The problem is that it’s a classic Prisoner’s Dilemma/Tragedy of the Commons/Free Rider issue. The “best” outcome requires cooperation and coordination, but it’s hard to come by.
Yes, it would be better if a bunch of people rushed a shooter. But for an individual making the “rush the shooter”/“don’t rush” decision, it’s much better to let someone else rush the shooter, not be one of the rushers.
I don’t think acronymns are a helpful way of learning this sort of thing. Many people couldn’t remember what ALICE stands for even in a peaceful, everyday, low-stress setting. Now, when people are suddenly face a life-and-death situation and their brains are at max panic, they’re supposed to recall an acronymn of this kind?
“Let’s roll.”
Well yeah, in a situation where running and hiding from imminent death are absolutely impossible, and the inevitable death is sufficiently delayed to allow for communication and planning, cooperation and coordination are going to be somewhat easier to come by.
I’m not in any way downplaying the courage and heroism of the passengers who wrested control of Flight 93 from the 9/11 hijackers. I’m just saying that such a situation is very different from facing an active shooter where running or hiding can give you a much better chance of survival than fighting back.
Do you want me to explain the differences between a split-second decision to charge a shooter in a random public place and the actions of the passengers of Flight 93, or can you figure them out on your own?
It doesn’t cancel my anecdote. Not everyone is thinking of their own life if 20 or more lives are at stake. If one guy rushes and is killed the second guy will already be on top of him. The idea is that many people rush. It will save lives, maybe not your own.
I imagine EVERYTHING happening faster than humanly possible. That way, I’m never surprised!
Aw, hey, no. No! Let’s please don’t smack on each other with this story. I didn’t mean to invoke it as a weapon, I meant it as a form of agreement. Sure, the timing can change the equation but in any event I now know the capacity for bravery and unity still exists among a random sampling of the population. But for that story, I would have zero hope that the same coming together could happen in an emergent event. Sorry. Some days I’m clear, and then there’s others.
Uh-huh.
That’s assuming more than one person is selfless enough to sacrifice themselves for other people. Otherwise, the first guy is dying a pointless death, just as pointless as all the deaths of the of the other victims dying in such a situation.
Most people are going to want to save their own skins, if they’re able to function at all.
Apologies for my snark in response.
In case it’s not clear to others:
- The passengers of Flight 93 had time to organize.
- They also didn’t face the kind of dilemma that people do in most cases with shooters. There was nowhere to run away. No chance that they would escape without beating the hijackers. If they attacked, some or all of them might die. If they didn’t attack, all of them would die (and a bunch of others).
Not everyone has the capacity to be a hero, and it’s a testament to those people that they acted bravely. But, also, it’s a lot easier to act bravely when there aren’t any other good options.
My strategy would be to use those people for cover as I make my way to the nearest exit.
Also, if they are with their loved ones, they are likely to focus on getting them to safety. A parent with her kids is probably going to focus on getting those children away from the shooting.