You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Active shooters simulation
- Thread starter Glenn E. Meyer
- Start date
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Actually no.Jim243 said:Your CPA wife knows better than that. However, if Glenn did get someone to fund his study, he would need to report the income from the funding on his annual tax return.
I could probably set up a non-profit educational corporation to conduct the study and secure a 501(c)(3) tax exemption. So contributions to the corporation would be tax deductible by the donor and not taxable to the corporation.
Of course any compensation paid to Glenn or any other employee or contractor of the corporation would be taxable as ordinary income to the employee/contractor.
I would point out that the 50/50 odds were for a shooter that is an active SWAT officer with 22 years of experience. That is pretty darn good. I would like to see that experiment re run using some random people with very little experience as the bad guys.
I had similar thoughts. It seems to me that the trend towards "self radicalization" and "lone wolf attacks" is a trend towards less training and more amateurism by terrorists, tipping the odds a bit more towards a defender.
(Yes, I know that terrorist attacks are a low-probability scenario, but it was the scenario presented in the test.)
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Its impossible to do a real study on the subject.
If im in the study, you equip me with a sim gun and tell me whats going to occur. I KNOW its faked. Regardless if it happens during the orientation or not. IF i think its real im not going to use the "sim" gun.
No way to get REAL data, cause the situation is never "real"
That basic sentiment holds true for pretty much every study I've ever designed, participated in, or read. Doubly so for those involving human subjects. Well at least those performed in the last 50 years or so. All kinds of policy decisions are still made based on such studies.
There are ways to get much better results than those we have seen. The Diane Sawyers was absolutely lopsided. This small stations attempt really leaned to our benefit. Basically putting the "victim" in condition orange with every thought in his mind being centered toward moving to condition red.
They make for great ratings, but anyone with a brain knows they are really as worthless as the anti-gun CNN web polls. All those show is pro-gun groups are much better at organizing a drive to click on a link.
Last edited:
Mannlicher
New member
Not sure at all, that a 'study' would show anything you could bank on. In a group setting, there are so many variables, that figuring out what would happen, or determining later what did happen and why, is almost impossible. Utilizing that result to make a decision on a different scenario just extends the pointlessness of the whole thing.
What I do believe, is that armed Citizens, highly trained or not, will react in some manner not expected by their attackers, and will certainly result in a different outcome than the attackers anticipated.
What I do believe, is that armed Citizens, highly trained or not, will react in some manner not expected by their attackers, and will certainly result in a different outcome than the attackers anticipated.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Some more on simulations.
http://bearingarms.com/ready-aim-truth-can-armed-citizens-defeat-active-shooters/
How to do a good experiment? I will think about and discuss with some other techy types who do this sort of thing.
http://bearingarms.com/ready-aim-truth-can-armed-citizens-defeat-active-shooters/
How to do a good experiment? I will think about and discuss with some other techy types who do this sort of thing.
2damnold4this
New member
Thanks for the article, Glenn.
kilimanjaro
New member
"What I do believe, is that armed Citizens, highly trained or not, will react in some manner not expected by their attackers, and will certainly result in a different outcome than the attackers anticipated."
Isn't that the point of the study, to determine if that will indeed occur on a fairly certain basis?
Whether or not it results in active shooters taken out by head shots fired by secretaries at 17 yards is not the point of running a study. Does it increase the odds of survival for the innocents in the situation, or not? That's the entire point.
Isn't that the point of the study, to determine if that will indeed occur on a fairly certain basis?
Whether or not it results in active shooters taken out by head shots fired by secretaries at 17 yards is not the point of running a study. Does it increase the odds of survival for the innocents in the situation, or not? That's the entire point.