What you are asking is literally every US citizen to do is learn not to be afraid of death? The second point is taken from a rational point of view, which we cannot assume the shooter in a mass shooting is working from.First, from the victim side: if people didn't freeze, the gunman would be taken down before it became a mass shooting, it would just be a (attempted?) murder in a public place.
Second, from the shooter side: once it becomes less plausible to get in the New's high score list, the kind of mind that wants such a thing will be less likely to pursue it.
No, educate them to realize that a gun does not imply death. The only people who should die in such a situation are before anybody realizes that he has a gun - and obviously they aren't the ones I expect to react. Once it is recognized that the hostile has a gun, the worst possible thing (as measured by kill count) is for everybody to give him control of the situation. Without their cooperation, it is impossible for him to get a clear shot on anyone. A common misconception about people with mental illness is that their brains are incapable of reason. This is blatantly untrue (otherwise they would not be able to dress themselves, much less operate a gun); rather they simple have an extremely skewed sense of values. So the shooter is certainly rational, we don't have to assume.What you are asking is literally every US citizen to do is learn not to be afraid of death?
The second point is taken from a rational point of view, which we cannot assume the shooter in a mass shooting is working from.
From what rational point of view is it that one decides to go and kill any number of innocent people? You assume that every mass shooter has the intention of racking up some "score" but that isn't the case. Many of these shooters would have done what they did whether they killed 5 people or none. Being able to cloth yourself or use a gun isn't rational thought either. There are plenty of irrational people dressing themselves(look at politicians), and plenty more who own guns. Except if they are in an office, classroom, church, or any other enclosed space where someone can't "take control" of the situation. What else does a gun imply outside of a gun range, hunting ground, or in the hands of police officer?So the shooter is certainly rational, we don't have to assume.
Without their cooperation, it is impossible for him to get a clear shot on anyone.
No, educate them to realize that a gun does not imply death.
Rational doesn't mean "thinks like a typical person" (or more often "thinks like me"). Rational means "able to follow some consistent set of rules". All politicians are rational (just highly self-centered). Wanting a place on a scoreboard is one possible value that allows mass shootings. Another is feeling wronged by "normal" people, or people associated with some particular group, and seeking revenge. If the media didn't make up the "what's your religion? Christian?" thing, this shooter also exhibited the latter. Provided that you aren't miles away from civilization? Merely an inflated hospital bill, at least in America. But that's a different problem.What else does a gun imply outside of a gun range, hunting ground, or in the hands of police officer?
Then what is irrational? Rationality is defined by the society in which one resides. For example many people look at the middle east and see laws among numerous countries there as irrational, but that is because it is in comparison to our own set of rules. Politicians act irrational by denying that climate change is not a real issue when 99% of the scientific community agrees it is. In US society it is irrational to want to kill someone for no reason. In most place on the earth it is irrational to want to murder people. There is no rationality to mass shootings or mass shooters, so we cannot expect them to act in a rational way by any means.
Rationality is the quality or state of being agreeable to reason. The idea of committing mass homicide is not reasonable and anyone that could come to the conclusion that it is an answer to any question is being irrational. What I should have said was no "good" reason. For example if I kill someone who is trying to kill me. I've still killed someone, but with the justifiable reason that I was defending myself with an equal amount of force.