7 ms·

Bruce Schneier: Drawing the wrong lessons from horrific events

153 points by bootload 14y ago

dennisgorelik 14y ago
Even if we assume that such crazy shooting attacks could be frequent, it's still not obvious what should we do about them. Should we ban the weapons or should we allow carry weapons, so law-abiding citizens could protect themselves? After all, that movie theater was in a gun-free zone.
- bergie 14y ago
  The traditional wisdom is that carrying a gun for safety doesn't help in such sudden events, as the "bad guys" are generally more prepared, have the initiative, etc. This is obviously different for instance in a war, where both parties are more-or-less prepared to use a gun at any given time. Now, I've had military training (somewhat mandatory in my country), and do own a gun. But that is because I find target practice and hunting trips interesting, not because I would find any safety application to owning one. For instance, I went motorcycling through Caucasus right after the revolution in Georgia. This was a time when gas station attendants carried Kalashnikovs and people customarily brought guns to bar, but still I would have never considered taking any weapons there, as those would have only escalated any problem situation in a bad way. And obviously in the end there were no problems. Nice and hospitable people there, and a beautiful country to visit :-)
  - yread 14y ago
    Interesting discussion/analysis over here http://www.quora.com/Aurora-Colorado-Shooting-July-20-2012/If-members-of-the-Aurora-CO-Dark-Knight-Rises-shooting-audience-were-armed-would-there-have-been-more-carnage-or-less-carnage http://www.quora.com/Aurora-Colorado-Shooting-July-20-2012/I...
  - _delirium 14y ago
    In particular in crowded events: one worry is that civilians playing hero will just end up shooting more innocent people, as they try to shoot at this guy in a crowded theatre and hit someone else.
    - InclinedPlane 14y ago
      Shooters of this sort being confronted by citizens who carry guns has happened several times in the past, and in no cases I'm aware of has anything even remotely similar to this super hypothetical come to pass.
      - _delirium 14y ago
        In more general incidents, the numbers I can find suggest that about 2% of armed-citizen-response-to-crime shootings shoot an innocent person. Mostly it seems actually pro-gun advocates quote this, as 2% is supposed to be a lower figure than the police's error rate. For high-profile ones, the only example of a quasi-successful confrontation I can think of only through sheer luck avoided an innocent person being shot: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/01/friendly_firearms.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_natur...
        learc83 14y ago
        > 2% is supposed to be a lower figure than the police's error rate. That's not very surprising. Many police officers only practice with their weapons once a year when it's time to qualify. The average concealed carry permit holder shoots for fun, thus practices often.
        Symmetry 14y ago
        Also, an armed citizen if far more likely to suffer consequences if they shoot the wrong person by mistake. And the training they get is going to be much more "Don't shoot unless you're really sure" rather than "shoot first to protect yourself".
        easp 14y ago
        And I would expect thee preparedness of the average concealed carry permit holder to decline if we do more to reshape the US around the notion that an armed society is a polite society.
        14y ago
- brazzy 14y ago
  I shudder to think what would happen if the "concealed carry for everyone!" folks got their way and you had an incident in a cluttered setting with lots of people. All it takes is one bang and someone screaming, and you have 50 scared people shooting at each other.
  - learc83 14y ago
    Quick google search shows me that in my state (Georgia), about 6% of the population are licensed to carry concealed weapons. So far I've yet to read a single news story about a group of scared permit holders shooting at each other. If you look at the crime statistics for permit holders, and the number of permits revoked you'll find that concealed carry holders are extremely unlikely to engage in the kind of behavior you assume.
    - demallien 14y ago
      Sure, but you could turn that argument around the other way. With 6% having licenses, how many have been able to stop a mass shooting? Is there a correlation between low mass shooting rates and concealed carry laws?
      - learc83 14y ago
        >Sure, but you could turn that argument around the other way. The average number of people killed in a mass shooting stopped by a civilian ccw holder is much lower than those killed in a mass shooting involving police simply because of response time. If an armed civilian is present and is able to stop it, it's usually done before the gunman kills more than a few people, and not end up on the news because of the lack of a 10+ person death toll. That's not to say an armed civilian could stop a mass shooting in all cases, just that when they do it happens faster. Additionally, most mass shootings take place in locations where ccw permit holders are banned from having guns. High schools, colleges, churches, the theater in Colorado. In fact almost every single mass shooting in recent memory has taken place in a gun free zone, and in many states there are very few places left that are gun free zones. During the Texas Belltower sniper mass shooting, civilians returning fire saved many lives because they pinned down the sniper and prevented him from acquiring targets.
- shoo 14y ago
  Here's one example of what can be done, from Australia: Gun laws in Australia were tightened in 1996 and again in 2002. There's an informative overview on wikipedia which might be worth a read [1]. It doesn't sound like there is much evidence for a significant drop in firearm related homicides due to the change in laws. However, a few studies argue that there has been a drop in firearm related suicides, although some also argue that the drop in firearm suicides began before the gun control legislation was put in place. The drop in firearm related suicides apparently wasn't just a transfer into other methods of suicide either, which is positive, regardless of what led to it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
- EvilTerran 14y ago
  It was dark. It was crowded. The guy set off a smoke grenade. Everyone was panicking. Firing a gun in those conditions, you could hit anyone -- by sheer force of numbers, you'd be far more likely to wound a hapless bystander than the shooter. Especially as he was wearing body armour. As such, I hold that the death toll would have been considerably higher if some of the cinema-goers had been packing heat and decided to shoot back. There's no way this incident is a valid argument for more guns.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - nollidge 14y ago
    Further, let's imagine there were 2 "good guys" in that theater with guns. Good Guy #1 shoots at the lone "bad guy". Good Guy #2, with heightened adrenaline and compromised senses, thinks GG #1 is another bad guy and shoots at them. GG #1, if they weren't hit, now is being shot at by someone else. Now add more good guys with guns to this scenario. There's no way the whole thing would've worked out better with more armed people.
    - Symmetry 14y ago
      Two to five "goodguys" exchanging fire is still a vastly better outcome than the one that occurred.
      - kevinh 14y ago
        That's an unverifiable statement and it would depend heavily on the shooters involved. It's as much conjecture as if I were to say that each bullet fired from each shooter's gun would only hit people without weapons.
        Symmetry 14y ago
        Huh? I'm not sure how you can construct a plausible scenario where you're actually worse off with five armed citizens in the theater. Even if they each manage to accidentally shoot two additional people besides each other and even if the madman is half finished before one manages to take him down you still have many fewer people ending up getting shot.
- dctoedt 14y ago
  Shameless plug for an essay I posted yesterday, but I'd also like to get reactions from HN denizens: What if moviegoers, out of a sense of civic duty, had rushed the shooter, together, despite the obvious risk, because "that's what we do" for each other? [1] [1] http://www.questioningchristian.com/2012/07/what-if-aurora-moviegoers-had-rushed-the-shooter-together.html http://www.questioningchristian.com/2012/07/what-if-aurora-m...
unimpressive 14y ago
A quick search says that 71 people were shot or killed in the massacre. If a gunman were to go out every day and shoot up a movie theater of say, 110 people, for the next century; the death toll[2] would be: (110 * 365) * 100 = 4015000 Which is a little more than 4/5ths of double the annual fatalities in 2009. [0] [0]: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm [1]: Of course, if our hypothetical gunman only targeted movie theaters, going to any single movie theater on a given day might be a risky proposition. If someone can find the number of people who see a movie every day in the US I'd love to know. [2]: Actually, shot != death; so the death toll would be lower. Of course then you have to think about things like permanent debilitation and traumatic memories, not to mention healthcare costs. According to this table: http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/wv8t1/comprehensive_timeline_aurora_massacre http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/wv8t1/comprehensive_ti... There were 60 victims, and 38 have been released from the hospital. 8 are still in critical condition, so we can't know if they'll live or die. I'm going to assume, just for the sake of being on the pessimistic side of estimations (I don't actually believe this.), that everyone in critical care dies. So presumably that would mean: 60 - 38 = 22. Depending on the lethality of the shooter and random chance, the death toll may be as much as 2/3rds lower than the total number of those injured. EDIT: This post originally said: Which is still lower than the amount of people killed by heart disease in a single year here in the US. [0][1] At the first citation.
- prawn 14y ago
  That's a creepy username in the context of your post! (BTW, your century of gunmen racks up four million. Heart disease in one US year gets to about 600k.)
  - unimpressive 14y ago
    >(BTW, your century of gunmen racks up four million. Heart disease in one US year gets to about 600k.) Oh, my eyes missed a zero.
- morsch 14y ago
  You're only making half an argument there. Yes, heart disease is a bigger cause of death than crazed gunmen ever could be in a functioning society. Ergo... what?
robomartin 14y ago
Another attempt to blame guns for what people do. I don't own any guns of any type. I've fired quite a few of them, of all kinds. I don't feel the need to own one for personal protection or as a hobby. I know plenty of people who do. Without fault, these guns spend more time locked-away in a safe than being fired for any reason. Yes, even the "assault rifles" (do rifles assault without a person holding them?). Every time something happens liberal-leaning media rushes to blame guns. It's never people, is it? A gun doesn't kill any more than a car. It's the people using them that sometimes, intentionally or not, harm others. None of these articles are backed by any data. Yet they are quick to blame "assault rifles" and proclaim all manner of remedies. I wanted data. A quick Google search for "homicides by weapon type" produced a bunch of links. The top link comes right out of the US Department of Justice: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm The very first chart shows very clearly that the vast majority --by a factor of 3 to 5 or more-- of homicides are committed with handguns. Not "assault rifles". I'm assuming that "assault rifles" falls under the "other gun" category in the chart. What's even more interesting is that homicides using a Knives exceeded "other gun" by a good margin from 1976 to about 1994 and then run about even. That's interesting data. It seems that knives are just as dangerous today as "other gun". Far more detailed data is available here: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr I really didn't have the time to dive into it, but I suspect I would learn exactly the same thing: "assault rifles" represent less than about 3% of total homicides. Put another way, more people --like TEN TIMES MORE-- are killed with knives every year than with "assault rifles". This is data from the DOJ and FBI so one can hardly put any kind of spin on it. All of this anti-gun talk after some crazy nutcase goes and does something stupid is absolute nonsense. The claims are not backed by data and those making the claims, for some reason, never choose to present any data (or confuse people by lumping "guns" with "other guns"). I am more of a libertarian who leans left on some issues and right on others. I'd like to believe that I think things through rather than follow like sheep. I happen to find the way the left constantly bitches about and vilifies guns to be disgusting pandering. They never discuss what the actual data shows: That young blacks are killing each other en-masse for drugs and other bullshit. And that our first black president has done virtually nothing to materially change the reality of millions of black kids who I am sure would be wonderful assets to our society given the right ecosystem. It's far easier to sling distorted statistics, vilify the NRA and rally idiot voters to try to take away gun rights. In the meantime the real victims of violent crimes, which --by far-- statistics show are hispanic and black youngsters, don't see anything of real value change in their environment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Stat... And, of course, let's not forget that the 9/11 attacks where carried out using knives. They killed thousands. The penalties for using guns criminally should be brutally severe. Automatic life in prison or some such thing. Criminals need to know that choosing a gun is the worst possible idea. I'm all for that. As far as your average Joe, leave him alone.
davidw 14y ago
Gun debates are about as hacker newsy as abortion or gay marriage or other controversial subjects. In other words: not very.
- abrahamsen 14y ago
  The article isn't about guns[1], but about evaluation of risks. [1] Or if it is, I totally missed the point.
  - davidw 14y ago
    You wouldn't know that from looking at the discussion here. I think a more hacker newsy kind of thing would be an actual discussion of risks with some mathematical modeling, not a discussion of current events from cnn.com, with statements that are bound to set certain people off.
    - dennisgorelik 14y ago
      Guilty as charged. It's too tempting to slide into "pro-gun vs gun control" discussion even if the topic is "overreaction to extremely low probability events".
- randomdrake 14y ago
  While I can sort of see where you are coming from, I think there is something else worth pointing out that does make this at least somewhat Hacker News worthy. Bruce Schneier is a world leader in cryptographic analysis[1]. He is very much a part of the hacker community. He is well known for being quite analytical and to the point in a fashion that other "reporters" are without. I, for one, very much appreciate when he talks about issues of this magnitude, for that very reason, and I don't think I am alone here. [1] - http://schneier.com http://schneier.com
tzs 14y ago
> If a friend tells you about getting mugged in a foreign country, that story is more likely to affect how safe you feel traveling to that country than reading a page of abstract crime statistics will. One can make an argument that this is reasonable. I share many common interests with my friends, and so if I were to visit that foreign country I'd probably be interested in the same things in that country that my friend was interested in, and so would likely be traveling to the same places my friend visited. Accordingly, it seems reasonable to weigh my friend's experiences in that country higher than statistics derived from the combined experiences of everyone who goes to that country.
- 4ydx 14y ago
  Ok, well, feel free to not understand statistics.
  - dojomouse 14y ago
    Same back at you - tzs's comment is entirely reasonable. The point is that statistics collected from a situation with a higher similarity to the one you're trying to predict can provide a better indicator than general statistics, even if the sample size is smaller.
- rmc 14y ago
  If you're not the norm. If you're the norm and average mundane person, then statistics is more relevant for you. If you're going to a local death metal concert, then that might be relevant. If non-striaght and going to local LGBT clubs, that might be relevant. If you're part of the "great masses" going to common accomodation, common tourist attractions, then statistics should be more relevant.
mduerksen 14y ago
Even here in Germany, the overreaction to the event in Aurora can be witnessed: I went to the cinema last sunday (for Batman), and they had signs all over the place saying something like "In reaction to repeated worried requests about security, we will not allow visitors to be costumed and may search bags." I won't comment on the knee-jerk reactions of the customers. What more interesting to me is the decision made by the people in charge there, in reaction to those "worried customers". Was the cinema management panicking as well? Or were they just not courageous enough to stay calm and risk being deemed as "not doing something about it"?
- _delirium 14y ago
  That seems more like pandering to customers to me, which is a common thing for businesses to do. Customers keep asking about $foo, so you have to at least pretend to care about $foo.
  - mduerksen 14y ago
    Yes, but by doing this, you potentially scare all other customers off as well, and make them feel uncomfortable. I don't think that is a wise business decision. An alternative would be to just give those worried ones a warm fuzzy feeling, without even informing the others. Or, if that doesn't suffice, just live with the fact that a few people won't go to the cinema for a month. Of course, I don't know how many people were "worried" in this case. I hope there weren't to many of them, that would be a sign that my country is getting really paranoid.
    - larrys 14y ago
      " I don't know how many people were "worried" in this case." I think that's the thing about irrationality. If the media hype is strong enough anyone's brain can be taken over. I remember very clearly the anthrax scare. I remember consciously thinking about anthrax when receiving envelopes at the business when that happened. I knew it was irrational but it was nearly impossible to fight those thoughts until the media attention died down.
  - 14y ago
jrkelly 14y ago
Comments under the CNN article are universally positive. You basically never see that on news site comments -- seems like there is broad public support for ratcheting down security theater. I don't really understand what stands it up now.
- CWuestefeld 14y ago
  I don't really understand what stands it up now. American politics has nothing to do with reality anymore. This morning in the car there was a news bit about a guy who had just been arrested, and it was found that he'd posed with the Governor for a photo a couple of weeks ago. Clearly the Gov poses for scores of photos every day, most of which are with people whose names he doesn't even know. But it appears that someone thought that we needed to know about this photograph, and I can't imagine any reason for that. The political system seems to be a perpetual motion machine. It sustains itself independent of the rest of the world by producing unfounded hype that creates hysteria.
kokey 14y ago
John Kay's piece today about the same issue is quite pertinent: http://www.johnkay.com/2012/08/01/8684 http://www.johnkay.com/2012/08/01/8684 He's looking at how a media frenzy affects perception and laws disproportionally.
mbesto 14y ago
Daniel Kahneman wrote about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman#Hedonic_psychology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman#Hedonic_psychol... and is a concept called the Focusing Illusion or Anchoring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focusing_illusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focusing_illusion In his tests, Kahneman showed that people assign too much "utility" to painful events, even though a simliar event with less heuristics for pain was statistically the same. Great read for anyone interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
- RyanMcGreal 14y ago
  I just finished Thinking, Fast And Slow a couple of days ago, and it's the most thought-provoking, moving work of non-fiction I've read in years.
  - mbesto 14y ago
    Absolutely. I can't recommend it enough.
tnorthcutt 14y ago
I wrote Bruce an email after reading this article on my phone this morning: ------- Mr. Schneier, I read your piece on CNN this morning (Drawing the wrong lessons from horrific events) on my phone. I thought you'd like to know that when viewed on a phone, the (utterly ridiculous and annoying) links that CNN inserts in their articles are no longer distinguishable from the content of the article, as all formatting is stripped. Consequently, it appears as though on the second page of the article, you wrote "Opinion: Average Americans don't need assault weapons", when that is not the case (as far as I can tell). I've included a screen shot from my phone for your convenience (also viewable here: http://d.pr/i/MTOx http://d.pr/i/MTOx). Cheers, -- Travis Northcutt
engtech 14y ago
for the people who are arguing "but what about the right to bear arms"? The wikipedia page has some interesting discussions about the history and analysis of the 2nd amendment. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
- CWuestefeld 14y ago
  Downvoted: simply saying "there's another page that has something interesting; go read it" isn't adding anything. At least summarize, or point us to something there that you think is salient.
  - CrazedGeek 14y ago
    They're simply linking to a page related to the topic. It's adding historical context to the "right to bear arms" issue, and that's valuable when debating such a thing.
lenkite 14y ago
As someone not living in the US, my takeaway from this article was that citizens and visitors should all wear bullet-proof vests in public places similar to the way everyone wears car seat belts for safety. Since one shouldn't over-react and take away the freedom of toting around assault-rifles. Body Armour companies would LOVE this.
chimi 14y ago
> People tend to base risk analysis more on stories than on data. People base all decisions on stories rather than data. It's marketing 101 -- don't sell features, sell stories.
protomyth 14y ago
I'm actually a lot more concerned with how we handle people with mental illness in the USA. If it wasn't a gun, it would have been a backpacked filled with explosives, but the common factor is a sick mind that had multiple interactions with people who could have helped. It seems like we need to spend some money on figuring out why our systems and processes in this area are failing.

153 points by bootload 14y ago

Even if we assume that such crazy shooting attacks could be frequent, it's still not obvious what should we do about them. Should we ban the weapons or should we allow carry weapons, so law-abiding citizens could protect themselves? After all, that movie theater was in a gun-free zone.

bergie 14y ago
The traditional wisdom is that carrying a gun for safety doesn't help in such sudden events, as the "bad guys" are generally more prepared, have the initiative, etc. This is obviously different for instance in a war, where both parties are more-or-less prepared to use a gun at any given time. Now, I've had military training (somewhat mandatory in my country), and do own a gun. But that is because I find target practice and hunting trips interesting, not because I would find any safety application to owning one. For instance, I went motorcycling through Caucasus right after the revolution in Georgia. This was a time when gas station attendants carried Kalashnikovs and people customarily brought guns to bar, but still I would have never considered taking any weapons there, as those would have only escalated any problem situation in a bad way. And obviously in the end there were no problems. Nice and hospitable people there, and a beautiful country to visit :-)
- yread 14y ago
  Interesting discussion/analysis over here http://www.quora.com/Aurora-Colorado-Shooting-July-20-2012/If-members-of-the-Aurora-CO-Dark-Knight-Rises-shooting-audience-were-armed-would-there-have-been-more-carnage-or-less-carnage http://www.quora.com/Aurora-Colorado-Shooting-July-20-2012/I...
- _delirium 14y ago
  In particular in crowded events: one worry is that civilians playing hero will just end up shooting more innocent people, as they try to shoot at this guy in a crowded theatre and hit someone else.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    Shooters of this sort being confronted by citizens who carry guns has happened several times in the past, and in no cases I'm aware of has anything even remotely similar to this super hypothetical come to pass.
    - _delirium 14y ago
      In more general incidents, the numbers I can find suggest that about 2% of armed-citizen-response-to-crime shootings shoot an innocent person. Mostly it seems actually pro-gun advocates quote this, as 2% is supposed to be a lower figure than the police's error rate. For high-profile ones, the only example of a quasi-successful confrontation I can think of only through sheer luck avoided an innocent person being shot: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/01/friendly_firearms.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_natur...
      - learc83 14y ago
        > 2% is supposed to be a lower figure than the police's error rate. That's not very surprising. Many police officers only practice with their weapons once a year when it's time to qualify. The average concealed carry permit holder shoots for fun, thus practices often.
        Symmetry 14y ago
        Also, an armed citizen if far more likely to suffer consequences if they shoot the wrong person by mistake. And the training they get is going to be much more "Don't shoot unless you're really sure" rather than "shoot first to protect yourself".
        easp 14y ago
        And I would expect thee preparedness of the average concealed carry permit holder to decline if we do more to reshape the US around the notion that an armed society is a polite society.
      - 14y ago
brazzy 14y ago
I shudder to think what would happen if the "concealed carry for everyone!" folks got their way and you had an incident in a cluttered setting with lots of people. All it takes is one bang and someone screaming, and you have 50 scared people shooting at each other.
- learc83 14y ago
  Quick google search shows me that in my state (Georgia), about 6% of the population are licensed to carry concealed weapons. So far I've yet to read a single news story about a group of scared permit holders shooting at each other. If you look at the crime statistics for permit holders, and the number of permits revoked you'll find that concealed carry holders are extremely unlikely to engage in the kind of behavior you assume.
  - demallien 14y ago
    Sure, but you could turn that argument around the other way. With 6% having licenses, how many have been able to stop a mass shooting? Is there a correlation between low mass shooting rates and concealed carry laws?
    - learc83 14y ago
      >Sure, but you could turn that argument around the other way. The average number of people killed in a mass shooting stopped by a civilian ccw holder is much lower than those killed in a mass shooting involving police simply because of response time. If an armed civilian is present and is able to stop it, it's usually done before the gunman kills more than a few people, and not end up on the news because of the lack of a 10+ person death toll. That's not to say an armed civilian could stop a mass shooting in all cases, just that when they do it happens faster. Additionally, most mass shootings take place in locations where ccw permit holders are banned from having guns. High schools, colleges, churches, the theater in Colorado. In fact almost every single mass shooting in recent memory has taken place in a gun free zone, and in many states there are very few places left that are gun free zones. During the Texas Belltower sniper mass shooting, civilians returning fire saved many lives because they pinned down the sniper and prevented him from acquiring targets.
shoo 14y ago
Here's one example of what can be done, from Australia: Gun laws in Australia were tightened in 1996 and again in 2002. There's an informative overview on wikipedia which might be worth a read [1]. It doesn't sound like there is much evidence for a significant drop in firearm related homicides due to the change in laws. However, a few studies argue that there has been a drop in firearm related suicides, although some also argue that the drop in firearm suicides began before the gun control legislation was put in place. The drop in firearm related suicides apparently wasn't just a transfer into other methods of suicide either, which is positive, regardless of what led to it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
EvilTerran 14y ago
It was dark. It was crowded. The guy set off a smoke grenade. Everyone was panicking. Firing a gun in those conditions, you could hit anyone -- by sheer force of numbers, you'd be far more likely to wound a hapless bystander than the shooter. Especially as he was wearing body armour. As such, I hold that the death toll would have been considerably higher if some of the cinema-goers had been packing heat and decided to shoot back. There's no way this incident is a valid argument for more guns.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- nollidge 14y ago
  Further, let's imagine there were 2 "good guys" in that theater with guns. Good Guy #1 shoots at the lone "bad guy". Good Guy #2, with heightened adrenaline and compromised senses, thinks GG #1 is another bad guy and shoots at them. GG #1, if they weren't hit, now is being shot at by someone else. Now add more good guys with guns to this scenario. There's no way the whole thing would've worked out better with more armed people.
  - Symmetry 14y ago
    Two to five "goodguys" exchanging fire is still a vastly better outcome than the one that occurred.
    - kevinh 14y ago
      That's an unverifiable statement and it would depend heavily on the shooters involved. It's as much conjecture as if I were to say that each bullet fired from each shooter's gun would only hit people without weapons.
      - Symmetry 14y ago
        Huh? I'm not sure how you can construct a plausible scenario where you're actually worse off with five armed citizens in the theater. Even if they each manage to accidentally shoot two additional people besides each other and even if the madman is half finished before one manages to take him down you still have many fewer people ending up getting shot.
dctoedt 14y ago
Shameless plug for an essay I posted yesterday, but I'd also like to get reactions from HN denizens: What if moviegoers, out of a sense of civic duty, had rushed the shooter, together, despite the obvious risk, because "that's what we do" for each other? [1] [1] http://www.questioningchristian.com/2012/07/what-if-aurora-moviegoers-had-rushed-the-shooter-together.html http://www.questioningchristian.com/2012/07/what-if-aurora-m...

unimpressive 14y ago

A quick search says that 71 people were shot or killed in the massacre. If a gunman were to go out every day and shoot up a movie theater of say, 110 people, for the next century; the death toll[2] would be: (110 * 365) * 100 = 4015000 Which is a little more than 4/5ths of double the annual fatalities in 2009. [0] [0]: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm [1]: Of course, if our hypothetical gunman only targeted movie theaters, going to any single movie theater on a given day might be a risky proposition. If someone can find the number of people who see a movie every day in the US I'd love to know. [2]: Actually, shot != death; so the death toll would be lower. Of course then you have to think about things like permanent debilitation and traumatic memories, not to mention healthcare costs. According to this table: http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/wv8t1/comprehensive_timeline_aurora_massacre http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/wv8t1/comprehensive_ti... There were 60 victims, and 38 have been released from the hospital. 8 are still in critical condition, so we can't know if they'll live or die. I'm going to assume, just for the sake of being on the pessimistic side of estimations (I don't actually believe this.), that everyone in critical care dies. So presumably that would mean: 60 - 38 = 22. Depending on the lethality of the shooter and random chance, the death toll may be as much as 2/3rds lower than the total number of those injured. EDIT: This post originally said: Which is still lower than the amount of people killed by heart disease in a single year here in the US. [0][1] At the first citation.

prawn 14y ago
That's a creepy username in the context of your post! (BTW, your century of gunmen racks up four million. Heart disease in one US year gets to about 600k.)
- unimpressive 14y ago
  >(BTW, your century of gunmen racks up four million. Heart disease in one US year gets to about 600k.) Oh, my eyes missed a zero.
morsch 14y ago
You're only making half an argument there. Yes, heart disease is a bigger cause of death than crazed gunmen ever could be in a functioning society. Ergo... what?

robomartin 14y ago

Another attempt to blame guns for what people do. I don't own any guns of any type. I've fired quite a few of them, of all kinds. I don't feel the need to own one for personal protection or as a hobby. I know plenty of people who do. Without fault, these guns spend more time locked-away in a safe than being fired for any reason. Yes, even the "assault rifles" (do rifles assault without a person holding them?). Every time something happens liberal-leaning media rushes to blame guns. It's never people, is it? A gun doesn't kill any more than a car. It's the people using them that sometimes, intentionally or not, harm others. None of these articles are backed by any data. Yet they are quick to blame "assault rifles" and proclaim all manner of remedies. I wanted data. A quick Google search for "homicides by weapon type" produced a bunch of links. The top link comes right out of the US Department of Justice: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm The very first chart shows very clearly that the vast majority --by a factor of 3 to 5 or more-- of homicides are committed with handguns. Not "assault rifles". I'm assuming that "assault rifles" falls under the "other gun" category in the chart. What's even more interesting is that homicides using a Knives exceeded "other gun" by a good margin from 1976 to about 1994 and then run about even. That's interesting data. It seems that knives are just as dangerous today as "other gun". Far more detailed data is available here: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr I really didn't have the time to dive into it, but I suspect I would learn exactly the same thing: "assault rifles" represent less than about 3% of total homicides. Put another way, more people --like TEN TIMES MORE-- are killed with knives every year than with "assault rifles". This is data from the DOJ and FBI so one can hardly put any kind of spin on it. All of this anti-gun talk after some crazy nutcase goes and does something stupid is absolute nonsense. The claims are not backed by data and those making the claims, for some reason, never choose to present any data (or confuse people by lumping "guns" with "other guns"). I am more of a libertarian who leans left on some issues and right on others. I'd like to believe that I think things through rather than follow like sheep. I happen to find the way the left constantly bitches about and vilifies guns to be disgusting pandering. They never discuss what the actual data shows: That young blacks are killing each other en-masse for drugs and other bullshit. And that our first black president has done virtually nothing to materially change the reality of millions of black kids who I am sure would be wonderful assets to our society given the right ecosystem. It's far easier to sling distorted statistics, vilify the NRA and rally idiot voters to try to take away gun rights. In the meantime the real victims of violent crimes, which --by far-- statistics show are hispanic and black youngsters, don't see anything of real value change in their environment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Stat... And, of course, let's not forget that the 9/11 attacks where carried out using knives. They killed thousands. The penalties for using guns criminally should be brutally severe. Automatic life in prison or some such thing. Criminals need to know that choosing a gun is the worst possible idea. I'm all for that. As far as your average Joe, leave him alone.

davidw 14y ago

Gun debates are about as hacker newsy as abortion or gay marriage or other controversial subjects. In other words: not very.

abrahamsen 14y ago
The article isn't about guns[1], but about evaluation of risks. [1] Or if it is, I totally missed the point.
- davidw 14y ago
  You wouldn't know that from looking at the discussion here. I think a more hacker newsy kind of thing would be an actual discussion of risks with some mathematical modeling, not a discussion of current events from cnn.com, with statements that are bound to set certain people off.
  - dennisgorelik 14y ago
    Guilty as charged. It's too tempting to slide into "pro-gun vs gun control" discussion even if the topic is "overreaction to extremely low probability events".
randomdrake 14y ago
While I can sort of see where you are coming from, I think there is something else worth pointing out that does make this at least somewhat Hacker News worthy. Bruce Schneier is a world leader in cryptographic analysis[1]. He is very much a part of the hacker community. He is well known for being quite analytical and to the point in a fashion that other "reporters" are without. I, for one, very much appreciate when he talks about issues of this magnitude, for that very reason, and I don't think I am alone here. [1] - http://schneier.com http://schneier.com

tzs 14y ago

> If a friend tells you about getting mugged in a foreign country, that story is more likely to affect how safe you feel traveling to that country than reading a page of abstract crime statistics will. One can make an argument that this is reasonable. I share many common interests with my friends, and so if I were to visit that foreign country I'd probably be interested in the same things in that country that my friend was interested in, and so would likely be traveling to the same places my friend visited. Accordingly, it seems reasonable to weigh my friend's experiences in that country higher than statistics derived from the combined experiences of everyone who goes to that country.

4ydx 14y ago
Ok, well, feel free to not understand statistics.
- dojomouse 14y ago
  Same back at you - tzs's comment is entirely reasonable. The point is that statistics collected from a situation with a higher similarity to the one you're trying to predict can provide a better indicator than general statistics, even if the sample size is smaller.
rmc 14y ago
If you're not the norm. If you're the norm and average mundane person, then statistics is more relevant for you. If you're going to a local death metal concert, then that might be relevant. If non-striaght and going to local LGBT clubs, that might be relevant. If you're part of the "great masses" going to common accomodation, common tourist attractions, then statistics should be more relevant.

mduerksen 14y ago

Even here in Germany, the overreaction to the event in Aurora can be witnessed: I went to the cinema last sunday (for Batman), and they had signs all over the place saying something like "In reaction to repeated worried requests about security, we will not allow visitors to be costumed and may search bags." I won't comment on the knee-jerk reactions of the customers. What more interesting to me is the decision made by the people in charge there, in reaction to those "worried customers". Was the cinema management panicking as well? Or were they just not courageous enough to stay calm and risk being deemed as "not doing something about it"?

_delirium 14y ago
That seems more like pandering to customers to me, which is a common thing for businesses to do. Customers keep asking about $foo, so you have to at least pretend to care about $foo.
- mduerksen 14y ago
  Yes, but by doing this, you potentially scare all other customers off as well, and make them feel uncomfortable. I don't think that is a wise business decision. An alternative would be to just give those worried ones a warm fuzzy feeling, without even informing the others. Or, if that doesn't suffice, just live with the fact that a few people won't go to the cinema for a month. Of course, I don't know how many people were "worried" in this case. I hope there weren't to many of them, that would be a sign that my country is getting really paranoid.
  - larrys 14y ago
    " I don't know how many people were "worried" in this case." I think that's the thing about irrationality. If the media hype is strong enough anyone's brain can be taken over. I remember very clearly the anthrax scare. I remember consciously thinking about anthrax when receiving envelopes at the business when that happened. I knew it was irrational but it was nearly impossible to fight those thoughts until the media attention died down.
- 14y ago

jrkelly 14y ago

Comments under the CNN article are universally positive. You basically never see that on news site comments -- seems like there is broad public support for ratcheting down security theater. I don't really understand what stands it up now.

CWuestefeld 14y ago
I don't really understand what stands it up now. American politics has nothing to do with reality anymore. This morning in the car there was a news bit about a guy who had just been arrested, and it was found that he'd posed with the Governor for a photo a couple of weeks ago. Clearly the Gov poses for scores of photos every day, most of which are with people whose names he doesn't even know. But it appears that someone thought that we needed to know about this photograph, and I can't imagine any reason for that. The political system seems to be a perpetual motion machine. It sustains itself independent of the rest of the world by producing unfounded hype that creates hysteria.

kokey 14y ago

John Kay's piece today about the same issue is quite pertinent: http://www.johnkay.com/2012/08/01/8684 http://www.johnkay.com/2012/08/01/8684 He's looking at how a media frenzy affects perception and laws disproportionally.

mbesto 14y ago

Daniel Kahneman wrote about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman#Hedonic_psychology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman#Hedonic_psychol... and is a concept called the Focusing Illusion or Anchoring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focusing_illusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focusing_illusion In his tests, Kahneman showed that people assign too much "utility" to painful events, even though a simliar event with less heuristics for pain was statistically the same. Great read for anyone interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

RyanMcGreal 14y ago
I just finished Thinking, Fast And Slow a couple of days ago, and it's the most thought-provoking, moving work of non-fiction I've read in years.
- mbesto 14y ago
  Absolutely. I can't recommend it enough.

tnorthcutt 14y ago

I wrote Bruce an email after reading this article on my phone this morning: ------- Mr. Schneier, I read your piece on CNN this morning (Drawing the wrong lessons from horrific events) on my phone. I thought you'd like to know that when viewed on a phone, the (utterly ridiculous and annoying) links that CNN inserts in their articles are no longer distinguishable from the content of the article, as all formatting is stripped. Consequently, it appears as though on the second page of the article, you wrote "Opinion: Average Americans don't need assault weapons", when that is not the case (as far as I can tell). I've included a screen shot from my phone for your convenience (also viewable here: http://d.pr/i/MTOx http://d.pr/i/MTOx). Cheers, -- Travis Northcutt

engtech 14y ago

for the people who are arguing "but what about the right to bear arms"? The wikipedia page has some interesting discussions about the history and analysis of the 2nd amendment. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

CWuestefeld 14y ago
Downvoted: simply saying "there's another page that has something interesting; go read it" isn't adding anything. At least summarize, or point us to something there that you think is salient.
- CrazedGeek 14y ago
  They're simply linking to a page related to the topic. It's adding historical context to the "right to bear arms" issue, and that's valuable when debating such a thing.

lenkite 14y ago

As someone not living in the US, my takeaway from this article was that citizens and visitors should all wear bullet-proof vests in public places similar to the way everyone wears car seat belts for safety. Since one shouldn't over-react and take away the freedom of toting around assault-rifles. Body Armour companies would LOVE this.

chimi 14y ago

> People tend to base risk analysis more on stories than on data. People base all decisions on stories rather than data. It's marketing 101 -- don't sell features, sell stories.

protomyth 14y ago

I'm actually a lot more concerned with how we handle people with mental illness in the USA. If it wasn't a gun, it would have been a backpacked filled with explosives, but the common factor is a sick mind that had multiple interactions with people who could have helped. It seems like we need to spend some money on figuring out why our systems and processes in this area are failing.