Warren
Member
Take a group of random people, give them saftey glasses have them change into different clothes and put them into a mocked-up school or office environment.
Assign them all roles to play.
Tell them they get X amount of dollars even if they are "killed" but X*3 if they "survive".
Release a "gunman" into the environment. He is armed with simuntions or a laser tag type thing or even a regular paint-ball gun.
He gets $Y for each person he marks.
He could start anywhere. He could come from outside or inside. He could be any of the roles. The others do not know. In fact the "gunman" was randomly chosen from the overall group.
They key here is that none of the others has a "gun". There are many things about that could be used as weapons but no guns.
In the interest of safety likely items to be used as improvised weapons would be "break-away" or made of styrofoam or other light materials.
Umpires would determine the effect of the use of any such items.
The test would be to see how many people he could mark up to the time the "police" arrive or he is stopped by other means. The police response time would be a random amount of time but withen a spread of actual response times to such incidents.
Run the test multiple times with different groups of people and see what the average number of "victims" is.
Next run the test with one other random person having a "gun". Run it the same number of times as the other test and then compare the number of victims.
Finally additional groups of tests would be run: Each time increasing the number of "good guy guns".
I believe that there would be a marked difference in the casualty rates between the first two scenarios. As the number of good guy guns increase the number of casualties would decline toward zero. Also we would see if "good guys" shoot each other.
A variant could be police response (using real cops?) and "good guy" defender in the same building and see if the cops shoot the good guy.
Anyone have any ideas to make this more realistic or impatial?
This would be expensive, any ideas as to who could fund it?
Assign them all roles to play.
Tell them they get X amount of dollars even if they are "killed" but X*3 if they "survive".
Release a "gunman" into the environment. He is armed with simuntions or a laser tag type thing or even a regular paint-ball gun.
He gets $Y for each person he marks.
He could start anywhere. He could come from outside or inside. He could be any of the roles. The others do not know. In fact the "gunman" was randomly chosen from the overall group.
They key here is that none of the others has a "gun". There are many things about that could be used as weapons but no guns.
In the interest of safety likely items to be used as improvised weapons would be "break-away" or made of styrofoam or other light materials.
Umpires would determine the effect of the use of any such items.
The test would be to see how many people he could mark up to the time the "police" arrive or he is stopped by other means. The police response time would be a random amount of time but withen a spread of actual response times to such incidents.
Run the test multiple times with different groups of people and see what the average number of "victims" is.
Next run the test with one other random person having a "gun". Run it the same number of times as the other test and then compare the number of victims.
Finally additional groups of tests would be run: Each time increasing the number of "good guy guns".
I believe that there would be a marked difference in the casualty rates between the first two scenarios. As the number of good guy guns increase the number of casualties would decline toward zero. Also we would see if "good guys" shoot each other.
A variant could be police response (using real cops?) and "good guy" defender in the same building and see if the cops shoot the good guy.
Anyone have any ideas to make this more realistic or impatial?
This would be expensive, any ideas as to who could fund it?