Friday, April 20, 2007

Take the Airsoft Challenge

There's a lot of debate going on right now about what the results of the Virginia Tech massacre might have been had just one targeted student been armed.

Here's a way we can approximate real world results: Stage an Airsoft mass shooting.

Gather around 20 friends or so. Pick a room to conduct the test. Everyone should have protective gear. One person should act as recorder/tally keeper, off-limits to the action.

One person will act as the shooter. He will enter the room where everyone else is seated in simulation of a classroom setting. He will block the only exit and begin shooting. In order to be faithful to the Virginia Tech scenario, no one will fight back. You can run, you can duck and cover, you can play dead, you can plead, you can pray, but you can't counterattack. Feel free to add to the pandemonium, though. If hit, raise your hand and remain in place.

What were the results?

Now we're going to repeat the test, but this time, one person in the room will have a concealed Airsoft pistol, and will draw and fire it at the shooter when they think they can. Again, to be faithful to real world conditions, this person should have practiced with the "weapon" beforehand to approximate the skill level of a trained and knowledgeable gun owner. And to keep things as realistic as possible, don't tell the shooter or anyone else this scenario is planned. THIS IS IMPORTANT. Let them get through one massacre, and then tell them you want to do it again to reconfirm the results of the first test--that way, the shooter will be just like Cho, or Harris or Klebold--he won't be expecting resistance from his prey--and the "victims" will likewise not have cause to react differently.

What were the results this time? If the person shooting back is hit, could he likely have continued firing? Note that this does not guarantee everyone will survive, or that there won't be collateral damage--what we're looking for is simply a difference in raw numbers of people shot. The recorder will call a halt to the action when the initial shooter is deemed stopped, and ask everyone to remain where they are and report if they've been hit and where.

Then we can up the ante. Pick a new shooter, again one who doesn't know there may be armed victims. Now add another concealed carrier in the classroom, or maybe a couple more--after all,those opposed to armed defense would have us believe the more people with guns, the worse such situations are likely to become--why not test that theory as well? As the number of concealed carriers goes up, what happens to the number of victims?

Feel free to come up with variations and rules of your own--this is just a rough idea at this stage. If anyone actually conducts these or similar tests, I'd be interested in hearing the results.

Disclaimer: If you do this, I'm not responsible for any consequences. Here's some information you may find useful, but I ain't vouching for it. It might not be a bad idea to let local "authorities" know about your intentions so you don't get mistaken for real shooters and shot. Even firing Airsoft equipment may be illegal in some jurisdictions/prohibited in some locations. You may want to get everyone to sign waivers, but that's not legal advice. Here's an online manual I found-- follow its suggestions at your own risk.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sorry, David, I don't think that will work. Everyone involved would know that nothing here is lethal, and I think that would color his reactions. It wold too readily devolve into a game.

Anonymous said...

Not necessarily. All you're looking for is how many people can be hit in a "vital" area. Doesn't matter whether they know it's not lethal.

We use Airsoft for force-on-force as a low cost substitute for sims. They have tiny paintballs you can use to verify hits, if you're concerned people who are hit won't be honest about it.

Anonymous said...

Oh, okay. The tiny paintballs would make a difference.

Anonymous said...

DON'T try it as Southern Miss. A kid there just got ARRESTED for taking an airsoft pistol to a costume party where he was dressed up like a detective.

Anonymous said...

This is the kind of action thinking I like David.

Just seeing a news clip on TV where some students and faculty tried this would be a huge boost in moral.


C.H.

David Codrea said...

Crotalus--I did say "approximate"--I know the potential to freeze wouldn't be as great as in a truly lethal situation, but if someone were inclined to do that, having a concealed weapon in real life would be useless, and I'm sure you don't believe that. This is why we train. The more people who practiced this, the less inclined they would be to freeze--they use simulation all the time in training professionals--to develop reaction times, judgment, etc. That's not a lethal situation either, but I think it can be fairly well documented how the training helps in real world encounters.

Vanderboegh--I did caution about LEO notification in my disclaimer.

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't work because no one risks dying? That critique would apply to military combat training and sims, no?

Bill St. Clair said...

Great idea. The one additional scenario I'd like to see is having the entire unarmed group attack the gunman. Game ends when somebody takes the gun out of his hand. Of course a real active defense of this sort would involve throwing things, which would likely work better than just running at the attacker.

David Codrea said...

Thought of that in my original iteration of this idea, Bill, but decided too many people could get hurt--even with protective gear and if you made it touch instead of tackle. I suppose if they were all in shape and the walls/floors padded, or if they're just rugby players who didn't care...:) As for throwing things, I had pillows marked as objects--but the whole thing started to get off focus, which is to demonstrate armed defense, plus, in a real situation, the group would not swarm without discussion and coordination as on Flight 93--there simply wouldn't be time to do this isin a shooting situation--more likely it would be one person acting while everyone else was frozen...

Anonymous said...

I got a look at the proposed setup at another blog, and it DOES look like a goo training scenario.

And, no, I don't believe carrying is useless. If anything, I'll be more confident that I can do something.

Anonymous said...

*ahem* "GOOD training scenario."

Proofreading is my friend...

Fletch said...

I KNOW that somewhere among your readers is someone who lives in a gun supporting state. Hell, a student might do it just as a "study" and send the tapes to the major media outlets.

The only thing is, it would have to happen quick. It's news while it's fresh in everyone's mind and they're more likely to show it around now than if it was just randomly sent in.

Sadly I live in california, and while my count is mildly ccw permissive, discharging gas-powered projectile launchers of any kind gets you a ticket and a fine. Even lookalike guns on campus will get you sent to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200...

I think it could really get people thinking.

Captain38 said...

Dave,

I think you're on the right track. Some folks are too quick to put down any idea that's not theirs. The trick is to convince them that it was!

Captain38

Unknown said...

I think it is a great idea because it will reflect a real life situation. The truth is if you are allowed by law to carry a gun, you should be able to carry it to a classroom. This is an other gun control law made by people who dont understand or care about life and death situations for everyday people. These laws are made for political leverage to make soccer moms and other groups that live in denial happy.