Scientists at MIT have developed a system that simulates a mass shooting, while also protecting its creators.
In a paper published in the journal PLOS ONE, the researchers describe a game that they call “Hands Down the Most Safe Game I’ve Ever Designed.”
In the game, players are shown the situation in real life, and are asked to make a decision.
The goal is to either stop shooting, or keep shooting until the shooter dies.
The player who stops shooting receives an item called the bullet, and can either carry it, store it, or sell it.
It’s an item that is not a firearm.
The game can be played for several hours without triggering any additional violence.
When the player stops shooting, they get to keep shooting.
The bullet can be thrown in the air to hit targets, or used to inflict damage to nearby objects.
The bullets themselves can be removed, and players can trade them in for other items, such as ammo, clothing, or weapons.
The items are destroyed in the process.
The scientists found that while there is no actual violence in the game—the only violence is that the player is able to stop shooting.
This, they say, was one of the most powerful ways to reduce potential injuries in the shooting.
They created the game as a proof of concept.
They did not want to use the real world as their laboratory, and instead used a simulation of an incident in which a shooter fired a bullet into a crowd.
The researchers used a different method to test their simulation.
They created a game called “Houdini” that simulated a mass killing, in which the shooter was given a gun and told to take aim.
The shooter then had to shoot at a random target.
In this game, the shooter did not have to make any decisions in relation to his/her actions, the simulation showed.
The simulation could not prevent the shooter from shooting, even after the shooter had killed one person.
The results of the simulations were surprising, according to the authors.
“The first thing we noticed was that the simulation was safe, even though we didn’t know how it was safe,” they write.
The players had a low probability of injury, but they had a high probability of death if they were hit.
They were able to make the choice between stopping shooting and not shooting in the first place.
This is not the first time researchers have tried to create games without violence.
They’ve made games that simulated natural disasters, and games that simulate the aftermath of war.
In both cases, the games were effective in reducing potential violence, but the games did not stop shooting immediately.
They took several hours to play, and were much more difficult to create.
“It took us two weeks to make ‘Houdinis,'” the authors write.
“After that, it took us a full month to get the game out of the lab.
We were surprised that it worked, and it was a lot more fun than we anticipated.”