Full Report on Shooting Simulation Study

Conclusion

This experiment was a preliminary test, providing a proving ground for the methodology and scenarios selected for testing before being implemented in a large scale test at a later date.

Based on the limited data collected from this experiment it appears that an armed teacher would save lives in an active shooter scenario. The caveat: the teacher’s effectiveness depends on their level of training. Maximum effectiveness of an armed teacher of any skill level is achieved with advanced warning of the approaching shooter and implementation of a classroom “lockdown.”

Full Report PDF

Quick and dirty summary is that it takes a gun to stop a gun. Training levels and advanced warning make the situation better but in the end even an untrained hand with no warning was better than huddling in the corner.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Conclusion

This experiment was a preliminary test, providing a proving ground for the methodology and scenarios selected for testing before being implemented in a large scale test at a later date.

Based on the limited data collected from this experiment it appears that an armed teacher would save lives in an active shooter scenario. The caveat: the teacher’s effectiveness depends on their level of training. Maximum effectiveness of an armed teacher of any skill level is achieved with advanced warning of the approaching shooter and implementation of a classroom “lockdown.”

Full Report PDF


Quick and dirty summary is that it takes a gun to stop a gun. Training levels and advanced warning make the situation better but in the end even an untrained hand with no warning was better than huddling in the corner.

This just happened to take place in Connecticut too?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I dont need a study to tell me that. Let the teachers concealed carry if they choose. At least they'll have a first line of defense against criminals other than throwing their bodies at the shooters. Just a thought.

would it be nice if all this backfires and we walk away with more libertys for our gun rights.

Yeah, i know, wake me up, Im dreaming again.

You know what its true, a teacher with a gun would have had more chance of stopping these killers but it still fails to address the root problem, the fact the guns get into these killers hands in the first place.

I just kills me you guys dont see the irony in thinking more guns are the answer to your growing gun problem.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


One of those options is possible and has shown to be effective.

The other option is impossible. Unless you've come up with the magic formula?

It's really that simple.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

 

One of those options is possible and has shown to be effective.

The other option is impossible. Unless you've come up with the magic formula?

It's really that simple.

Well then its just a completely F***** up state of affairs you guys are in and its because guns are evreywhere whether you like to admit it or not.

Guns as the answer to gun violence just equals more gun violence

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

... and its because guns are evreywhere whether you like to admit it or not.

Seems most pro-gun people are admitting as much. It's the anti-gun crowd that seems to think a sprinkle of some magic fairy dust and a dozen paramilitary raids a day in every town across America for several years believes otherwise.

Guns as the answer to gun violence just equals more gun violence

True. So is a reduction of violence now the focus of the cause? Is all violence even bad? Is it evil of me to use violence against a person using violence toward myself?

You should remain consistent. Is it a reduction of "gun-murder", murder, or violence in general that we are looking to accomplish here?

I thought we we're all just trying to prevent or mitigate the casualties of any future gun-free zone slaughter.

Reducing "gun-murder" calls for specific action and in the long run doesnt save any lives.
Reduction of murder all around calls for specific action that I'm afraid most people would rather not take.
Reduction of violence all around calls for a massive societal shift in everything from playground sports to Hollywood blockbusters that I know people will not take.

So which is it?

Be realistic. No unicorns, fairy dust or "we have to do something!" irrational nonsense.

Identify the problem. Be specific. Then propose a solution. Dont forget to back up your solution with real examples and figures.

For instance:

Problem = gun-murder
Solution = ban all the guns
Supported by = UK restrictions and "gun-murder" stats.

But that route is unrelated to overall murder rates, overall violence rates and even instances of mass-murder so while the overall specific "gun-murder" rate may be down nothing has really changed as far as violence, murder and even mass-murder rates go so you've accomplished.........what, exactly? Unless it can be proven that dying by gun is somehow less comfortable than dying by some other means you really havent accomplished anything other than shifting some numbers around on paper and making some plebes feel good about themselves.

So do we work to protect our kids in these resistance free slaughter zones or do we continue to chase rainbows?

I highly doubt these murderers chosse schools, malls or cinemas due to an absence of guns, it seems to me like they wanted maximum casualties and these places are all enclosed and have less exit points to escape.

I think I replied my suggestions to you in another thread but Ill do it again here

1) Stop selling guns, I assume that anyone who wants a gun already has at least one, as stated in a police report linked by a pro gunner its usually guns that come from people with multiple firearms that get into the hands of crims.
Having more than 1 or 2 isnt about protection anymore its a hobby. So you need to decide if it is actually about protection or if its just a love of guns

2) Start a voluntary buy back scheme, you take your guns to a police station or wherever, hand em over, get your cash and watch the gun destroyed in front of you so you know its not gonna end up in the hands of criminals or be resold at a profit.

3) make guns outside the home illegal and subject to confiscation and destruction, if caught but no crime committed a big fine the first 2 times, 3rd time mandatory jail sentence.

4) if used in a crime then an additional X amount of years non parole on top of the sentence for the crime

Guns being everywhere in your society has taken away any taboo with using them which is also a massive factor in your death rates.

I have to disagree with you on your claim that murder and even mass murder rates wouldnt go down.
Even when guns were legal in the UK gun deaths werent an issue but in the US I believe due to it not being taboo its out of control, As guns went out of circulation over the years Im very confident you would see a massive reduction in these numbers.
As for mass murder, its not hardened crims doing these things its normally unbalanced teens who if they couldnt get them from a store or their parents they wouldnt be able to get them.

Criminals will always get guns but the amount of times they are used on civilians is negligible, not enough to justify the amount of accidental and crime of passion deaths that make up a large number of civilian gun deaths.

I agree with you and dont think you would see much difference in the first few years but you all need to decide what sort of country your leaving to the next generation.

Do you want it to get to the stage where its an absolute necessity to either have EVERY SINGLE PERSON armed or have armed guards/police at every school/mall/cinema?

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

1) Stop selling guns, I assume that anyone who wants a gun already has at least one, as stated in a police report linked by a pro gunner its usually guns that come from people with multiple firearms that get into the hands of crims.
Having more than 1 or 2 isnt about protection anymore its a hobby. So you need to decide if it is actually about protection or if its just a love of guns

How? Are we going to completely close the borders? Register every drill press and have random inspections to homes with welding equipment?

2) Start a voluntary buy back scheme, you take your guns to a police station or wherever, hand em over, get your cash and watch the gun destroyed in front of you so you know its not gonna end up in the hands of criminals or be resold at a profit.

You going to make the government pay me fair market value for my $5K Caesar Guerini or am I supposed to be thrilled with a $100 Walmart certificate?

3) make guns outside the home illegal and subject to confiscation and destruction, if caught but no crime committed a big fine the first 2 times, 3rd time mandatory jail sentence.

Illegal possession is already more severely punished than your suggestion.

4) if used in a crime then an additional X amount of years non parole on top of the sentence for the crime

Already done. Use of a firearm in commission of a crime tacks on another 10.

I have to disagree with you on your claim that murder and even mass murder rates wouldnt go down.
Even when guns were legal in the UK gun deaths werent an issue but in the US I believe due to it not being taboo its out of control, As guns went out of circulation over the years Im very confident you would see a massive reduction in these numbers.
As for mass murder, its not hardened crims doing these things its normally unbalanced teens who if they couldnt get them from a store or their parents they wouldnt be able to get them.

The US murder rate is falling year over year despite the increase in gun sales. Not saying more guns = less crime but apparently more guns does not = more equal murders otherwise the number of murders would be rising in kind with gun sales.

Criminals will always get guns but the amount of times they are used on civilians is negligible, not enough to justify the amount of accidental and crime of passion deaths that make up a large number of civilian gun deaths.

The rates as they are are negligible. Why limit liberty in the off chance of reducing negligible to 80% or even 50% of negligible?

I agree with you and dont think you would see much difference in the first few years but you all need to decide what sort of country your leaving to the next generation.

A free one. Freer than the one we got stuck with.

Do you want it to get to the stage where its an absolute necessity to either have EVERY SINGLE PERSON armed or have armed guards/police at every school/mall/cinema?

It's not, never has and will never be that way though irrational fear makes it seem so.

Well just have to agree to disagree

To me it really just seems like most of you want guns and will use any justification to have one or 10.

I hope you never have reason to use yours or lose someone due to a psycho easily getting one.

Peace

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


Here we go again.

I highly doubt these murderers chosse schools, malls or cinemas due to an absence of guns, it seems to me like they wanted maximum casualties and these places are all enclosed and have less exit points to escape.

They choose gun free zones because they are cowards and know they can do as they wish until guys with guns show up. We need to ban gun free zones, or I should say criminal safe havens.

Having more than 1 or 2 isnt about protection anymore its a hobby. So you need to decide if it is actually about protection or if its just a love of guns

It is about protection and it is about a hobby, hunting, love of guns, and sporting. I have more than one pistol, because one is really small and I can carry that with anything I have on, One I leave at home for my wife and one is a duty pistol.(and so on)

2) Start a voluntary buy back scheme, you take your guns to a police station or wherever, hand em over, get your cash and watch the gun destroyed in front of you so you know its not gonna end up in the hands of criminals or be resold at a profit.

All guns in a buy back get destroyed............Let me just end the rest of your reply now with saying this.

What you are asking for is not possible, unless you destroy every gun on earth.
If police still have them criminals will have them, if military has them, then criminals do.
If there are guns out there, then evil people will have them.

Did i not just read about 300,000 guns being dumped on the streets of the UK, I wonder how that is possible.

reply to post by GunzCoty


Here we go again

Dude Ive dealt with these arguments many times over the past few weeks and just dont have the inclination to do so any longer.

You wanna read my rebuttals check my profile and click on either of the 2 massive threads on the subject.

Im not American so why care what I even think?
I think deep down you all know its wrong to want guns everywhere which is why you all get such bunched up panties when the topic is brought up.

If it was truly harmless and as great as you all say you all wouldnt get so rabid in your defences.
If someone told me playing AFL was wrong I would just laugh.

Keep your guns and once again I hope you never have reason to use them or regret wanting them readily available.

And for the record I said voluntary buy back not forced or compulsory