Those are very different things. Not every soldier is taught hand-to-hand combat. Not every civil service volunteer is taught to handle a weapon. And basic first aid training is almost universal already. More lives could probably be saves by everyone being trained in basic mental health and de-escalation techniques.

And 99% of those would fear lawsuit.

The other side of the coin is that we should be focusing left-of-bang, preventing terrorism much earlier.

You didn't answer the question by the way.

But most situations that currently result in someone getting shot can be resolved less violently, as demonstrated by the lack of firearms carried or desired by the majority of UK cops.

A culture shift isn’t an overnight thing, but better worlds are possible.

Edit to fix bad quote of “well regulated militia.”

Honestly, you’re going to have bad apples no matter what. But what about the rest of the citizens? How can they respond to disaster scenarios without training?

Domestic terrorism is the same thing as abroad terrorism, except one uses patriotism as an ideology, the other uses religion.

I Russia, despite a nominal ban, you can buy a gun on the vegetable market, but nobody seem to be going, and shooting people out of a sudden other that 2-3 freak accidents per year.

Being murdered in a banal armed robbery is a by far bigger risk.

> Basic combat training and paramedic abilities, disaster recovery and such associated procedures.

... Military training teaches none of those, so far as I'm aware, except maybe the first. But even then, you're getting training on a rifle, which is not the most likely firearm a civilian would be carrying.

As a non-car driver, it stood out to me at the time that all the events occurred on the road, though of course I had no idea of the actual mechanism.

If your response to terrorism is a year of forced military training I can assure you the terror already won.

What if its a 20 year community involvement?

Fully expect to get downvoted for this on HN...because its HN.

Except that it literally doesn't. We know from public verifiable stats that people who own a gun end up hurting themselves or their family several orders of magnitutde more often than defending against an attacker or actually using it for self defense. It happens, but the numbers clearly point that it's massively ineffective for that purpose.

>>Fully expect to get downvoted for this on HN...because its HN.

You mean because people on HN frequently believe in the power of statistical analysis and logical thinking when it comes to deciding when something is worth doing or not?

I was thinking it absolutely does, unless everyone from more than 3ft away starts shooting.

Doubly so if we're talking knives or other sidearms.

Sikh logic, wildly underrated.

If someone is doing massive damage...cornered people in a restaurant and is shooting them one by one. Someone can respond to that. Youre going to hear it and see it. Not every scenario is going to play out perfectly but at least theres mitigation on the table.

[0] because if you actually knew they were bad guys before you gave them such training you could stop them before they fire a single shot