Could the Charlie Hebdo attack have been less deadly if the magazine's staffers were armed? The Truth About Guns, a Texas-based pro-firearm group, posed that question, so they recreated the shooting nine times, adding an armed defender into the simulation.
The results did not bear out the National Rifle Association-endorsed mantra that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
Robert Farrago, publisher for the group's website, told Fusion that out of the nine times they ran the simulation, only twice did the armed defender manage to to kill one of the attackers. The defender was killed both times. During one of the scenarios, the defender and several of the hostages survived after she used her weapon as cover while they retreated. (The group posted its rather unscientific methodology for the experiment here.)
Still, the group believes that more firepower is better.
"If somebody is in a situation where they may face a coordinated attack, they need to think clearly about what firearms they have and how to use them," Farrago said. "One man with a handgun versus two terrorists with rifles is quite literally outgunned."
Fidel Martinez is an editor at Fusion.net. He's also a Texas native and a lifelong El Tri fan.