should demonstrate its effectiveness first.

They'd find him later shaking and mumbling to himself in a corner with a big puddle of urine in his pants and on the floor, assuming he survived, of course. The loudest talkers are usually the biggest cowards.

I think someone else needs a psychiatric evaluation too.

.... some of the good side of our pioneer heritage when we saw and applauded the behavior of the three passengers on the Pennsylvania flight. (High probability that they saved us from another hit in D.C.). There was a sense for a while that we wouldn't let terrorists take over another plane because we'd know it was important enough for us to all rush them.

I've imagined myself in a situation like the school shootings. I can see myself running at the shooter and hoping others would join me. Of course, who knows what I'd do in real life. But I do think we should consider the possibility of 20 or 30 people taking down a shooter.

NOTE - This does NOT mean I'm not for gun control. This does NOT mean I think this approach is a substitute for gun control.

Run for cover.

Of course, kids are bulletproof, so no prob.

are based on the experience of LEO's criminologists and survivors. There's a reason it's RUN HIDE FIGHT in that order.

A dead or wounded cop isn't usually very efficient at taking down a shooter. They're also, surprisingly, human. And human response to that level of threat is almost universally flight.

The original author is not telling groups of unarmed people to rush the murderer.

Read the article by Megan McArdle.

Most of it is a list of possible solutions to gun violence, causes, things that have been tried, and how and why they didn't work. If that's too long, skip to the last 3 paragraphs. She's talking about the last thing she could think of to stop a massacre - not that she thinks that it would work.

"My guess is that we're going to get a law anyway, and my hope is that it will consist of small measures that might have some tiny actual effect, like restrictions on magazine capacity.

I'd also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once. Would it work? Would people do it? I have no idea; all I can say is that both these things would be more effective than banning rifles with pistol grips.

But I doubt we're going to tell people to gang rush mass shooters, because that would involve admitting that there is no mental health service or "reasonable gun control" which is going to prevent all of these attacks. Which is to say, admitting that we have no box big enough to completely contain evil."

But that it would be "more effective than banning rifles with pistol grips".

That's just sheer stupidity for the sake of an ill-conceived partisan point. Which makes it worse than your incorrect claim.

Sounds like a real solution. Somebody best check this person out. There are many tacks missing out of the box and they shouldn't have an important job. Sheesh!

Will the gang rushers have bodies made of titanium, or will they be doe-eyed six year olds with no clue as to why they are being slaughtered?