Who Stops a "Bad Guy With a Gun"?
More info https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/22/us/shootings-police-response-uvalde-buffalo.html
1075
Comments276View original on slrpnk.net
More info https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/22/us/shootings-police-response-uvalde-buffalo.html
So in short, in the 433 cases, 12 of them is stop by good guy with gun and 42 of them is stop by good guy with massive balls.
So by the statistic provided we should give everyone massive balls instead of gun to stop gun violence.
I wish we could win this argument with logic, but I'm certain the fanatics will immediately latch onto the narrative that guns are being used by good guys already, but we obviously need more guns and less restrictions on them them to get those numbers up.
With Republicans, any fact against them is either ignored or bastardized to say the opposite of what it actually says.
Yeah, there's rarely any logical sense being made because to them gun is a right, not privileges, and once privileges turn into right it take a dictator to take that away.
But then again, jailing people in shitty prison where most right are taken away is a okay 🤷
They only jail people outside of the in-group
I think gun people are counting the police as good guys with guns.
No they don't. If you ban guns from citizens, police would still have guns in the US.
The argument of "Good guys with a gun" is about citizens not able to kill the "bad guy with a gun" before the police arrive.
I see.
Unbelievable that fucking guy or lady said that and got any upvotes. Living under a goddamn fucking rock. Thank you for correcting.
That makes it 142/433 where the shooter was shot by a “good guy with a gun”. Hardly a great figure either way…
Especially after the murdering was already done.
Then why does everyone else need them?
A genuine, actual answer is that when you're being attacked, it is incredibly rare for a police officer to be standing there, ready to intervene. In life-or-death situations the police really only exist to take a report from whoever is left standing, and potentially make an arrest. There's plenty of people out there who don't have the strength to defend themselves in hand-to-hand combat, and even if they did, next to nobody has the skills necessary to reliably defend against a knife attack using their bare hands. That's just plain how knife attacks work.
You can counter this with statistics that show that access to guns increases injuries and deaths, because they absolutely do, but pro-gun folks put the individual before the group on this issue. The individual, in their mind, should have the right to quick deadly force in order to facilitate defense of their own life, and other's failure to handle that responsibility is not their problem and/or the price of that right.
There are always tradeoffs, in any policy you set for society. If you go the other direction there will be people who are victimized who would otherwise have been able to defend themselves. Which scenario is worse? How many victims of one type are worth victims of the other?
How does this turn into a knife argument? That’s just a distraction. We do already restrict certain types of knives, plus you can’t walk down a city street with a machete.
More importantly I can shut a door between myself and an attacker. Try that if they have a gun
They're saying that if someone tries to attack you with a knife (or even no weapon), pro-gun proponents argue you should have a right to a firearm to defend yourself against that attacker, citing that most people straight up do not have the physical ability to ward off the attacker (who is on average an adult man).
I would argue having a firearm is unlikely to help. At close range, knife has the advantage and you probably won’t even get the gun out. At longer range, running/avoiding is a better choice if you can.
There's a few YouTube channels that I think do a good job of being level-headed when it comes to analysing self-defense and giving decent advice around it. Hard2Hurt, Armchair Violence (a more general channel that recently did a video on unarmed knife defense), and Active Self Protection are three that come to mind right off the bat. All three say the same thing: • avoid sketchy locations if you can • pay attention to the people around you, especially in what are called "transition areas" like when you walk out of a store • deescalate conflict as much as possible (without giving in to demands) • leave as soon as you're able • only fight when your hand is forced
As far as I'm aware, they all also advocate for carrying pepper spray and participating in folkstyle wrestling to use as your defensive base for things that don't require lethal force. The problem is, you don't have the only say on whether a situation will become a threat to your health and safety or not. Sometimes you're just unlucky and a guy flips out on you for something petty and now you've got a guy pushing and shoving yelling about how he's gonna fuck you up and you can see a pocket knife clipped in his pocket.
Most firearm uses are at very close range. If you practice your draw—and you absolutely fucking should—you should be able to draw and fire multiple rounds with a person busy punching or stabbing you. (Through what usually happens is the victim manages to get a window of separation and uses that to draw their weapon.) After a few shots your attacker will have had enough time to react to what you're doing, but most people react to being shot in the gut by falling over. It's mostly a psychological thing, but surprisingly effective. Once they do that, turn and run. All you're trying to do is get them to stop hurting you so you can get away safely.
Tyranny, or something I believe is the argument.
The last time citizens with guns stood up against the government was the Civil War, and they were standing up for their right to enslave other Americans.
Think someone needs to revisit the math.
Definitely agreed.
Well, you know, the more guns, the less gun violence. Yeeeeeeah, right. Since we officially have more guns than people, it should all be over soon.
Oh wow, I missed this. That's a fantastic insight to pull out of this.
No. There is nothing to imply that the 42 people didn't have a gun, just that they didn't shoot the attacker. That part seems fishy.
Oh yeah, I'm sure any of these cases were someone stopping to hold an active shooter at gunpoint and that somehow working out for them. Or maybe they used their gun as a melee weapon. Or maybe the attackers were subdued by being talked down over their common love of guns. Or maybe the active shooter ran out of ammo and came up to the good guy with a gun to get some more, at which point the good guy revealed they were actually tricking them into lowering their guard and put them into a headlock. Or maybe some other far-fetched bullshit that'll let me equivocate over the fact that "good guys with guns" don't do shit in the grand scheme of things.
Jeez, that's a lot of words you needed to make a clown out of yourself, just because you are pissed by objective fact.
I think you're pissed at the objective fact that 12/433 is fucking nothing and your "good guy with a gun" argument is a pathetic farce, so you're trying muddy the waters by shifting the argument to a ridiculous, unfounded, unfalsifiable notion that any of the 42 subduers might've had literally anything to do with "good guys" having firearms.
There is nothing in what I said that would imply what side of "good guy with a gun" argument I am on and there is nothing in the data that says anything about whether the 42 people had a gun.
My point is this is terrible and confusing representation of the data, as is often the case in any "data is beautiful" community.
But keep kicking around mad that the version that supports your narrative is not the only possible one :D
Yeah, so terrible and confusing that they didn't mention guns in branches that don't have anything to do with guns outside of a gun fetishist's fanfiction.
So, I can imagine someone with a gun menacing the attacker at gunpoint and forcing them to surrender. No shots fired.
But the data doesn't include this for bystanders. Maybe that's because it doesn't happen in real life, or maybe they muddied the watters. We can't know because we can't see the data they used to make this graphic.
Branch that doesn't involve shooting the attacker.
Keep trying. You will not get there, but at least you tried.
Thank you for standing up to the slavering morons around here about bad statistical graphics.
All I'm getting out of this is that police are, in fact less than 50% effective, so we'd better plan on dealing with it ourselves.
They could have also talked them out of it, which still takes balls
True, they didn't specify whether in that 42 cases the citizen does have a gun but did not fire, just aiming and intimidate. However the data did split between
shot firedshot at the attacker(no mention hit or miss) vs subdued, not killed vs subdued, and also there's a mention of the attacker surrender, so i assume "subdued" mean the attacker did not surrender but forced to give up whatever they're doing.The chance that someone decided to go hand to hand with a gunman in the middle of blowing away the population whilst leaving their gun holstered is basically zero.
Not what I said or implied, but no, that chance is not basically zero.
I recall reading like a gunman got tackled last year. If I get time I'll dig it up
I think you missed the point. People sometimes DO manhandle the shooter. They don't do so whilst having the option of blowing away the shooter.
So in most cases the bad guy with a gun is stopped by a bad guy with a gun (himself).
The Hitler strategy, classic.
Right.
I read "The police shot the attacker 98 times" with a different interpretation at first lol.
With average cop accuracy that'd probably exhaust their armory's ammo supply
Lucky they busted old Billy and his one pot plant, and seized all his cash. That will refill the sheriff coffers.
"sprinkle some crack on 'em. Open and shut case Johnson!"
Do you think they got them?
That seems excessive.
I agree with the point this is trying to make, but I don't think it does its job.
Like, the whole argument from the 'good guy with a gun' crowd is about stopping them early. You'd need to cross reference each of these catagories with 'how many people did the mass shooter kill'. And, this would really only be a strong argument vs the 'good guy with a gun' point if the 'shot by bystander' result had no fewer average deaths.
Additionally, it's easy to clap back with 'well, yeah, our society doesn't have enough "good people" trained with guns, that's why it's only 5%!'
Again, I don't agree with those points, it's just that this chart is pretty bad at presenting an argument against them.
Also, the data needs to include how many people are accidentally shot by guns through improper usage and storage.
From the numbers I have seen, far more children are killed accidentally by good-guy-guns then they are saved by those very same guns
We need good kids with guns to shoot the bad kids with guns!?
we need good kids with guns to shoot the neutral kids with guns who might take someone else out when they shoot themselves.
I think they take away your good-guy card before that happens
Ah, the classic no true good guy fallacy.
You should see the data for people improperly using cars or medications or alcohol. Pretty scary stuff, I think everything should be illegal.
I agree. It's pathetic how shit arguments that make no actual sense are allowed to fly by millions of people.
Cause many people don't want their beliefs challenged. They want to live without accepting facts, or even regardless of facts.
Its the culture war mentality.
"Our idea would work, if the damn Wokes didn't stop us all from having guns at all times!"
Its always the reason why 'their ideas don't work'; cause their opponents aren't 'letting them'
The other problem with the "good guy with a gun" is how many people does an attacker need to kill before you are the good guy killing the bad guy? One? And what if you didn't witness it? The "good guy" with the gun attacking another guy with a gun without knowing what's going on, are they still the "good guy" in that scenario? It's a mess.
The whole thing stems from fallacious logic. Arming everyone doesn't stop bad guys murdering people, at best it might curtail the length of some attacks and at worst it causes innocents to die as so-called "good guys" try to save the day and make it worse.
Prevention is the way forward, as then 0 people die. And the best way to do that is no one has guns (not even most police; just a small subset of specialist police). That is an anathema or sacrilegious to Americans, but it's the approach taken in many democratic and free countries in the world.
If the chart is trying to make a point, it's making the wrong one anyway.
I would also zoom in on the suicide of the attacker.
That's some wild stuff to show these people needed help loooong before they did this.
Homicidal ideation does not always equate to wanting to live with having killed someone, and a lot of these people are closer to normal than they realize until they are facing potential consequences for their actions. I would posit that killing oneself after doing something so heinous is one of the saner outcomes.
A lot of people experience "fucked around, found out" immediately or shortly after they cross a line, before anyone else has a chance to tell them they fucked up.
Yeah I can see that too. It's a shame the US government banned research into firearm violence by the CDC.
How many people does the attacker need to kill? Ideally, none. If an attacker is attempting to kill someone and that person is killed instead of the potential victim, good.
If I'm out and someone tries to attack me, I'm pulling out my pistol and ending it right there. I'm not trying to be a "good guy with a gun," I'm just carrying to protect myself.
I think it also misses a special case, where a active shooting would have happened, but a 'good guy with a gun' stopped it before a death toll occurred by either holding the shooter at gunpoint or shooting them.
This would likely be a rare case that would be much harder to quantify but you know it will be argued it's needed for that case.
That is covered in this graphic as subdued by bystander, it’s a small amount and they include cases where people didn’t subdue with gun.
They don’t stop a shorter before it happens. It’s not a scenario that exists. If you shoot someone before they draw their weapon to shoot, your the active shooter.
It also leaves out the situations where the bad guy with the gun was stopped before becoming an active shooter.
Okay, so I'm not the only one who read "shot the attacker 98 times" and for a split second imagined this scenario where 131 times, the attacker was shot a gratuitous and strangely precise number of times, right?
this has me laughing uncontrollably... it's so specific but also because it's the police, it's not impossible. god there's tears in my eyes from laughing
"Shooter is down. Three clean shots to the chest. Johnson, put 95 more in him, and we can all go home."
"you can keep the crack, this one actually did something"
The worst part is the scenario is mildly believable knowing our police force.
No, I came here, looking for that exact comment
Guns have really improved since the year 131.
The Aelia Capitolina PD were fucking loose cannons, man.
He's dead jim
This one's only counting active mass shooters. When it's still a lesser shooting with under 4 victims, the odds of a vigilante rando with a gun - that is, a citizen packin' heat and not a cop off the clock - stopping the violence is about 1 in 7000.
So, once a year in America.
There are two different categories: "active shooter" and "mass shooting".
An "active shooter" has strict definitions and is tracked by the FBI. These are the events depicted in this graph. An active shooter is someone trying to kill people at random in a public place. The number of casualties is irrelevant. A few years back a guy tried to attack a courthouse in Texas and was killed by a cop before he even got a shot off. That still counts as an active shooter.
A "mass shooting" has no single definition, and media and government organizations that use the term set their own parameters. Many of them define it as "four or more people killed or injured", regardless of circumstances.
The problem with the term "mass shooter" (and the reason why the FBI doesn't use it) is that it's overly broad. Guy goes nuts and kills his family before offing himself? Mass shooting. Robocop shoots four guys in the dick? Mass shooting.
EDIT: It's worth noting that the linked source clarifies that the graph shows all active shooter incidents between the year 2000 and 2021. This throws off your calculation significantly.
No it's not, dgu's happen all the damn time. Hell there is a subreddit that tracks the ones that are found. There are countless videos of people being attacked, and pulling a firearm and the violence magically stops. That's a DGU, even though no round was fired. So it doesn't show up on lists like these, which have an agenda.
The really crazy thing about the graph is that there are 433 fucking datapoints!
Even crazier, the graph is two years old.
It's the kids that are the problem, not the assault weapons. Every kid should be strapped. That would solve all problems. That and tariffs. We can get that number up to a 1000. 1000 is better than 433.
Hoo-rah! USA!
In what time frame did those shooting happen?
Don't forget when cops shoot the good guy with a gun!
Here are a few I could find quickly. There's at least one more that I just happen to recall that didn't come up because I can't seem to remember where it happened. I think it was more recent than any of these. And I'm quite sure there are many more than that, this was just the most time I was willing to spend googling at the moment.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/560798-police-chief-hails-good-guy-with-a-gun-after-officer-kills/
https://www.bet.com/article/eokrmr/black-man-kaun-green-disarm-shooter-shot-by-police
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/12/good-guy-with-a-gun-comes-to-rescue-police-kill-him/
https://archive.thinkprogress.org/nra-quiet-police-shoot-black-armed-good-guy-with-a-gun-alabama-ca37e7e5475a/
This is about that stupid argument against gun regulation.
What cops do is a different issue.
It is, however, one of the outcomes, and is not represented. I'm not demanding it should be added, but I think it makes the "Good guy with a gun" argument even weaker.
No fucking way I'm pulling out my gun if I think there's a >0 possibility Police are on the scene. Now I have to not only worry about taking care of the bad guy, but also about being shot to death by police.
How many of those 12 citizens that stopped the attacker had that happen too?
Personally I don't think it's worth sacrificing the clarity of the image with even more rare specifics.
Well out of 12, there were 4 posted when the good guy with a gun dies. That isn't including any of the ones we don't know about, but that would be a 33% that you would die if you are a good guy with a gun and you "save the day."
Man, it's just a point of discussion. I literally said I'm not demanding it should be added.
And, in the examples I gave, at least two of them did stop the attacker before being killed by police.
The bottom line is, people who feel safer with a gun than with the right to see a doctor, are not mature adults with a healthy sense of rational fear.
In Germany, where there is stricter gun control, there was an incident in which a bystander tackled the knife attacker. The police mistook the bystander as the perpetrator, and because the police were distracted, the attacker got up and stabbed two more people including one of the police officers. https://apnews.com/article/germany-mannheim-stabbing-police-officer-death-a66c14970a53464aff0c1c77a7196481
I agree with others. The idea of "good guy with a gun will stop the bad guy with a gun" is pretty much wishful thinking if the police arrives on the scene and mistakes who. It does not matter whether there is gun control or not, the good guy could be mistaken in the midst of chaos.
Statistically, we need more bad guys with guns, to stop themselves.
And here my friends is why it is important to learn to interpret data, because by the numbers, you are correct.
Sooo technically most of the time a "Bad guy with a gun" is stopped by a "Bad guy with a gun".
That's why you should make sure they all have access to guns.
And that they are suicidal.
US domestic policy is starting to make sense
Guys with no guns that think it's immature that several children die from frail men with ego issues every day:
Had a little trouble reading this at first, I was like, "The cops showed up and shot the person 98 times? Police brutality is so ridiculously out of hand!." Then I realized I was reading it wrong, but decided the statement was still valid.
In all of the situations, the police shot at least one dog.
Just to be sure they shot something.
This is why more schools need therapy dogs: it might encourage the police to actually enter the building during active shootings.
Imo the dog is more likely to stop the shooter.
To be fair, it might be both
Nah. The cops shot an average of 98 times
which is more than half the time when cops show up anyways, and more than double of the rate where they successfully subdue the attacker or convinced them to surrender.
I feel like if police arrive on scene, they're probably shooting whoever has a gun, "good guy" or "bad guy." Cops seem pretty jumpy. Perhaps if we could make the good guys and bad guys wear differently colored hats?
Come on, it's not like a cop would yell "SHOTS FIRED" because of a falling acorn and proceed to empty his clip, would it?
Not just empty his clip, but also fatally wounded the person he was transporting at the time. He thought that the guy in the backseat, having already been patted down twice, handcuffed and detained; had a gun.
This was definitely a reasonable amount of anxiety for a state-sponsored bully to have /s
In the link it specifically states the person wasn't harmed (somehow). Unless there was a new development in the story this is false. ACAB and all that but we can't spread misinformation.
Either I'm misremembering or one of the things I've seen on it was wrong then. I watched this video earlier this week and I thought I remembered seeing body cam footage of them actually going to check on the guy after the shooting and the dude was dead in the backseat
That would be a cut together clip. Disinformation. I'm sorry you were subjected to it but in the case of the loud acorn the person detained was amazingly not physically harmed.
i definitely remember the dude not getting hit by even a single shot, at least significantly so.
Think I would rather be shot(chance being shot really) by a cop than let a demonstrated murderer continue picking targets based on whatever bullshit criteria they have in mind.
I can maybe take a bullet or three(~200lbs of ... dubious composition). Children, the elderly or other likely targets? Not so much.
EDIT: Imagine prefering random people get shot in a mass shooting(and/or by cops) vs the random "I can take it" self-proclaimed dumbass you encountered on the internet. Congrats, seven random morons, you've drank the just-as-toxic-but-sopposedly-opposite-of-toxic-masculinity kool-aide.
/s?
You might be surprised. Some people get shot 20 times and walk away without any irreparable damage. It's all effectively random.
Two friends of mine had perpetrators walk up and empty their clips into them. The smaller friend didn't make it, but the larger one did miraculously survive with 8 bullets in his torso. I'd be morbidly curious to see if there was research supporting that the extra mass made the difference
I mean, there's statistically more area without a critical organ/blood vessel to be hit. Plus you have more blood, so you can lose more in total.
I think the difference would be small, especially compared to other variables though.
it depends on where you get hit, unless you get hit directly in a main artery, or dont get tended to quick enough, you'll more than likely be fine given enough time.
Sorry, why /s? Cops aren't even particularly good(or safe) shots. I would be more worried about them hitting another bystander in their attempts to shoot me.
I'm not saying I would enjoy being shot, but statistically, about two-thirds of gun-shot victims survive(source: the Brady campaign), and, mass of jello that I am, I am in pretty good health since my time wiring barges up over the last year.
That said, this is assuming I happen to be armed and choose to put myself in harm's way, which is another consideration where I would prefer to be harmed vs others. Odds are good it would be because I chose to do something objectively stupid, versus others whose only choices are to run, hide, or confront their attckers un-armed and otherwise un-prepared.
“I can maybe take a bullet or three” sounded like such over the top bravado I was hoping it was meant tongue in cheek.
Don’t get me wrong though I was just commenting on that sentence. I am not meaning to undermine your point about police and their (lack of) aim.
Opposite of Bravado. I see myself as disposable vs most people until shown different, and most people I know who say such things as I have here and mean them seem to feel the same way about themselves. A mistake I don't live to learn from(or learn of) is less terrifying than a failure to do right by others.
I'm not saying I definitely won't just hide, cry, piss and shit myself, but I didn't do any of that(until hours later) the last few times I had guns pointed at me, and no, I don't mean by friends or due to personal shenanigans(unless you count signing on certain government forms). It has been over 15 years since the last time though.
This was basically the active shooter training I had to attend when I worked at a big office. Even if you’re a “good guy with a gun” when the officials, armed site security or police, roll in they have no idea and you run a huge risk of being assumed to be the aggressor.
Hell, they have a tendency to shoot each other, too. Cops shooting cops and cops shooting security guards are both things that happen.
Uvalde cops be like:
Live action team fortress 2
You know what, the American obsession with guns has never been anything to do with "protection", it's about being ammosexual.
Most people who carry guns are doing it for self-defense, not civil defense.
The rules of an Active-shooter event are:
Carrying a concealed weapon doesn't change that. I have a little 380 pocket pistol I'll occasionally carry. It's low-capacity, low-power, and low-accuracy. No way am I volunteering to take on a psychopath with a long gun who isn't worried about collateral damage with my little pea shooter, and anyone Who expects me too just because I'm armed can kiss my ass.
I carry a pistol to protect me from muggers and car-jackers, not to protect the public.
Having the general public feeling that they need to carry a gun for self defense just sounds crazy to me.
Stabbings have risen here in the UK but generally it's either a rare occasion where some nutter is on the run or it's gang related. In general I would never feel the need to carry my own knife around for self defense. I don't know anyone who carries a knife around with them for self defense.
Would anyone you know tell you if they carried a knife for self-defense, given that it's generally a crime to do so in the UK?
Close friends sure and yes you need to have a good reason as to why you're walking around with a knife in public.
It's similar in a lot of states in the US. You aren't legally allowed to carry a knife for self defense, or as a weapon, but recently in my state, the laws were changed so that you can carry any size blade without a reason. So if you say "I carry a knife for defense" you'll get fined/arrested and your knife would be confiscated, but if you say "it's for cutting stuff" or nothing at all, thats legal.
IANAL. Read your local knife laws.
Imo only an idiot would carry a knife for self-defence, especially if untrained. If someone (probably women especially) feels unsafe, carrying CS-spray would be more reasonable imo.
Its weird you got downvotes. A knife is a terrible weapon for self-defense, the odds of you getting fucked up by your own knife are extremely high. Pepper spray is far superior to a knife for any realistic self-defense situation.
I knew a paramedic who said that the winner of a knife fight was the one who died in the ambulance instead of on the scene.
Tell that to all the young idiots in gangs
Doubt they carry knifes for self-defence. But then, gang-members are probably not the people with the best education.
Almost all of our gun violence is the same, gang/drug related. The media here acts like it's random killings all over the place, its not. You have a better chance of drowning in a pool than getting killed by an ar15 here, yet people, even in this thread, think it's something that happens like every 3 seconds.
You conveniently left out school shootings. between 2018-2023 more than 1200 school shooting incidents occured. You literally can not kill a dozen of people with knives but u can easily do it with a gun.
No I did not. And no there was not 1200 school shootings, those numbers are created by the GVA and used as a propaganda piece for anti-2a rhetoric.
Even NPR did a piece on it:
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/08/27/640323347/the-school-shootings-that-werent
It wouldn't be wrong if someone wanted a knife for self defense though
I'd feel fine with someone carrying a weapon if it's based on a reasonable fear, and they make an effort to stay trained/safe with the weapon. For instance, they exited an abusive relationship with a significant other who feels they "belong" to them.
But there's a lot of people who stretch the statement of "I don't feel safe" to far more cases than make sense.
The really sad thing about this graph is the fact that 433 active shootings barely covers half a year
> died by suicide
Sometimes even bad guys with a gun stop themselves.
If they didn't have guns, how could they kill the shooter? That's why thy shouldn't ban guns! /s
Unless thay weren't actually 'bad' people, rather they found themselves having to use a gun as the only option left to them. One notable bit of info missing is why these people had a gun and why were they using it?
This chart is taking into account situations where a person shot or attempted to shoot multiple unrelated people in a public setting. The stereotypical mass shooting. I really don't care what someone is going through, my sympathy for the poor and disenfranchised does not extend to indiscriminate murder
Thanks for clarifying. My point was not to ilicit sympathy, any such violence is ahorant and the perpetrator must take responsibility, ultimately, but rather to illicit empathy. To understand how and why people end up in such a place then creates the starting point to find solutions, or at least, minimise how frequently they may occur within a population in the future.
As such, I'm inclined to think that in at least some of the cases where the individual commits suicide once the police turn up, they have reached a total breaking point, so to speak, and the last option they can see has gone so suicide is sll that's left.
This to me doesn't suggest a 'bad' person, more so someone who has found themselves in a terrible place, particularly in cases where that's no fault of their own, and are wndingvup doing something bad. Being 'bad' to me is closer to gansta/mobster mentality - e.g. killing people is fine, so long as its not us, and i cant imagine any mass shooter being someone like that. There are a myriad of variables of course, and this may only apply to some of the people painted as 'bad' in this infografic.
Is there a statistic how many bystanders were hurt by armed citizen bystander?
Quiet! You'll scare the gun lobby with that logic talk!
Unfortunately they will probably just ignore it instead of acknowledging it.
Probably not b/c it's literally illegal for Congress to investigate gun violence harm thanks to the NRA.
The fact that there are 433 data points means it's not working
The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun... In an action movie, in real life, there's kinda too much chaos going on for anyone to differentiate between the "bad guy" and the "good guy", or for the "good guy" to know the situation.
I've heard of more times where someone tried to play hero and was gunned down by the police who mistook him for the real shooter than I have any reports of "Hero Gunman slays horrible villain"
https://lemmy.ml/comment/13559989
What about the times the good guy with a gun is shot by the police?
Wow, 12/433 “good guy with a gun. That’s higher than I expected! However you still need to compare to deaths caused by “careless guy with gun” plus “scared/angry guy with gun”, which includes the latest school shooting and is much much higher
Also: This chart only shows what happened to the attacker. It doesn't give you a picture of the innocent people on the scene shot by cops, the cops shot by cops, the "good guy with a gun" who shoots another good guy with a gun, and so on. 12/433 may be accurate, but by the time you deduct points for innocent deaths caused by people with guns on the scene, you're creeping back down to zero again.
If not everyone would have guns it would probably be a lot less than 433 active shootings in the same timeframe 😅. The 12 would go to 0 quick. But the 433 would decrease a lot more than 12 🥳
I’d also like to point out …. While the usual argument is that criminals would still have guns, many shootings like this are perpetrated by people who weren’t criminals. While the parent had poir judgement and failed their supervisory responsibility, as far as I know the kid in this latest shooting g had a “legal” gun.
While criminals with guns are certainly a problem, better gun control and mental health resources could prevent an outsized number of deaths, injuries, trauma. And don’t forget the family of the perpetrator: most other possible outcomes would be better for them than what happened
Very few people actually carry weapons in public in most of the US, concealed or openly. It's nothing like "most people", or even "most gun-owners". I have a lifetime concealed-carry permit, but my guns stay in the safe, save for specific events.
In my experience, this statement varies drastically by what region you are in the country.
No argument from me. There are places that make me uncomfortable, but all the idiotic open carry shenanigans here and there are just the icing on the shit cake.
this doesn't include times where the good guy was pressure for the bad guy to not attempt it. There's a reason why shootings in schools are popular, there's only 1 or 2 armed people there compared to the 1,000+ kids.
Let's also keep in mind your average gun owner is not owning/carrying to stop a mass shooting. They are using them for self defense, especially night stand guns. If someone's breaking into my house, I'm not calling the police and hiding hoping they get there in time. I'm defending my family myself, at that exact moment
But that’s kind of a problem. I don’t see how your weapon can be useful for self defense in this case while also being properly secured by a responsible owner. Maybe pairing it with an alarm system or dog can get you enough warning to do both
They make quick access safes which can be mounted on or near your bed, so instead of leaving a loaded gun in a drawer where anyone can get it, it's in a locked safe with either a fingerprint or button combo unlock. The safe can be opened in seconds by someone who knows what they are doing but would otherwise keep the loaded weapon secure.
That's not the point. If they are already standing over you then you would be dead before you wake up. But we should never act like that is the only scenario possible
It's a word that in this moment means "you and I"
usually home intruders don't just walk into the bedrooms of the house while stealing shit. So that probably.
The 133 real heros are the attackers that stop the attack by leaving the scene of the crime promptly to avoid incarceration.
I smelled burnt toast and laughed, then decided to like this comment for reasons that still elude me... There is a stabbing pain in my cranium and I'm tearing up without knowing why.
That's just what happens when you read something really funny. Don't go to the ER cause you definitely don't have something life threatening happening to you. You can trust me my sister is a doctor.
Bless your heart. I know it was just from my facial muscles contorting in odd ways.
I think republicans should pivot into "only a good guy with a truck can stop a bad guy with a gun" because it makes as much sense.
"if the teacher had a 4x4 mazda truck they could run over the attacker if the school was a fully paved parking garage. We should consider making the school cooridors driveable"
Yeah but them you'll have people pulling the fire alarm and speeding down the crowded hallway. Maximum effect and all that
its not a serious proposal, the point is neither are security guards, giant fences with barbed wire, or giving every student a weapon. The only successful solution has ever been putting responsibility on gun owners and sellers to be responsible about who they give guns to and when.
I realize, I was just teasing a bit by providing horrific imagery
This one actually demonstrates some flaws in this graph format. Maybe it's just how it's expressed this time, but, here are some insights you might gain from this presentation that aren't actually the case:
Like, I get what is trying to be conveyed here but the format requires a lot of work for my brain to parse and makes it harder to understand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sankey_diagram, specifically made with https://www.sankeymatic.com/ from the looks of it.
I'd like to know how many times a civil with an AR-15 has saved the day.
Basically never because they are ridiculously impractical for normal to carry around so they are virtually never available for anything to even think about using.
Al least once. I'd have to dig up the article, but somewhere in one of the flat states (Kansas, I think?), a group of three armed people broke into a home that a teen was home at. He confronted and shot all of the robbers with an AR-15. I believe that two died on the scene, one made it out to the getaway car and bled to death in the car. The driver of the car was charged with three counts of felony murder.
AR-15 carbines and SBRs are very, very good for home defense, far better than a shotgun (long/unwieldy, low ammunition capacity) or handgun (poor sight radius, more difficult to aim), and the small, light bullet tends to not overpenetrate (e.g., you're less likely to accidentally shoot your neighbors than you might be with a larger, heavier bullet).
I won't claim high confidence on this, but the overpenetration thing sounds wrong to me. I thought the chambering for AR-15s was naturally FMJ and piercing to some degree. Meanwhile, buckshot from a shotgun splits into many lighter projectiles that would stop at the first soft layer.
I even remember a talk from COD developers where they admitted the loud, powerful boom of a shotgun would make you think it'd go straight through walls, so they coded the game that way even though the buckshot would stop early.
Check out theboxotruth.com. They've tested all sorts of ammunition against all sorts of barriers.
Rifle bullets are relatively small, lightweight, and fast. When they impact building materials, they tend to shatter. They're dangerous on the other side of the first wall, but they'll lose a lot more energy a lot faster.
Pistol bullets, buckshot, slugs, etc are relatively large, heavy, and slow. They tend to remain intact and carry more energy through multiple walls.
A lot of law enforcement agencies switched their long guns from pistol-caliber carbines to 5.56 rifles specifically because they over penetrate less.
55gr FMJ BT--which is pretty much the most common .223 ammunition--tends to fragment pretty dramatically inside about 300y after hitting something solid. Once it hits something solid, it starts tumbling and tears itself apart pretty fast, in part because it's moving at supersonic speeds. That's part of the reason why it's so lethal at short ranges; it's turning into a lot of small fragments.. (That, and the cavitation that is produced by bullets moving >2600fps; that will produce a temporary wound cavity that exceeds the elasticity of tissue, and turns into a permanent wound cavity. The cavitation produced by subsonic bullets isn't great enough to turn into a permanent wound channel.) At subsonic speeds, it doesn't fragment, and just 'ice picks'. A shotgun with birdshot would definitely not over penetrate, but then you run the risk of not being adequately lethal on your target. Buckshot is still going to penetrate exterior walls pretty handily without being deformed significantly or fragmenting, even if a lot of the energy has been eaten up by a house's cladding; it might not kill easily, but it can still wound. But then you're back to the original problem: large/long firearm, heavy recoil, very limited ammunition in a tube magazine, and slow to reload.
An ASSUALT rifle for home defense? How many rounds do you need to shoot to do the job?
Pump action shotgun with a folding stock would be far better.
You know that AR doesn't stand for assault rifle, right? The AR is for Armalite, the inventors of the design. It's just a semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine, it's pretty common to use as a hunting rifle.
And yeah, you see AR-15 and it's workalikes all over the place because they're flexible. Literally the most common rifle in the US. That's why they're so common in public mass shootings - those shooters generally aren't buying a gun specifically for that sort of shooting, they're using a gun they already have access to or what they can readily purchase off the shelf.
It's not the best gun for any scenario, but it's a good enough gun for most and that's because it's modular and the guns and parts are both commonly available.
To add to this - it's modular because there's a US military specification for it. As long as parts are to spec, they're interchangeable. If I wreck my barrel, any AR-15 barrel (...that uses the same length of gas system...) should bolt on to my receiver. If I break my bolt carrier, any bold carrier should work. If the length of pull on a fixed stock isn't good, I can get an adjustable stock.
'Building' an AR-15 from parts is only slightly harder and more expensive than building Star Wars Lego (tm) kits. A bod-standard milspec AR-15 that's reliable and accurate enough (3 MOA) can be had for about $450.
And, BTW, @Schadrach is absolutely right about it being a common hunting rifle. .223 Rem is commonly used for medium sized game and varmints; it's commonly used for coyotes and feral pigs, and some people (depending on your state) use it for deer with heavier, 70-odd grain bullets.
Folding stock shotgun is actually terrible, you could practice for years and still be less accurate than a cop with a proper stock on their firearm.
You telling me a 12 gauge (hell, lets make it 10 guage for fun) in a tight space like your hallway or someone coming thru your doorway is worse that an AR15?
Why did the Germans try to get the trench gun banned in WW1? Because in close quarters (like inside a house) that shit is nasty.
It's not the shot, it's the stock.
First off the spread on a shotgun is not like a video game where your entire view is covered in lead. It's still relatively grouped.
Second, the trench gun had a stock. The stock is important. It allows you to properly and quickly aim at what you're trying to shoot. The WW1 'Trench Gunn had a stock.
If your goal is to take down home invaders, you want a stock on your shotgun.
If you just want to put lead in your walls and furniture, go with a folding stock one.
That being said, a gun is the least useful device you can acquire to help you during a home invasion. A firearm in your home is statistically more likely to cause accidental harm to you or your family than it is going to help you fight off hole invaders.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7769769/
You'd be better off investing in proper home security measures.
Best logical response I have seen.
Yes, it absolutely is. The only people suggesting that it's not are fudds. At home-invasion distances, there is no effective spread on your pellets; your shotgun pattern is a single hole. That means that, yes, you need to put that shotgun to your shoulder, and you need to aim. Given that--outside of box mag fed shotguns--you get 8 shots or less in that shotgun, you better hope that you're a really good shot when someone else is actively shooting back.
You know that the alternative in WWI was a bolt-action battle rifle, right? A pump or lever gun would have been far faster. The sturmgewehr StG-44 wasn't invented until 1943; if it had been in existence in 1914, the Germans absolutely would have been using them in trench battles over. As it was, the Bergmann MP 18--the first real submachine gun, fielded in 1918, near the end of the war--gave a significant advantage in trench combat. (But by the time it hit front line troops, there wasn't anything that could have stopped Germany from losing.)
How many people are entering the house?
Are they all Jason Bourne like fanatics who are willing to commit suicide in the process of killing you?
If they are, then you have done something seriously horrific and they are most likely justified in seeking your end.
House robbers? Fuck that, why would they get into a gun fight with someone blowing holes in their own walls? Easier targets to burgle than that.
In this case, it was three armed home intruders, plus a getaway driver.
...That's quite a stretch, don't you think? Bluntly, if anyone breaks into my home while I'm home, I'm going to assume that they're intent on causing harm to me, because I'm sure as shit not going to politely ask them to fill out a questionnaire before acting.
Have you ever fired a gun while under time pressure? Like, for instance, in a 3 gun competition? Or shot at someone while they're shooting at you? Misses in combat are common. Would you rather miss a lot with a firearm that only carries 7 bullets, or one that has 30?
Oh, and before you spread some fudd about shotguns pellets spreading and not needing to aim, at home defense distances--<10y--your shot pattern with no choke on a 30" barrel with 00 buckshot is going to be about 4". Firing a shotgun without it being braced on your shoulder? Good fucking luck hitting anything. And your shotgun is still going to be about half again as long-at a minimum--than a carbine.
Done a lot of skeet shooting. Agreed about comment with no shoulder stock but the imitation factor of a shotgun roar in an enclosed space is pretty potent, especially if your target holds a pistol.
Why try a shootout with someone with a fucken hand cannon? Easier targets to rob.
Are you willing to bet your life on that? Or would you rather stack the odds as heavily in your favor as you can?
Talk about overkill, "Police shot the attacker 98 times"
Once the police arrive odds are someone is going to die.
60% of the time, it works every time.
What's funny is that I read "police shot attacker 98 times" as they shot one person 98 times. lol
There almost certainly one incident where that happened.
...and sadly, probably one where the person shot wasn't a mass shooter.
Lmao dude same
I took an active shooter training class at our sheriff's dept some years ago. At the end they had a Q&A period, and nearly all the questions were coming from obvious gun owners who just wanted one of the deputies there to give them the ok to shoot during an active shooter event, just some sort of official recognition that they were in the clear to do it. The deputies weren't having any of it and the farthest they would go was, "You do whatever you feel is necessary to stay safe and protect yourself." I'm assuming they couldn't endorse vigilantism or for citizens to be bringing guns into active shooter situations, since even the firearm accuracy of cops is supposedly only ~30%. The people in the crowd kept coming up with ever more wild scenarios, just trying to get somebody to tell them it was ok. "You're telling me, that if there was an active shooter that had your wife and kids hostage, and I'm standing there with a gun, you wouldn't tell me it was ok to take the shot?" was one question I remember a guy asking. It was like, they're obviously not going to tell you what you want to hear, can we move the fuck on?
But that's their dream and soul purpose in life...to shoot a minority bad guy. You can't just dismiss the negligible chance that that gets into that extremely convoluted situation.
Watch the bad guy be a white dude, like most of them are
If he's a terrorist he's clearly not a real white guy, he's probably Italian or Irish or something
The most 'Mercan thing on the internet today.
Is this just USA data?
Where else has so many guns... Afghanistan?
I don't know for sure, but this closely matches FBI tracking data for active shooters from the year 2000 to the present. It's not a big leap to assume that that's what this is based off of, so it's almost certainly US only.
It's behind a paywall so I can't see the methodology. Do they control for mass shooter events vs robberies, or targeted murders (single target), or gang activity?
Who Stops a ‘Bad Guy With a Gun’? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/22/us/shootings-police-response-uvalde-buffalo.html?unlocked_article_code=1.JE4.-AFH.HWsiqcxUpNY9
So its 64-131 between work done by bystanders vs. work done by police?
And casualty rate is actually lower for bystanders doing the work (with their guns) than the police?
Where on this chart does it show casualty rate per incident?
Just the casualty rate of the perpetrator, not the victims.
Ah, yes that makes sense.
I count casualty_rate = number_shot / (number_shot + number_subdued)
Which in this case is 22/64 = 34% casualty rate for civilians
and 98/131 = 75% casualty rate for police
As casualty rate of the attacker, which now makes sense. I initially thought you were referring to bystander casualty of each incident, and was confused how you had any data on it.
and most incidents end with only one or a few shots fired.
Neat! Now do one showing how many bills were proposed to address the issues that cause gun violence, and how many were actually signed into law!
The biggest problem i have with gun violence is that the politicians talk about taking action or protecting our constitutional rights, but can't come to any agreement on anything at all. It's literally their job to negotiate these things.
So about 28% of the times someone shot the attacker. Seems pretty good, I was expecting it to be lower
You should likely count the suicide number as well the attacker shot the attacker :-)
I did actually think about that, but I wouldn't call them a "good guy with a gun". I guess police are dubious too but I think the ones using that saying would count them.
I think nobody is consistently only good or only bad, but we can say all shooters stopping an attacker is good in the moment they stopped the attack, even the attacker deciding to off themselves.
It's the old Hitler's suicide thing again
The "good guy with a gun" trope in US gun control discourse is based strictly around a civilian who carries a firearm with them, not police or security whose job it is to carry a firearm and keep people safe. That's 12/433 people, not 28%. 15/433 at most if you count the off-duty cops.
When people talk about "good guys with guns" to stop mass shootings, it's a bullshit way of deflecting from the actual problem, instead going in the opposite direction of the solution by saying even more civilians should be armed.
Gift link
Who Stops a ‘Bad Guy With a Gun’? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/22/us/shootings-police-response-uvalde-buffalo.html?unlocked_article_code=1.JE4.-AFH.HWsiqcxUpNY9
Must be misreading this, or in 33 times "The attacker ... subdued the attacker"
I can see it getting hard to read.
A bystander subdued the attacker 42 times
Like a wrestling match, just repeated body slams and tackles!
The police subdued the attacker 33 times
I need a clarification if there's any crossover between the "attacker has been subdued before the police arrived" and "attacker was shot by the police after their arrival"
I also want to point out that mathematically, guns are positive integers. A good guy with a gun vs a bad guy with a gun is not 'gun + (-gun) =0gun' it's 'gun + gun = 2gun'.
dataisveryinteresting
But if we all had guns then a lot more would end in shot by citizen.
I'm guessing the number of incidents would climb higher too, though.
does this not breakout the individual being "attacked" having a gun or is that literally just not a real data point?
Given the type of data they are talking about, there is no such thing as a "bystander". Anyone close enough to stop the shooter is a victim of at least "assault with a deadly weapon", if not a victim of "attempted murder" or a victim of "murder".
For accuracy, the legend on this chart should have the word "bystander" replaced with the word "victim" in all instances.
yeah idk, to me bystander is like that one guy in that one mall in indiana who managed to shoot an active shooter. You mean to tell me these people aren't real and don't exist? I'm not surprised.
Or just like, some dude walking by a crime actively happening. To me the individual being criminalized on, the victim, if they were to own a gun, i would think this stat would be a lot more likely.
This also ignores the actual point of things like conceal carry, if you open carry someone probably won't try to rob you or mug you at all, which is going to be a statistical anomaly, you aren't supposed to use your gun unless you absolutely need to, if that means handing over your wallet and cancelling your cards, so be it, at least you didn't kill someone.
It's really only meant to be for the 0.1% of cases where it might actually be required.
And there is going to be many who will say the answer to that is a "Good Cop With a Gun".
So none of the attackers managed to leave the scene after the police arrived?
Now show the states where this happened, and compare gun laws. Normalize for population. I'm genuinely curious if states with tighter gun control have more shootings and no chance for a good guy with a gun to stop them because they themselves can't get guns. To expand, look where good guy with gun did stop it and what state it was in.
Also important to note a few things about this data, the frequency which people carry and the likelihood of the shooting happening in an area where one isn't legally allowed to carry.
According to this https://checkyourfact.com/2018/03/05/fact-check-what-percentage-of-americans-have-concealed-carry-permits/
Just 6.6% of Americans have a CCW permit. Some do also open carry, but the number can't be that much higher, and not all of those people even carry regularly, some only do sometimes, let's call it a generous 10-12% carry regularly. Even at 10%, that isn't very many, you're more likely to not have anyone armed around you.
Especially considering that most often, the type of mass shootings we're talking about are public mass shootings, not mass shootings at someone's house party that are gang related. Clubs, bars, schools, theaters, concerts, etc, are by and large areas where you're not allowed to carry. Even some stores like walmart prohibit carrying guns inside (and have had shootings before.) This is also going to lessen the likelihood that someone will be armed to respond. Depending on sources the numbers of how many mass shootings take place in said gun free zones varies wildly. If we're cutting out robberies and gang activity, John Lott at the Crime Prevention Research Center puts the number at 98%, if we're including the gangs, drugs, and robberies, Everytown puts the number at 10%.
For an armed civilian to respond, one of those 6.6% of people has to be legally allowed to carry, and have happened to bring their gun today, and even then they still have a gunfight to win they can easily lose. 22/433 is 5.08% of times an armed civilian was the one who stopped the crime, at 6.6% or even 10% of people carrying, I'm gonna say 5.08% is not that bad and the number could go up if more sane people would carry and be ready to save themselves and others should the need arise.
I feel like this is probably what accounts for why it's twice as likely that an unarmed civilian than one with a gun will subdue the attacker, despite the much greater difficulty and danger of doing so
I'd assume so as well. I figure if the unarmed defender had a gun there they probably would have used it lol.
One major flaw in this analysis is the assumption that a concealed carry permit is required.
29 states do not require permits for concealed carry. (These are all red states)
Permits are only required in 21 of the 50 states.
8 of those 21 states require permits, but do not actually issue permits upon demand. These are states like California, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, etc.
These 8 are all blue states. The people of these states are part of the total number of Americans, but are ineligible to acquire permits. They should not be included. The concentration of permit holders outside of states that don't issue permits is much higher than 6.6%.
The overwhelming majority of active permits are from only 13 states where permits are required and are issued on demand. These are all swing states. Just 13 states are home to most of the 6.6% of Americans who have permits. The concentration of permit holders in these 13 states is much, much higher than 6.6%.
The concentration of guns ranges from virtually zero in the 8 most restrictive states, to well over 10% in the remaining 42 states.
True and all that makes a difference, like in the states with restrictive laws on carry you're less likely to have someone armed to defend, etc. Guns can only be a good defense when they're there.
I'd be interested to find the total number who carry regularly though, but I couldn't unfortunately.
Gun rights aren't for stopping active mass shooting events. Gun rights are to protect yourself and you small circle of family because the police are always too far away.
Active shootings are bad for regular people to try to stop because usually those people who do, end up being killed by the policemen they finally show up. A regular guy with a gun can never be expected to rush into a school to confront a shooter.
A regular armed citizen will be charged with a crime if they stop a school shooter or any other spree shooter in a gun free zone.
This data is disingenuous because they are plotting a unicorn event with a normal event to prove that Unicorns aren't helpful. The question doesn't make sense.
It's not disingenuous because it's answering what lots of right wing people say about mass shootings instead of gun control. "Why don't we arm the teachers, why is it a gun free zone " etc. This is the answer to that question, not your statement.
Your criticism assumes the person with the gun is responding to the attack, running toward the sound of the gunshots.
Concealed weapons aren't for responders. Concealed weapons are for the targeted, intended victims; the people already present when the attacker begins.
This chart includes only those scenarios where a criminal attacker was not stopped before firing their first shot, and was not stopped until they had continued shooting long enough to be grouped with the rest of the attackers on this chart. It includes only people who were allowed to continue their attack long enough to qualify, and does not include attacks that were prevented entirely, or were stopped before reaching the chart's threshold.
The chart also fails to address one of the main reasons why so many of these shooters decide to stop shooting and run away: how many of them saw guns in the hands of their intended victims, and left before those victims fired a shot?
It also doesn't make any distinction between events that took place where the intended victims were allowed to be armed or not. Of course there will be less instances of armed defenders in areas where arms are prohibited.
OPs premise is akin to the "small government" advocates who ruin government services and then point at how they don't work.
That's how you don't do infographics.
I found it easy to follow - much easier than typical graphs.
It's confusing. Usually such a pic means a single stream of possibilities branching, so to say. Here multiple branches are for the same data point.
They could at least make them different colors, which would be the components of the initial color if combined. I think I've even seen such a graph.
Would you mind elaborating? What's your issue with it?
That guns being available to the general public, including some of the most deadly ones, inherently do A LOT more harm than good. This doesn't even cover the police arriving and shooting the good guy with a gun thinking he is the bad guy, or good guys with guns shooting each other. The fact that guns are allowed to the general public in US is complete lunacy.
I disagree, they would do a lot of good if part of any weapons being available (not just guns, but FPV drones and ammo for them, anti-tank and anti-air missiles, small mortars, and so on), but not for crime levels. The benefit would be in improving political stability (no, it wouldn't help MAGA and such, because they don't really want a violent takeover, they want an administrative takeover and then unpunished violence against those who can't defend themselves).
When only rifles are available, it doesn't help that end at all - you can't fight the government or the invading army or some terrorists with just rifles.
So I agree that one has to pick a lane here. If we understand private weapons' ownership as that well-organized militia to protect against tyranny yadda-yadda, then that includes a lot of stuff. Drones with grenades at least. If we don't and, say, the national guard is that militia, then allowing just pistols and rifles lacks the advantages, preserving the harm.
Invading army can just walk in unarmed after everyone kills eachother
If we tried to meet in the middle, what could help more gun owners be responsible gun owners?
What we know about that recent school shooting is exactly the counter case. There’s no indication the parent was bad. Apparently the kid had some issues and the system and his parents failed him. However, how do you gift a kid an AR-15 and let him use and store it unsupervised? Especially how do you do this after a police visit that the kid made threats? There’s a lot to think about for this case but an important one is how did the parent think this was ok? Much more often than “good guy with gun” is “parent gave kid unsupervised use of gun”.
Clearly trusting that such a large population of gun owners are all responsible gun owners, is not working. Can not work. Can not work and too many people are being killed. Holding the parent responsible is a start but doesn’t make up for the lives lost, plus we want to prevent it, not just ruin more lives
Jesus, how the fuck is your comment evenly split on up/down-votes? Shitty parenting is shitty parenting.
I have a vibe that this is anti gun propaganda.
When in reality if a good person with a gun had have been willing and available early enough the results could be vastly different.
No, genius, it's statistics. Math. You know, the class you slept through in high school? I'll make it simple for you.
Out of 433 shooters:
If you want to be purely statistical about it, the murders were 10x more useful at stopping themselves than randos with guns. Which means that according to y'all's logic, the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to wait for him to stop himself.
Thanks genius.
Keep me make it simpler back to you.
Maybe if you think real hard you can do more than just read the data.
If more defenders carried defensive weapons the results could be very different.
Don't read into it to hard.. I'm not pro gun. Is simply fact that if a defensive firearm were more available then the numbers would be different.
The fact that I have to explain this... Jeez.. I dunno.
I guess you could technically argue that the linked article promotes an anti-gun stance so it could be labelled propaganda (though I suspect you mean something more specific than just promoting a political stance).
However the graph itself is just the raw data displayed nicely so it's hard to argue that's propaganda or misleading. The graph is a little out of date but you can verify the current data by checking the source listed, the only thing that isn't displayed publicly on that page is the subdivision of the now 27 instances where a bystander shot the attacker. Edit: This does also include knife and gun violence, though.
Your assertion that more guns would make the results "vastly different" isn't based in any evidence, while the counter-argument that stronger gun controls and less gun-centric culture prevents mass shootings can be clearly demonstrated by simply looking at literally any other country. According to Wikipedia there have been only 45 mass shooting deaths (including attackers) in total in the UK this century. When a shooting happens here it's always newsworthy.
5% not bad
It's 2%, off-duty officer and security shouldn't be included because they're the people that supposed to have gun and carry one around by default.
And for that 2%, you get:
In aus where we have minimal guns off duty officers and security dont carry guns.
In Malaysia too! Because we have strict gun rule, rarely these are needed, and security are just someone that work for the premise owner to keep order on minor stuff. Security with gun are meant for intimidating only and rarely justified firing it at people without gun.