You must log in or register to comment.
I read “The police shot the attacker 98 times” with a different interpretation at first lol.
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.
12 of them is stop by good guy with gun and 42 of them is stop by good guy with massive balls.
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.
I think you’re pissed at the objective fact that 12/433 is fucking nothing and your “good guy with a gun” argument
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.
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.
I think gun people are counting the police as good guys with guns.
What’s funny is that I read “police shot attacker 98 times” as they shot one person 98 times. lol
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.
So in most cases the bad guy with a gun is stopped by a bad guy with a gun (himself).
The Hitler strategy, classic.
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:
- 12 were shot by randos (2.7%)
- 42 were subdued by randos (9.7%)
- 38+72= 110 killed themselves (25.4%)
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.
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
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.
Good luck getting to it when you already have the attacker standing over you.
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
“We?”
It’s a word that in this moment means “you and I”
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.
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.
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.
