Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
This guy is nuts, but I don't think the idea that in a situation like this, having everyone rush the shooter is the worst plan in the world. I recently listened to a podcast that talked about precisely this. If you had a sort of mutual understanding that this is just how we behave in situations where a mass shooting appears to be happening (in a case where everyone can't just run away, like where you're in a classroom or a movie theatre or whatever), the loss of life would likely be lower if everyone just took the guy at once. A few people would certainly be injured and it's likely someone or several someones would die, but probably fewer than if the shooter gets his way.
The analogy used was, what happens if a guy stands up on a plane with a gun and says "everyone just keep your seats, I'm going to take control of this jet, don't interfere and you won't be harmed". Nobody is listening to that. That guy is, quite simply, going down.
The problem is actually getting everyone on the same page, because if 1-2 people rush him, it isn't going to work. Has to be everyone. It's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma, I suppose.
|
Yes and no. The problem here is the "Lottery Winner" type analysis. If we applied this to mass shootings, then yes, life list overall would likely decrease. The trouble is, people don't always know what a mass shooting is before it starts. If everyone rushed a guy with a gun in public every time, how many extra fatalities would we see?