This looks like a good idea.

[Plane]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pro-gun-group-in-texas-re-enacts-charlie-hebdo-attacks-with-paintball-rounds/ar-AA8cGYk
 
    I wonder how realistic this really was.

     There needs to be real science applied to reduction of vulnerability, but failing the availability of real scientists, the efforts  of amateurs isn't wasted. 

[Xavier_Onassis]

Everyone has feet. When the shooting starts, the best thing to do is run. If you cannot run, you hide.

Unless every single cartoonist had a loaded gun in a holster on his hip, there is no way guns could prevent anyone except the attackers from being killed.

I somehow do not feel safer  knowing that there are gun nuts with loaded guns in a movie theatre.

One nut in one theatre in the past twenty years does not justify this. It is as silly as wearing a parachute every time you fly on a scheduled airliner.

[Plane]

Everyone has feet. When the shooting starts, the best thing to do is run. If you cannot run, you hide.

Unless every single cartoonist had a loaded gun in a holster on his hip, there is no way guns could prevent anyone except the attackers from being killed.

I somehow do not feel safer  knowing that there are gun nuts with loaded guns in a movie theatre.

One nut in one theatre in the past twenty years does not justify this. It is as silly as wearing a parachute every time you fly on a scheduled airliner.

  That is a good metaphor!

  Lets extend it , forbidding guns would be like making flying safe by outlawing airplanes.

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is a really crappy analogy.  The odds of getting shot in a theatre are .000000000000000001 to 100: far less than dying on a commercial flight.
Outlawing guns at the movies seems to be even more reasonable than outlawing passengers boarding with a parachute strapped to them.

[Plane]

That is a really crappy analogy.  The odds of getting shot in a theatre are .000000000000000001 to 100: far less than dying on a commercial flight.
Outlawing guns at the movies seems to be even more reasonable than outlawing passengers boarding with a parachute strapped to them.

You have done the math , and I like how you have done it.

The odds of dying in a plane crash are actually only applicable if you are riding on a plane.

And the odds of being attacked at a theater only apply if you are attending  a theater.

If your carryon baggage includes a parachute , the pilot might think you are emulating D.B.Cooper, so the odds are that the pilot will refuse to lift off.

What are the odds that you may be killed in a crash , including all types of crash?

What are the odds that you will be attacked , including all sorts of assault?

Would it prevent a lot of crashes to forbid airbags in cars?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Airbags do not cause car crashes, so far as I know.They are activated by the crash.
You are very safe flying commercial airlines, but still, hundreds of Americans have died in plane crashes.

So far, there as only been one incident of gun nut killings in a movie theatre in which 12 died and 70 were wounded.
There are lots more people attending movies than there are that fly in commercial aircraft.

A person in a crowded theatre who wanted to kill the maximum number of people could kill lots of people by firing at random. Someone trying to shoot him would have a harder job, because they would be firing at only one person in the dark, and one hopes, to not hit anyone else in a place where lots of people would likely be moving around.

[Plane]

   There you go .

  Playing out the scene with paintball guns allow problems like that to be worked out.

   What the group recreating the Charlie Ebdo shooting discovered was that having a few guns available to the attacked party made only a little difference, not enough.

      That situation required more.

     What do you think would make shooting up a theater less likely?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Theaters are dark. The audience is an assortment of people who have nothing other than an interest in watching a film in common. There was a clear motive of the assassins that attacked Charlie Hebdo's staff. There would be no similar motive of gun nuts attacking the audience in a movie house.

[Plane]

Theaters are dark. The audience is an assortment of people who have nothing other than an interest in watching a film in common. There was a clear motive of the assassins that attacked Charlie Hebdo's staff. There would be no similar motive of gun nuts attacking the audience in a movie house.

     So there is no solution, and the helplessness of theater audiences is now discovered.

      Can we serve chicken soup to the theater goer?

        Might not help , but it couldn't hurt.

[Plane]

Unless every single cartoonist had a loaded gun in a holster on his hip, there is no way guns could prevent anyone except the attackers from being killed.

This is like the results discovered by the paintball experiment.

A small number of opposing guns did not make much difference.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Hence, more guns do not actually make anyone more safe.

They do, however, make everyone that buys them poorer, and waste the time of everyone that does the obligatory training.

Perhaps if we provided Navy Seals training for every man woman and child in the nation and then gave them the weapons...


That would make the wall to wall carpeting of Guam appear simple and affordable.

[Plane]

Hence, more guns do not actually make anyone more safe.

They do, however, make everyone that buys them poorer, and waste the time of everyone that does the obligatory training.

Perhaps if we provided Navy Seals training for every man woman and child in the nation and then gave them the weapons...


That would make the wall to wall carpeting of Guam appear simple and affordable.

  I am trying to avoid overgeneralizing.
  This experiment produced evidence that a few more guns were not enough in this particular circumstance.

     Haven't tried having a lot more guns in that circumstance yet.

Perhaps if we provided Navy Seals training for every man woman and child in the nation and then gave them the weapons...

      Sometimes I like the way you talk!
       What a grand idea, and we are being provided such motivation !

[Xavier_Onassis]

Arming everyone with the ability to easily kill anyone would be a terrible idea. Fortunately there is no chance this will ever happen.

[Plane]

Arming everyone with the ability to easily kill anyone would be a terrible idea. Fortunately there is no chance this will ever happen.

Why and why?


Last I checked , those who have graduated from the various "Superman University" training that the military runs generally become good citizens.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Only a fraction of the population is suited to be in the military. There is no need for everyone to have military training.

We would almost certainly get better results if everyone were a Boy Scout, Girl Scout or Campfire Girl. I was an Eagle Scout, and what I learned in the Scouts was quite useful. The most deadly thing we learned was whittling.

Everyone includes deranged and stupid people who should never be armed.

This will never happen because it is prohibitively expensive and unnecessary.

The Amish are generally even better citizens. They are expert in farming and know very little about technology. A country composed entirely of Amish would be quite backward.