More media reactions and lies about TTAG experiments…

So the media has predictably begun drooling about the TTAG experiment and in short order, gone from just gleefully reporting “failure” to outright lying about the results.

From Sonny Puzikas, one of the “terrorists” in the TTAG test.

“PLEASE share this (copy and paste to your post)- not just the video of this character spewing COMPLETE lies, but the story that comes with it.


First of all- video clip he uses in his “report” is NOT from the event he is talking about, and distorting and spinning of it’s results.


Second- presence of armed individual DID make a difference at least in some way almost every time. At the very least- it slowed the advance down. Some times- significantly so. While TTAG in their “preliminary” report says that one of the “terrorists” was killed 7 times- I will say that the number is lower. Not by much, but lower. Here is why. Few of the armed individuals continued engaging after being hit repeatedly- some more than 5, 10 or even 15 times in vital areas. Reasons are many- all participants, except “terrorists” wore full head protection (terrorists only had eye protection) and didn’t feel, thus didn’t acknowledged some of the hits to the head. Some allowed their competitive nature to take over and continued engaging after being hit repeatedly. That is normal and a serious drawback in a lot cases during force on force training and simulations. And I suspect that there were few cases of just pure panic shooting- pulling the trigger until it clicked regardless of anything.


Next moment this clown is not accounting for is this- in real life it is possible that demise of one of the bad guys would have some sort of impact on the ability, desire, and method of the remaining bad guy to continue doing what he was doing.


I will write more detailed account of my impressions from this event, but let me finish with this. I know for a fact I was “killed” twice- one instance I knew immediately and have marks to prove it- as it was 2 rounds hitting my face. The second one I didn’t feel, but after removing my gear discovered 2 paint marker hits on my chest rig. In one additional instance I was hit in the forearm of my support hand, which at the very least would have affected my ability to continue using my rifle, and one additional hit in my upper leg, which at the very least could have affected my mobility. There were few additional hits resulting from armed person continuing shooting after he was hit repeatedly.


Again- PLEASE share this post, not just the video- as the video does NOT tell the truth. I am guessing the author may have certain bias…
One of the “terrorists”



TTAG simulates Charlie Hebdo attack…Lessons are learned

Screen-Shot-2015-01-13-at-11.10.02-PMThe Truth About Guns (TTAG) does a simulation of the Charlie Hebdo attack and the local media’s only takeaway is:

“…Only one survived after running away. No one was able to take out both shooters.”

via Gun Owners Participate In Simulation Of Paris Massacre « CBS Dallas / Fort Worth.

If you have been living under a rock, you might not know that an Islamic terrorist cell carried out an attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris last week. Al-Qaeda has claimed credit for the attack. Depending on who you ask, they were trained, the were organized, and there is no question, they were well armed in spite of tight European restrictions on the ownership and possession of firearms. They killed 12 people, including two responding police officer.

TTAG wanted to know if things might have gone differently had it happened in the United States where citizens can be armed and might have a better opportunity to defend themselves. The results were surprising to some, humbling to others. It has caused a great deal of discussion within the circles of people involved in the experiment and there were more takeaways from the experiment than what the media seemed to notice.

The experiment, in which 11 out of 12 participants were “fatally shot,” is a clear demonstration that mere possession of a gun does not mean success. ABCNews conducted a similar experiment a few years ago and with similar results. As in this case, none of the participants had any significant training and represent a significant majority of gun owners and CHL holders. Better training might have made a difference but, let’s face it, the vast majority of people carrying guns have done little more than attend the mandated CHL class and so, that’s who was tested.

The good news about testing this group was that some participants learned in visceral terms that they didn’t know what they didn’t know. They have been made aware of a world beyond shooting paper at their local gun range. In that some vein, some may have shot IDPA or USPSA competition and felt themselves to be OK shooters but, they too were humbled and realized they weren’t as prepared as they might have thought. Still others learned that simply waiting for help to arrive doesn’t work either. So all had their eyes opened and are better for it.

This experiment is best described as a worst case scenario. The “bad guys” in these experiments were trained, professional shooters…as in, made a living shooting people who needed to be shot. In the TTAG experiment, at least one is a well known trainer with a special forces background. To say the deck was stacked against survival for anyone is putting it mildly. Your typical beat cop in an identical situation would not have faired much better, if he survived at all. As mentioned earlier, two police officers were in fact killed in the actual attack. So there were no “easy” solutions to this scenario and some came to realize this situation was as much about minimizing losses (of life) as it was about “winning.”

Another significant point raised by one of the “bad guys” in this simulation is that each time they were engaged, it at least slowed them down. It goes back to the consistent observation that armed resistance always either slows or stops attackers. Another way to look at it is that slowing the attackers down translates into an opportunity for others to escape or plan a more effective defense if escape isn’t possible. And the media doesn’t mention that several times, one of the bad guys did get shot in the face…More often than not, that at least resets a guy’s clock and changes his priorities if it doesn’t turn him off outright. Unfortunately, even when the lone defender managed to “kill” one bad guy, the second shooter engaged and killed the defender, ending the scenario.

So what are the real takeaways here? Well, obviously, having a gun is a good thing but, as said before, it does not guarantee success. Success in these situations may simply mean fewer people die versus you “winning.” A lone defender with handgun against multiple attackers with rifles is at a distinct disadvantage.  Still, armed resistance is far from hopeless or pointless and beats the alternative of simply waiting to die.