There has been an ongoing argument for some time about the victims of mass murders like those at Virginia Tech, Columbine and the École Polytechnique in Montreal.
Americans might not know much about the massacre in Montreal. On December 6, 1989, armed with a semi-automatic rifle, Marc Lépine walked into a classroom at a technical college and ordered the men (about 50 of them) to leave. He then shot the nine women who remained and moved to other areas of the building, killing in the end, fourteen women and wounding ten other women and four men.
The first few times things like this happen, it's fair to assume that cooperation with the assailant might be the best course of action. But once the general public has seen that retreat merely empowers someone who has a firm intent to do damage, the only sensible thing to do is fight back just like the passengers did on Flight 93 once they realized that the hijackers were only out to kill.
Recklessness is foolish but the willingness to act, despite danger, when the situation demands, is an incredible virtue. I'm wondering how it manifests itself in business and if anyone takes this into consideration in hiring. I assume that some psychological testing asks questions that indirectly measure courage. Does anyone know more about this?