>>distributed security works better than slow centralized security and a vulnerable public

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?

> Obviously this doesnt work for a plane though.

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.

So if I want to create real mayhem I just need to have two suicide attackers starting a firefight in roughly opposite directions in a crowded open place and wait for dozens of bystanders to join in?

I could think of 100 ways you could still do damage to an armed public. Whats your point? Its a deterrent and if someone is doing massive damage they are going to be spotted.

In a suddenly chaotic situation how does the distributed security communicate and know they're on the same side and not treat each other as the enemy?

They teach you this in the course you need to take to concealed carry.

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.

If everyone has a gun, then either you teach this skill to everyone including the bad guys[0], or you don’t teach it to everyone and now a lot of normal people with guns are indistinguishable from bad guys with guns.

[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

Doesn't really answer the question

Or because the numbers are unequivocally against you?

I downvoted you because you talked about how you were going to be downvoted, as I do every time someone mentions being downvoted

You’re vastly overrating the ability of the common American to make rational decisions. In a stressful situation where a gun may be necessary, without proper and continual training, that ability drops to near 0. Look at the police - they use their guns incorrectly all the time and they’re trained peace officers. An average American, in an argument, maybe mix in some alcohol, with a gun in their pocket…many many senseless murders.

Not every person is going to carry a gun. And you need to be trained. Thats a requirement to concealed carry today.

Not in Texas or 18 other states! Get up to date on the gun laws.

So why not make the public less vulnerable by outlawing guns entirely?

Or because every actual study has shown this line of reasoning isn’t backed by reality.

Practically every law enforcement agency is going to disagree with you on that. Id like to see these studies if you dont mind.

You can name even one law enforcement agency that wants vigilante firearm violence? Because that is literally what it means to desire the general public act as armed first responders.