• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Can society be trained to selflessly try to stop a 'mass shooter'?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ponpo

( ≖‿≖)
Edit: Train here does not refer to actual formal training suggesting people sacrifice themselves during attacks.

The origin of this question comes after listening to a recent Sam harris podcast about guns where he suggests this is a possibility by comparing it to to the way possibly billions of people have had their thought process changed regarding airplane hijackers.

Pre-9/11, the vast majority of airplane hijackings ended without much violence, and certainly without the all passengers being killed, so if someone announced they were hijacking the airplane you were on, it wasn't unreasonable to just sit there and not intervene. Post-9/11, if you're on an airplane now and something happens, presumably a lot more people would attempt to intervene and just swarm the hijackers because they know what could happen.

As more cases get massive media attention, do you think this will start to be seen more in shootings that take place in public places? He also brought up that some schools provide training for this kind of thing now, including, as a last resort, physically swarming the attacker.

Obviously airplanes are a different situation. In public areas on the ground, generally people can attempt to run away, or you can hide waiting for police to come. The danger isn't as local as an airplane. Still, do you think at some point (at least in the US) people will start attacking the attacker?
 
Hope you're ready for corny game jokes and assholes like me pointing out that you probably meant to say 'selflessly'

I don't know if its best to try and train people to take down mass shooters as a group. I've got a feeling that in most mass shooting situations, attempts will only exacerbate the problem and create more casualties.

I mean have you ever even seen a goddamn MAC cannon? It's take like a thousand people to take one down...
 
I'd say self-preservation is the more selfish act in this case, which I don't blame anyone for acting on instinct. Hell, take that Ben Carson story where he painted a target on someone else when in a similar fight or flight scenario.
 

Timeless

Member
I had some minor training on this in high school. The teachers at the school had more extensive training as well. It makes sense to me - but it was always geared towards lock down situations. None of the training I had said you should swarm a person with a gun in an open area. The idea was to hole up in classrooms, make it impossible to tell if anyone's actually in there, lock the door, and if a shooter comes in throw stuff at them and try to tackle them (I think). Supposedly the goal was to get the shooter out of their planned course of action and make it easier for them to be stopped.
 

Parakeetman

No one wants a throne you've been sitting on!
Considering the average citizen has no idea how to assess hostile situations, let alone be trained in hand to hand combat on top of doing something stupid like fists vs. gun. Yeah Id say this is pretty unrealistic to expect others to put themselves in harms way. As the natural instinct for most folks is to run away from gunfire not towards it.

Only way things like that work is if multiple people start doing something, vs. just a single person. Then you have the mob mentality take over. Otherwise its just everyone else waiting for someone else to do something. When they see larger numbers performing the same action, that is when a little switch gets flipped to join in as the chance of actual success appear possible. If that makes sense.

But for the most part, expecting others to actually do something is highly unrealistic in situations such as an active shooter.
 

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
I think it's possible, but I will freely admit that I base that on what we've seen on Airplanes since 9/11. Whenever something happens on a plane, from the shoe bomber to just some nut, the passengers always come to the aid of the flight crew.

And given our countries total unwillingness to do anything about guns, it's probably the "best" option we have at this point.
 

Amory

Member
What? No.

How can we possibly expect people at a moments notice to probably give up their life?
 

Shmuppers

Member
Nah, the shooter would also know of such measures, wouldn't he? So he could just modify his "plan" of attack.

You can't train people to throw themselves in front of a loaded gun.
 
Instead of addressing gun issues to curb mass shootings, members of society should be trained and willing to sacrifice their lives to stop a mass shooting.

Oh America

Isn't that basically the point of all these mythical good guys with guns? Why do you need innocent civilians to sacrifice themselves?
 

Chichikov

Member
I don't think so.
Consider the military, it spends a whole lot of time training people exactly for that problem - to override your self preservation instinct and put yourself at immediate mortal danger for the greater good. The scenario is not exactly the same, but broadly, getting out of cover and returning fire seriously increase your chances to die, so the selfish thing is to hunker down, but if everyone do it, your odds of survival (or achieving your goal) as unit goes way down.
And make no mistake, a huge part of the shouting and drilling you get early in your service is for that goal.
But even though the military employ tactics that would not (and should not) be acceptable in civilian society, a whole lot of people, good people, when first experiencing a real combat situation are unable to react as they're expected.
So no, I don't think it's realistic at all to expect civilians to be able to do that in a scenario that they're much less trained and equipped for.
 

Currygan

at last, for christ's sake
honestly trying to process the line of thinking which would eventually lead to the OP's question, maybe I'm too dumb, but what? just..what?
 

Mael

Member
You're telling me that the easiest way to stop mass shooting is for people to act like lemmings before a deadly threat?
Like really?
That's the solution that is the easiest to implement?
 

Hazmat

Member
I will do everything in a situation like that to ensure that my loved ones and I survive. I know it's selfish, but I'm not going to be the first one running at the guy with the gun. No chance.
 
I'm not the droid you're looking for..seems like a surefire way to survive..why mess with that? Listen to old Ben..

ben-carson.gif
 
Man I'm actually laughing out loud at this whole thing. Like yea lets train our citizens to run up on mass shooters as the solution to curbing mass shootings. I have tears running down my eyes from laughing so hard that someone thought this was a good idea.

Like you want me to sacrifice myself in the event I'm caught in one of America's weekly mass shootings that we totes can't prevent , but we can't get universal healthcare because bootstraps, fuck you got mine?

Lmao yea okay
 

Parakeetman

No one wants a throne you've been sitting on!
That and I dont think the cops want people going "Lord of the Flies" on folks that they assume might be hostile at every occasion.
 

ponpo

( ≖‿≖)
Instead of addressing gun issues to curb mass shootings, members of society should be trained and willing to sacrifice their lives to stop a mass shooting.

Oh America

Isn't that basically the point of all these mythical good guys with guns? Why do you need innocent civilians to sacrifice themselves?

Man I'm actually laughing out loud at this whole thing. Like yea lets train our citizens to run up on mass shooters as the solution to curbing mass shootings. I have tears running down my eyes from laughing so hard that someone thought this was a good idea.

Like you want me to sacrifice myself in the event I'm caught in one of America's weekly mass shootings that we totes can't prevent , but we can't get universal healthcare because bootstraps, fuck you got mine?

Lmao yea okay

I don't think anyone is calling on people to start sacrificing themselves as a solution to shootings, just if it will happen as a result of being exposed to these kinds of shootings constantly.

Also re: "mythical good guys with guns" - aren't most of these shooting areas "gun free zones"?
 
I don't think anyone is calling on people to start sacrificing themselves as a solution to shootings, just if it will happen as a result of being exposed to these kinds of shootings constantly.

Also re: "mythical good guys with guns" - aren't most of these shooting areas "gun free zones"?

Not the last one at all.
 
I don't think anyone is calling on people to start sacrificing themselves as a solution to shootings, just if it will happen as a result of being exposed to these kinds of shootings constantly.

Also re: "mythical good guys with guns" - aren't most of these shooting areas "gun free zones"?

The Oregon school allowed open carry. Gun owners were actually there during the incident but decided not to do anything because they didn't want to risk confusing first responders.
 
I don't think anyone is calling on people to start sacrificing themselves as a solution to shootings, just if it will happen as a result of being exposed to these kinds of shootings constantly.

Also re: "mythical good guys with guns" - aren't most of these shooting areas "gun free zones"?

The last one happened on a campus that allowed carrying in which many people at that school carried, yet the shooter still ended up killing a bunch of people. The whole "this would never happen in a carry zone" argument was killed the moment this shooting happened, because it did happen and all those mythical Walker Texas Ranger dudes did jack shit to stop it.

And really no American should be asked to do something like this so the staunch opposers if any type of gun reform can keep their "toys" with no restrictions.
 

Northeastmonk

Gold Member
I had some minor training on this in high school. The teachers at the school had more extensive training as well. It makes sense to me - but it was always geared towards lock down situations. None of the training I had said you should swarm a person with a gun in an open area. The idea was to hole up in classrooms, make it impossible to tell if anyone's actually in there, lock the door, and if a shooter comes in throw stuff at them and try to tackle them (I think). Supposedly the goal was to get the shooter out of their planned course of action and make it easier for them to be stopped.

In high school we learned to stay near the back of the room, lights off, and so forth. It was after Columbine happened. I don't know if they do it now. The most my college has done has been fire and tornado drills. I've also worked security and so forth. I learned a few basic ways of disarming someone, but we never had to utilize hands on techniques.

I sometimes worry about it, but I try not to think about it whenever something happens. When I do think, I think about running to my car or where to go. I'd have my phone ready and I'd make sure we weren't running in that direction.
 
It absolutely isn't fair and i don't blame anyone for not doing it and i absolutely would never do it.

It especially won't happen in a society where people have this fantastical version of the world where certain groups of people based on color, class, gender, or otherwise not only deserve to die but would need to die in order for progress.
 

RiccochetJ

Gold Member
I think you can train people to an extent, but when the fight or flight instinct kicks into overdrive you just don't know how people will react.
 

Zaptruder

Banned
Yeah the situation on a plane is completely different to facing off a gun wielding psycho on the ground.

Box cutter. Certain death if you let them hijack a plane.

Or

Assault Rifle... high chance of death if you confront them.


Look, you back people into a corner and they'll do some pretty crazy things.

But what conceivable situation would you have where you can back people into a corner in the latter scenario?

Mandate death sentence for people in the scenario that don't confront the attacker? That'd be the only equivalence here.
 

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
The Oregon school allowed open carry. Gun owners were actually there during the incident but decided not to do anything because they didn't want to risk confusing first responders.

I wonder what would have happened had one of them been in that class, and I say that because their decision to stay put shows some excellent judgement on their part.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom