‘Good Guy With Gun’ Would Not Have Stopped Hebdo Massacre

Posted by | January 16, 2015 18:00 | Filed under: News Behaving Badly Top Stories

Republish
Reprint


A group of oh-so-concerned ammosexuals known as “The Truth About Guns” attempted to prove that a “good guy with a gun” could have stopped the violent extremists who attacked the offices of French weekly Charlie Hebdo. The truth is that it did not go so well:

A Texas pro-gun group organized a re-enactment of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in a bizarre bid to test what would have happened if one of the murdered scribes was armed.

But the experiment set up by the group The Truth About Guns backfired — in no scenario was the “armed civilian” able to take out both “terrorists.”

Perhaps even more disappointing for the pro-gun activists, only one of the volunteers playing the role of the armed civilian even managed to survive — by fleeing the scene.

Pro-gun activist Nick Leghorn, who helped organize the experiment, not surprisingly downplayed the results.

“It’s interesting to see how people react under stress,” Leghorn told a local CBS affiliate.

Yes, it is, Foghorn, especially people whose theories about good guys with guns get shot down! ‘Nuff said…

“Like” us on Facebook

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: dave-dr-gonzo

David Hirsch, a.k.a. Dave "Doctor" Gonzo*, is a renegade record producer, video producer, writer, reformed corporate shill, and still-registered lobbyist for non-one-percenter performing artists and musicians. He lives in a heavily fortified compound in one of Manhattan's less trendy neighborhoods.

* Hirsch is the third person to use the pseudonym, a not-so-veiled tribute to journalist and author Hunter S. Thompson, with the permission of his predecessors Gene Gaudette of American Politics Journal (currently webmaster and chief bottlewasher at Liberaland) and Stephen Meese at Smashmouth Politics.

42 responses to ‘Good Guy With Gun’ Would Not Have Stopped Hebdo Massacre

  1. edmeyer_able January 16th, 2015 at 18:18

    I understand they haven’t disseminated the results of their “experiment yet, wonder why!

  2. edmeyer_able January 16th, 2015 at 19:18

    I understand they haven’t disseminated the results of their “experiment” yet, wonder why!

  3. mea_mark January 16th, 2015 at 18:42

    I wonder what would’ve happened if they played out the scenario with the terrorist being pissed off and deciding to just kill everyone. You pull a gun and challenge a mentally unstable person, they will probably get pissed. My guess, no survivors.

    • edmeyer_able January 16th, 2015 at 18:45

      Seems strange they didn’t conduct their test with everyone having an AR-16 at their desk cause…..gunz.

      • mea_mark January 16th, 2015 at 18:51

        Well, if it happened in Texas, they probably would have. In France it is supposed to be hard to get guns. They were at least trying to be kinda realistic.

  4. mea_mark January 16th, 2015 at 19:42

    I wonder what would’ve happened if they played out the scenario with the terrorist being pissed off and deciding to just kill everyone. You pull a gun and challenge a mentally unstable person, they will probably get pissed. My guess, no survivors.

    • edmeyer_able January 16th, 2015 at 19:45

      Seems strange they didn’t conduct their test with everyone having an AR-16 at their desk cause…..gunz.

      • mea_mark January 16th, 2015 at 19:51

        Well, if it happened in Texas, they probably would have. In France it is supposed to be hard to get guns. They were at least trying to be kinda realistic.

  5. ExPFCWintergreen January 16th, 2015 at 19:49

    Dear Ammosexuals: I know you’re keen on the Good Guy Widda Gun fantasy. It’s easy to understand why. You’ve watched an awful lot of the Chuck Norris oeuvre, and Chuck (of course) is always a Good Guy Widda Gun who just so happens to Jump In and Save The Day. I have to confess, I’ve seen a lot of Chuck Norris flicks, too; everyone in the Service watched ’em back in the glory days of Saint Ronnie of Simi Valley. Because we spent a lot of time carrying firearms and preparing to use them against folks who were wearing the wrong color uniforms.

    (I’m especially fond of “Invasion U.S.A.,” Chuck’s 1985 anti-dark-skinned-terrorist remake of the 1952 Red Scare anti-Communist classic, because Chuck has those awesome Uzis that he fires for, like, 30 seconds each without changing magazines, even though the sustained rate of fire of an Uzi is just under 600 rounds/minute with a magazine capacity of 25 rounds — which means Chuck has Invisible Magic Mags that hold 12 times as many bullets as every other magazine for that weapon on Earth.)

    But there’s a wee tiny problem with your Good Guy Widda Gun belief system — basically, it never actually happens. The only instances we read about that “prove” the Good Guy Widda Gun actually Thwarted The Evil-Doers are those where GGWG either surprises the Bad Guys — that is, ambushes them — or where the Bad Guys are unarmed (the so-called “self-defense use of a firearm” the NRA is so fond of touting, statistical reality to the contrary notwithstanding).

    These Charlie Hebdo shooters? They were tactical. Trained. Prepared for a hypothetical GGWG. Which is the basic problem with the whole GGWG fantasy: when you discharge a firearm at a Bad Guy Widda Gun, the BBWG tends to shoot back at you. And take it from me: when someone is shooting at you, you don’t stand there, arms akimbo, and cooly squeeze off 300 rounds of steel-jacketed death from your Invisible Magic Mags. You hide. And hope you don’t get shot. Which means that the probability a GGWG is going to do *ANY*thing other than materially increase in the carnage associated with a mass casualty shooting event is pretty damn low.

    Unless you’re Chuck Norris. In a movie.

    • burqa January 16th, 2015 at 23:19

      I have made the same argument many times – you gotta get the drop.
      But we can’t use absolutes as you did. We just had a case where a couple in a gun store managed to shoot the attackers, even though one of the gun store owners was severely wounded.
      I have read of cases where armed punks broke into a house and fled when they heard the homeowner on the second floor rack a shotgun round into the chamber. When I was a kid that very thing happened in my own house. Burglars broke in and were in the kitchen. When they heard my father rack a round into his 12 guage, they hauled ass outta there.

      With the Charlie Hebdo attack, when watching the film of them killing the cop on the street, I couldn’t help but wonder what could have happened if the person recording the scene on camera had had a rifle and could shoot. The killers were right out in the open.

      Back to my first point – you gotta get the drop. I’d add know they were coming. So if you’re on the 4th floor and hear shooting below and it’s getting closer and you have a gun, you have time to load it and hide with a good shot of the door so when the BGWG comes through you can shoot him before he shoots you.

      • ExPFCWintergreen January 16th, 2015 at 23:54

        If if if if if if. Even IF the person with the video had a rifle, there’s a chasm between squinting over an iron sight at a paper target or a beer can — or even an animal — and squinting over one at a person. It’s hard enough for trained soldiers to make that leap. A civilian? Yeah probably not so much. And then there’s the whole question of missing the target. Which most people do. Most of the time. Center-mass on a moving target in the midst of the din of gunfire is a pretty good trick.

        • burqa January 17th, 2015 at 00:39

          Yeah, if.
          The whole discussion is about if.
          You make good points on the difference between shooting a person and game or a beer can; and on missing the target.
          There wasn’t a lot of din of gunfire when the two killers finished off that cop in the street, and shots from the person with the camera – even if they missed – may have encouraged the 2 killers to move out and leave the wounded cop instead of finishing him off with a bullet in the head.

          I think I gave a reasonable scenario of the Charlie Hebdo attack -being on the 4th floor and hearing shots below, coming closer. With such warning, one has time to load and get in position to cover the door and be ready to shoot a bad guy coming through.
          I’m not talking about other scenarios, just this one.

    • fahvel January 19th, 2015 at 13:34

      hey, when I was a kid, the cowboys never loaded at all and my pop told me that’s why they were called 45’s – 45 shots before a reload.

  6. ExPFCWintergreen January 16th, 2015 at 20:49

    Dear Ammosexuals: I know you’re keen on the Good Guy Widda Gun fantasy. It’s easy to understand why. You’ve watched an awful lot of the Chuck Norris oeuvre, and Chuck (of course) is always a Good Guy Widda Gun who just so happens to Jump In and Save The Day. I have to confess, I’ve seen a lot of Chuck Norris flicks, too; everyone in the Service watched ’em back in the glory days of Saint Ronnie of Simi Valley, because we spent a lot of time carrying firearms and preparing to use them against folks who were wearing the wrong color uniforms.

    (I’m especially fond of “Invasion U.S.A.,” Chuck’s 1985 anti-dark-skinned-terrorist remake of the 1952 Red Scare anti-Communist classic, because Chuck has those awesome Uzis that he fires for, like, 30 seconds each without changing magazines, even though the sustained rate of fire of an Uzi is just under 600 rounds/minute with a magazine capacity of 25 rounds — which means Chuck has Invisible Magic Mags that hold 12 times as many bullets as every other magazine for that weapon on Earth.)

    But there’s a wee tiny problem with your Good Guy Widda Gun belief system — basically, it never actually happens. The only instances we read about that “prove” the Good Guy Widda Gun actually Thwarted The Evil-Doers are those where GGWG either surprises the Bad Guys — that is, ambushes them — or where the Bad Guys are unarmed (the so-called “self-defense use of a firearm” the NRA is so fond of touting, statistical reality to the contrary notwithstanding).

    These Charlie Hebdo shooters? They were tactical. Trained. Prepared for a hypothetical GGWG. Which is the basic problem with the whole GGWG fantasy: when you discharge a firearm at a Bad Guy Widda Gun, the BGWG tends to shoot back at you. And take it from me: when someone is shooting at you, you don’t stand there, arms akimbo, and cooly squeeze off 300 rounds of steel-jacketed death from your Invisible Magic Mags. You hide. And hope you don’t get shot. Which means that the probability a GGWG is going to do *ANY*thing other than materially increase in the carnage associated with a mass casualty shooting event is pretty damn low.

    Unless you’re Chuck Norris. In a movie.

    • burqa January 17th, 2015 at 00:19

      I have made the same argument many times – you gotta get the drop.
      But we can’t use absolutes as you did. We just had a case where a couple in a gun store managed to shoot the attackers, even though one of the gun store owners was severely wounded.
      I have read of cases where armed punks broke into a house and fled when they heard the homeowner on the second floor rack a shotgun round into the chamber. When I was a kid that very thing happened in my own house. Burglars broke in and were in the kitchen. When they heard my father rack a round into his 12 guage, they hauled ass outta there.

      With the Charlie Hebdo attack, when watching the film of them killing the cop on the street, I couldn’t help but wonder what could have happened if the person recording the scene on camera had had a rifle and could shoot. The killers were right out in the open.

      Back to my first point – you gotta get the drop. I’d add know they were coming. So if you’re on the 4th floor and hear shooting below and it’s getting closer and you have a gun, you have time to load it and hide with a good shot of the door so when the BGWG comes through you can shoot him before he shoots you.

      • ExPFCWintergreen January 17th, 2015 at 00:54

        If if if if if if. Even IF the person with the video had a rifle, there’s a chasm between squinting over an iron sight at a paper target or a beer can — or even an animal — and squinting over one at a person. It’s hard enough for trained soldiers to make that leap. A civilian? Yeah probably not so much. And then there’s the whole question of missing the target. Which most people do. Most of the time. Center-mass on a moving target in the midst of the din of gunfire is a pretty good trick.

        • burqa January 17th, 2015 at 01:39

          Yeah, if.
          The whole discussion is about if.
          You make good points on the difference between shooting a person and game or a beer can; and on missing the target.
          There wasn’t a lot of din of gunfire when the two killers finished off that cop in the street, and shots from the person with the camera – even if they missed – may have encouraged the 2 killers to move out and leave the wounded cop instead of finishing him off with a bullet in the head.

          I think I gave a reasonable scenario of the Charlie Hebdo attack -being on the 4th floor and hearing shots below, coming closer. With such warning, one has time to load and get in position to cover the door and be ready to shoot a bad guy coming through.
          I’m not talking about other scenarios, just this one.

    • fahvel January 19th, 2015 at 14:34

      hey, when I was a kid, the cowboys never loaded at all and my pop told me that’s why they were called 45’s – 45 shots before a reload.

  7. allison1050 January 16th, 2015 at 20:19

    Leghorn? Leghorn?? I wouldn’t trust a guy that had a name like that. Don’t any of these creatures have friggin jobs?

    • burqa January 21st, 2015 at 08:00

      Whaya wanna bet he speaks with a stutter?

      • allison1050 January 21st, 2015 at 11:07

        Thanks burqa, I was planning on picking up flamenco when I was sick last summer but am still looking forward to doing so in a few short weeks so I decided I needed a new avi that’s suits my plan.

  8. allison1050 January 16th, 2015 at 21:19

    Leghorn? Leghorn?? I wouldn’t trust a guy that had a name like that. Don’t any of these creatures have friggin jobs?

    • burqa January 21st, 2015 at 09:00

      Whaya wanna bet he speaks with a stutter?
      Great avatar, by the way…..

      • allison1050 January 21st, 2015 at 12:07

        Thanks burqa, I was planning on picking up flamenco when I was sick last summer but am still looking forward to doing so in a few short weeks so I decided I needed a new avi that’s suits my plan.

  9. Red Eye Robot January 17th, 2015 at 15:42

    While we have no idea what might have happened if someone were armed were present, What was proven irrefutably was that being completely unarmed did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent this attack or to keep these people safe. This attack also demonstrates that banning guns will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent this sort of crime, whether it is a magazine, an elementary school or a movie theater.

  10. Red Eye Robot January 17th, 2015 at 16:42

    While we have no idea what might have happened if someone were armed were present, What was proven irrefutably was that being completely unarmed did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent this attack or to keep these people safe. This attack also demonstrates that banning guns will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent this sort of crime, whether it is a magazine, an elementary school or a movie theater.

Leave a Reply