Congratties; they proved that training is worth undertaking for this exercise. I suppose that's useful data, as some training is entirely worthless (for instance, the ten-minute 'conflict resolution/psychology' primer mandated in Texas CHL classes).
That's it. Because they did not control for
unarmed defenders, there is no way to claim the guns did not make them in some manner more effective. Forget the argument that the 'attackers' were not deterred by the guns or whatever, because that was never the data the study was seeking (it was to determine whether civilian handgun
use was particularly effective).
Unfortunately, because they only tested for two data points (random, untrained folks vs. cops that shot
on that range regularly), the most useful answers are unseen. We see the top and bottom of the learning curve, but we don't know how it slopes, yet. It would be interesting to do such tests during a multi-day/week self-defense training class, to see exactly how many hours of work correlate to the biggest payoff in most cases.
You'd think that people seeking to impose mandatory training regimens upon us to carry would at least be interested in a scientific means of determining what amount is necessary, right?
The study also needs to have screened subjects for those openly unwilling to defend themselves with lethal force, firearm or otherwise (since those folks won't be in the police portion of the study, and won't be carrying a firearm in any scenario, regardless). It also needs to subtract points from those who did not fire, amounting to the lives of the 'friendlies' present on the range; the killer won't be killing
just them if they freeze or are hit first. Likewise, scenarios with unarmed defenders should be included with the same handicap to the rules (all friendlies assumed killed unless they stop the attacker within the timeframe). Money or swag should have also been riding on each subject's victory, but I doubt they were given any incentive to kill or be killed aside from their ego or politics.
Much like the Charlie Hebdo simulation TTAG did a while back, they also forgot to look at a scenario with two or more defenders against one or more attackers. The very brief experiment they did showed a nearly insurmountable shifting of the odds towards the defenders, with only two armed. I'm sure the military/police have such data, but it is likely classified as obvious strategic data.
TCB
