Human psychology and sociology is interesting to me. Especially when even atheists can be unrealistic about their views.

(August 16, 2022 at 9:05 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Hell, just subduing the shooter without a gun seems to work about twice as often as shooting him

What makes you think all or even most of the subdued attacker category weren't armed with a gun?

I think it’s a case of “The Law of the Instrument.”

To quote the movie Arrival, which, by an amazing coincidence, I just watched earlier today: “If all I ever gave you was a hammer... Everything's a nail...”

To a man obsessed with guns and who doesn’t think much of police (or even the law, frankly), it makes sense that he thinks the only solution is to hope somebody on the scene is ready to shoot the assassin.

(August 16, 2022 at 9:14 pm)popeyespappy Wrote:

(August 16, 2022 at 9:05 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Hell, just subduing the shooter without a gun seems to work about twice as often as shooting him

What makes you think all or even most of the subdued attacker category weren't armed with a gun?

Maybe they did have the gun, but they never fired it. If they did, it wouldn’t have been in that category.

So about 1 out of 20 mass shooters is shot by an armed bystander. Another 1 out of 10 times the shooter is subdued by a bystander who might have subdued them with a gun. Those aren't insignificant numbers.

True, but they’re still among the less likely outcomes.

Worth noting, the one case that comes to mind the most when it’s a civilian that takes out an assailant, the Thalys train attack, not a single bullet would be fired once Stone, Skarlatos, and Sadler charged El Khazzani. Granted, Skarlatos hit the attacker with the butt end of his own rifle, and while he did eventually sweep the other cars for other attackers while holding the assailant’s guns, neither one was in any condition to be fired.

(August 16, 2022 at 9:50 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: True, but they’re still among the less likely outcomes.

It may not be insignificant but it should  hardly be relied on

It's workable anywhere between 5.1-14.8% of the time (depending on whether the subduers who didn't shoot actually had any guns; the study didn't mention divide into that and I'm not sure where the Thalys attack would have counted [if it happened in America] since the gun Skarlatos used to beat the assailant belonged to the assailant and was in no condition to fire once it went into Skarlatos' hands.)

Maybe 2.8% of the time when you remove security guards and off-duty cops from the category. And with that, just waiting for the cops to come mid-massacre starts to make more sense, since it happens 3.5% of the time (a 20% increase in probability).

(August 16, 2022 at 9:05 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Just found this little graph on Wikipedia’s page On American mass shootings:


Sauce.

It’s rather telling that Biker seems to think we should be focusing our energies on the scenario that seems least likely to do much of anything. Hell, just subduing the shooter without a gun seems to work about twice as often as shooting him

Nicely done. You came up with the stupidest solution!

 How about - the person subduing the attacker is more likely to be unarmed??

A 90 lbs grandmother is pretty unlikely to subdue a 200 lbs man with a knife - 

Unless she happens to be packing a 38 special - and knows how to use it.