While you were perusing garage sales or knocking off items from your ‘To-Do’ list this weekend, a Texas gun rights group was re-enacting the massacre that occurred at the office of satirical publication Charlie Hebdo in Paris last week, only this time they set out to prove if just one of the staff members had been armed more lives could have been saved.
Hey — at least they’re finally showing interest in science!
The group called, The Truth about Guns, recreated the Charlie Hebdo office and members took turns playing the ‘armed civilian’ and the ‘attackers’ with paintball guns.
Needless to say, they couldn’t prove their hypothesis to be correct. The ‘armed civilian’ was shot before they could take out both attackers in every scenario. In only one scenario did the armed civilian make it out of the “attack” alive — when he ran away from the shooters.
Linda Cruz, a volunteer, told CBS-DFW:
He started shooting – and I started shooting.
Cruz did not make it out “alive.”
Another volunteer, Parks Matthews said:
[I] still got killed, but did better than I thought I would.
However, despite the evidence that pulling a weapon results in death 100 percent of the time in this scenario, it did not deter this ammosexual from wanting to fight an attacker in a real life scenario.
He said:
If I’m in a movie theater and someone pulls a gun, what am I going to do? I know now I’m not gonna just fall on my kids and protect them, I need to advance on the threat.
Authorities say that’s exactly what he should do — if he can’t run away. While every situation is different, in one such as the Hebdo attacks, the gunmen have larger weapons, the element of surprise and bloodlust on their side. Fighting the attacker should come as a last resort when a person cannot run, hide or play dead.
Here is another simulation that shows pulling a weapon on an attacker is not a great idea:
According to these Texan right-wingers if their hypothesis is incorrect, who cares!? Second Amendment ya’ll! Pow-pow!
H/T: Raw Story | Photo: CBS-DFW
Send to Kindle
