17 ms·
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
by 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 agoTwo to five "goodguys" exchanging fire is still a vastly better outcome than the one that occurred.
- kevinh 14y agoThat'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 agoHuh? 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.
- nollidge 14y agoYou're assuming that they take him down at all. He had body armor and the element of surprise.
- nollidge 14y agoOh, do tell.