him. "Detroit Policed Deputy Chief Rodney Johnson approved of the actions taken. “I think it’s just a matter of the individual homeowners protecting themselves and finally catching up with the criminals in that enough is enough and they aren’t going to take it anymore,” he said in a statement. "Earlier last week, a Detroit mother used a gun to defend her home and her young children from three teenage intruders, at least one of whom was armed. The criminals retreated after the mother fired at them, and all were later arrested by police. "According to Johnson, more and more Detroit citizens are applying for gun permits. "Detroit Police Chief James Craig recently voiced his support for the Second Amendment and said that communities with high rates of citizen gun ownership are safer. (RELATED: Detroit police chief: More legally armed citizens deter crime)"

bounty44 -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 5:15:44 AM)
and here's a worthy tool to look at, its a map illustrating the use of guns by armed citizens preventing crime: http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense

bounty44 -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 5:29:10 AM)
and here's a worthy tool to look at, its a map illustrating the use of guns by armed citizens preventing crime: http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense

tweakabelle -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 5:29:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Not in Texas, by the look of things. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-terror-attack-simulation-conducted-in-texas-by-gun-group/ Another old chesnut bites the dust. TTAG Charlie Hebdo Simulation: 7 Out of 9 Armed Defenders Got Hits on One Terrorist If you define success as two dead terrorists, the scenario we devised – one armed defender with a semi-automatic pistol facing two terrorists armed with rifles in an office environment – it didn’t happen. If you define success as making the terrorists pay for their attack, it was a partial success in two out of nine simulations. In one case, the armed defender’s actions enabled a successful retreat for the defensive shooter and some of the intended victims. What the simulation shows is that even a single defender can save lives. K. I read the link to TTAG that you kindly supplied. Thanks for the laughs - it was comical. I was interested to note the preliminary conclusions TTAG arrived at. Commenting on a report in addictinginfo.org that stated: "The experiment was a massive flop. The group did, indeed, gather the requested number of volunteers. Unfortunately for them, that was the most successful part of the adventure . . . Over and over, the armed civilian was “killed,” along with those “gun rights” advocates claim he or she would have protected. In only two cases was the “good guy” able to remove even one of the gunmen from the scenario. (emphasis added) The TTAG commentator noted the report "got the basic results right, he failed to put those results in context." So yes it was a "massive flop" but we need to put that into context...... According to the TTAG commentator, the following is the correct context: "1. The only gunfight you’re guaranteed to win is the one you don’t have" (well, d'uh! Who have ever guessed?) "2. [...] a self-defense firearm’s primary role is to aid its owner’s egress from a violent attack." This is not the standard claim advanced by the gun lobby. It is almost a contradiction of the usual claim that the "armed civilian" would take the terrorist/gunman out. It seems that the "armed civilian" is "primarily" concerned with saving his/her own life, *not* with taking the gunman out. "3. To counter this kind of terrorist attack, defenders need more firepower, better training" So if we turn every potential site for terrorist/gunman activity (ie. all of society) into an armed camp with defenders (plural, it's not longer the "armed citizen" but "armed citizens"), the chance of a successful attack may be diminished. The apparent cost of this dubious security is the militarisation of societies, and turning citizens into walking arsenals I am at a loss why any pro-gun person might link the above TTAG link approvingly. It seems to me to completely undermine most of the gun lobby's most cherished claims about the 'efficacy' of armed citizens in preventing or ameliorating attacks by terrorists or deranged gunmen. It implicitly confirms that in most instances the armed citizen will be unable to deal effectively with the gunmen and confirms explicitly that the cost of an effective 'armed citizen' response is a veritable militarisation of society. This seems a high price to pay for such dubious returns to say the very least. Dare I say a case of the gun lobby shooting itself in the foot? All quotes are taken from the TTAG site at: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/robert-farago/ttag-charlie-hebdo-simulation-7-out-of-9-armed-defenders-got-hits-on-one-terrorist/

PeonForHer -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 5:42:24 AM)
quote: ... It implicitly confirms that in most instances the armed citizen will be unable to deal effectively with the gunmen and confirms explicitly that the cost of an effective 'armed citizen' response is a veritable militarisation of all of society. ... And further militarisation amongst terrorists, I'd guess. If I were a terrorist who intended to attack an office whose occupants I suspected to be armed with handguns, I think I'd resort to a bomb instead. That was the standard tactic of the IRA in those decades when they were active here in the UK, anyway.

Kirata -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 5:56:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It implicitly confirms that in most instances the armed citizen will be unable to deal effectively with the gunmen and confirms explicitly that the cost of an effective 'armed citizen' response is a veritable militarisation of society. It does no such thing. It confirms that a single defender with a handgun has the short end of it against two attackers armed with rifles. The results of this experiment would have been different if we had two or three armed defenders on site. Two or three seems a little short of a militarized society, and other factors influenced the outcome as well. From link on cited page: The biggest problem reported by the volunteers was that their masks were constantly fogging up. Given the cold nights in north Texas and the lack of heating in the training area, the required safety equipment became more of a burden than expected. Many volunteers complained that they were unable to see the attackers at all when they finally entered the room, and were forced to simply shoot in their general direction. ~TTAG Under circumstances like that, for a single armed defender acting alone to be able to end the career of one of the attackers in 7 out of 9 trials, and in one case save the lives of himself and several coworkers, is pretty damn good. K.

Lucylastic -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 6:08:15 AM)
Yeah a good guy with a gun is celebrated....Oh no it depends on how "other good guys" reacts. http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/man-shopping-for-coffee-creamer-at-walmart-attacked-by-vigilante-for/2214432 BRANDON — Clarence Daniels had just crossed the threshold of Walmart's front doors on Tuesday, in search of coffee creamer for his wife, when the gun in hip holster gave a well-intentioned vigilante the idea he was up to something more sinister. From the Walmart parking lot at 11110 Causeway Boulevard, Michael Foster, 43, of Lithia had watched Daniels, 62, take from his car the handgun — for which he holds a concealed carry permit — and place it on his hip underneath his coat, Hillsborough sheriff's deputies reported. As Daniels entered the store, a label for the coffee creamer in his pocket in case he forgot the brand, Foster tackled him to the ground and placed him in a choke hold, sheriff's spokesman Larry McKinnon said. "He's got a gun!" deputies said Foster shouted. "I have a permit!" Daniels yelled back multiple times, McKinnon said. The men struggled and were separated until law enforcement arrived on scene just before noon. Foster was arrested and charged with battery. Poor guy is lucky they just tackled him

tweakabelle -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 6:20:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ... It implicitly confirms that in most instances the armed citizen will be unable to deal effectively with the gunmen and confirms explicitly that the cost of an effective 'armed citizen' response is a veritable militarisation of all of society. ... And further militarisation amongst terrorists, I'd guess. If I were a terrorist who intended to attack an office whose occupants I suspected to be armed with handguns, I think I'd resort to a bomb instead. That was the standard tactic of the IRA in those decades when they were active here in the UK, anyway. Well of course that is going to be the outcome. The nature of the obstacles one anticipates determines the nature of the attack. All that will be achieved by the militarisation of society that the logical conclusion of the pro-gun lobby's position is an escalation of violence by the attackers. When we consider that in today's world, terrorists are often only to happy to die in the execution of their attacks, the levels of escalation and violence will be horrendous. The horrors of 9/11 were effected without using a single firearm. Militarist responses to terrorism are handing victory to terrorists on a platter.

Kirata -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 6:54:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Militarist responses to terrorism are handing victory to terrorists on a platter. Militarism has nothing to do with civilian gun rights, nor is there cause for your lurid paranoia. See here: Can Citizens Use Guns Competently? K.

joether -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 8:20:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Not in Texas, by the look of things. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-terror-attack-simulation-conducted-in-texas-by-gun-group/ Another old chesnut bites the dust. I saw this the day it was released. I didnt post because the topic would have been too....tough....for our more 'moderate' conservatives on the forums. That it was a pro-2nd group that put this together states they were going for science, rather than ideology. That they posted the results states they are a group to take seriously. Hats off to them. By doing this I imagine they would take alot of heat from pro-gun groups and individuals. They tried a number of scenarios in which they placed the lone civilian with a firearm in different places, and tested different options. After each one they would discuss things and try from a different angle. To all those whom dont play FPS or RPS on the computer, this is known as 'theorycrafting'. That in each set-up, when the civilian engaged, they lost their 'life'. Only in one instance did the civilian kill one of the two gunmen, but fell to the second's hail of fire. In another instance the civilian actually ran away....and lived! While critics say "thats with paint, its totally different with real bullets". Yes, the critics might be right. Unfortunately for them, this group would only have had one 'live fire' on tape. And two individuals being wanted by the police! Yet the situation this group confronted is different from real life in two regards: A ) They knew the direction of the attack and when they could 'go'. B ) They knew the action was about to happen; so their bodies were hopped up on adrenaline. The people in Paris, did not know there was going to be an attack, nor the direction of that attack. Their bodies were rather relaxed....until....all hell broke lose. Third, they may never have had an escape plan all laid out and trained on it. CBS did a research study similar to this a few years before. And they found similar results. Every time the student with a gun engaged, they died. When they ran away, they lived. That time and this pro-2nd group have seen the same amount of mindless and lame 'arguments' from those that know they are bullshitting. Even when some of those on this very forum were asked "Ok, how would you develop a 'semi-live fire situtation, were the individuals were not aware of the events about to unfold in a safe and enclosed environment?" All I got were crickets and tumble weeds. Not one could offer up even one decent suggestion. Because I was (and still am) in favor of testing this with science. The wealth of information that could be had. Based on observations in both the CBS/Pittsburgh PD and this 2nd-Amendment group; I think it would be a curious hypothesis to state "one individual with a firearm could not defend others". Perhaps with two people. Play out scenarios. Do the invaders have grenades? Do they use a flashbang or two? The more things are tested, the more science will debunk many of the myths pushed by the gun nuts. Oh, I'm sure it'll uncover a few truths that gun nuts have stated. But then, a broken clock is correct twice a day, right?

joether -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 8:32:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Militarist responses to terrorism are handing victory to terrorists on a platter. Militarism has nothing to do with civilian gun rights, nor is there cause for your lurid paranoia. See here: Can Citizens Use Guns Competently? But "A well regulated Militia..." has much to do with civilians and firearms. In fact, I recall its mention in some 'minor' document...... Funny that I find many gun nuts and a small percentage (fortunately for them and the rest of us) that are paranoid schizophrenic. In that they believe people are out to get them, but have no evidence or facts to back it up. And that all manner of conspiracies are true....otherwise, people wouldn't be dying mysteriously, right? That they hold no trust in moderates and liberals, nor the government, but.....DEMAND....unconditional trust from all those groups of people back at them. Then get angry and enraged when that doesn't happen. Trust is a two way street; a concept most gun nuts do not understand. They want people to trust them with firearms, then its fair they trust everyone back in the same manner.

joether -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 9:08:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It implicitly confirms that in most instances the armed citizen will be unable to deal effectively with the gunmen and confirms explicitly that the cost of an effective 'armed citizen' response is a veritable militarisation of society. It does no such thing. It confirms that a single defender with a handgun has the short end of it against two attackers armed with rifles. The results of this experiment would have been different if we had two or three armed defenders on site. The funny thing with you Kirata, its just one excuse after another. Would this be two defenders prepped and ready for an attack? Or use realism and catch them unaware? Were they may have no knowledge of who else might be armed? That there is little to no room to 'plan and strategize' with their partner, even though the attackers have had plenty of time to do so? Whose to say with 3 defenders the attackers have two sets of four entering from two separate entrances? One of which is masked so as to allow the attackers to hit from behind while the first is using suppression tactics? Yeah, play alot of paintball and airsoft. The defenders always lose. They even lose when they originally out numbered the attacker. Because your not understanding the concept of ....A SURPRISE ATTACK. Its used when the attackers are ready for combat and the defenders are not. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The biggest problem reported by the volunteers was that their masks were constantly fogging up. Given the cold nights in north Texas and the lack of heating in the training area, the required safety equipment became more of a burden than expected. Many volunteers complained that they were unable to see the attackers at all when they finally entered the room, and were forced to simply shoot in their general direction. ~TTAG Bullshit.... They are just complaining the odds were not stacked in their favor and need excuses. Plenty of times I've been in a situation with a fogged masked and still had to determine friend from foe at fifty or more paces away in dim lighting. Its called 'known your terrain' and 'where your squad is'. Given only one of them had a gun for the defenders, that does reduce the chance of friendly fire. Ever been shot in the ass by a teammate? Really hurts.... Those guys knew their terrain as well. Their masks fogged up is pretty flimsy. If they were caught unaware, they would be crying for a 'do-over'. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Under circumstances like that, for a single armed defender acting alone to be able to end the career of one of the attackers in 7 out of 9 trials, and in one case save the lives of himself and several coworkers, is pretty damn good. Actually no. In all but one instance, the defender died. So did most of the people he was defending. In one instance the defender fled and lived. So did some of the lucky defenders. They did have a rule for the attackers. Pretty standard in paintball/airsoft: never shoot someone that is not armed (i.e. like the Refs). The attackers did not shoot the unarmed defenders; they could have. Would be a dick move from a 'game play' perspective. But they weren't playing a game. What happens when the defender is dead, and the attackers have closed off all the exits for the remaining defenseless defenders? Go in and shoot them all 'dead'. They didnt do it, because its....ASSUMED.

mnottertail -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 12:15:02 PM)
but the fact that he factlessly spouts horseshit without foundation as gospel, does.

slvemike4u -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 12:27:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail but the fact that he factlessly spouts horseshit without foundation as gospel, does. QFT

igor2003 -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 1:41:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Not in Texas, by the look of things. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-terror-attack-simulation-conducted-in-texas-by-gun-group/ Another old chesnut bites the dust. I saw this the day it was released. I didnt post because the topic would have been too....tough....for our more 'moderate' conservatives on the forums. That it was a pro-2nd group that put this together states they were going for science, rather than ideology. That they posted the results states they are a group to take seriously. Hats off to them. By doing this I imagine they would take alot of heat from pro-gun groups and individuals. They tried a number of scenarios in which they placed the lone civilian with a firearm in different places, and tested different options. After each one they would discuss things and try from a different angle. To all those whom dont play FPS or RPS on the computer, this is known as 'theorycrafting'. That in each set-up, when the civilian engaged, they lost their 'life'. Only in one instance did the civilian kill one of the two gunmen, but fell to the second's hail of fire. In another instance the civilian actually ran away....and lived! While critics say "thats with paint, its totally different with real bullets". Yes, the critics might be right. Unfortunately for them, this group would only have had one 'live fire' on tape. And two individuals being wanted by the police! Yet the situation this group confronted is different from real life in two regards: A ) They knew the direction of the attack and when they could 'go'. B ) They knew the action was about to happen; so their bodies were hopped up on adrenaline. The people in Paris, did not know there was going to be an attack, nor the direction of that attack. Their bodies were rather relaxed....until....all hell broke lose. Third, they may never have had an escape plan all laid out and trained on it. CBS did a research study similar to this a few years before. And they found similar results. Every time the student with a gun engaged, they died. When they ran away, they lived. That time and this pro-2nd group have seen the same amount of mindless and lame 'arguments' from those that know they are bullshitting. Even when some of those on this very forum were asked "Ok, how would you develop a 'semi-live fire situtation, were the individuals were not aware of the events about to unfold in a safe and enclosed environment?" All I got were crickets and tumble weeds. Not one could offer up even one decent suggestion. Because I was (and still am) in favor of testing this with science. The wealth of information that could be had. Based on observations in both the CBS/Pittsburgh PD and this 2nd-Amendment group; I think it would be a curious hypothesis to state "one individual with a firearm could not defend others". Perhaps with two people. Play out scenarios. Do the invaders have grenades? Do they use a flashbang or two? The more things are tested, the more science will debunk many of the myths pushed by the gun nuts. Oh, I'm sure it'll uncover a few truths that gun nuts have stated. But then, a broken clock is correct twice a day, right? In the original attack in France, didn't the terrorists shoot some armed guards as they entered the building? Would those shots have not "warned" the people inside the building? Or was it so noisy inside the building that they didn't hear the shots? Just asking because I don't know. But if they did hear the shots, then your statement that they weren't forewarned (like the test group) doesn't fly. What was the noise and activity level like inside the building before the attack both in France and in Texas? Unless the amount of daily chaos was at least somewhat similar then the results of the test would be tainted. How well trained were the terrorists in France? Were they as well trained as the two gunmen in the Texas simulation who were from a tactical training company? I don't know, but I doubt that most terrorists have that much training. Yes, I know there are terrorist training camps...but at what level do they get trained to? Unless the amount of training was at least close to equal, then the results of the test would be tainted. In post #34 you say that the "terrorists" in Texas weren't allowed to shoot the unarmed people in the rooms. That means that, unlike the actual terrorists in France, they were able to zone in on and focus only on looking for the defender with the gun. The terrorists in France kind of had an advantage there, didn't they? With French laws being what they are, the actual terrorists didn't really have to worry about possibly being shot since they could be pretty sure that none of the people there would have a gun. Would things have been different if they had been concerned about possibly being shot themselves...with real bullets...NOT paint? This renders the "test" in Texas to be UNLIKE the real thing. So how can the results be reliable? The two things you list as being "different" are by far NOT the only differences. Most differences favor the two gunmen in the Texas simulation. And your second difference...the one about the adrenaline...could easily work AGAINST the defenders, causing them to over react. So even that doesn't hold water. I am reasonably certain that if the actual circumstances between the original and the test could be compared it would be found that there are a LOT more differences, most all of which could, and probably would, taint the results. The only way to get any legitimate results from a simulation like this is to have EVERYTHING be as near the original circumstances as possible...and this falls far from that. I would like to see it set up again, but with more realism, then see the results. In my opinion, this simply wasn't a legitimate test, and the results are pretty much worthless.

Politesub53 -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 4:08:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 As I said earlier, this just goes to show armed civillians wouldnt have been able to stop the attacks. Well no, bozo. It doesn't show that. It shows that a single armed civilian acting alone wouldn't likely have been able to do so. For further assistance, see here. K. Keep digging brains, its fun watching you sink.

Kirata -> RE: So armed civillians would have stopped recent terror attacks. (2/11/2015 4:17:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The biggest problem reported by the volunteers was that their masks were constantly fogging up. Given the cold nights in north Texas and the lack of heating in the training area, the required safety equipment became more of a burden than expected. Many volunteers complained that they were unable to see the attackers at all when they finally entered the room, and were forced to simply shoot in their general direction. ~TTAG Bullshit.... Try to be more subtle when you're lying. K.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625