Who Stops a "Bad Guy With a Gun"?
Who Stops a "Bad Guy With a Gun"?
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.
I think gun people are counting the police as good guys with guns.
Oh wow, I missed this. That's a fantastic insight to pull out of this.
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.
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.
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.
- That means “good guy with gun” argument is wrong
- That means mental health intervention can prevent a much larger proportion of these tragedies
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
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%!'
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.
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.
and zero people die Are you dense? Murder will still happen because people have been killing people before guns. You're also gonna take guns away from law-abiding people like me who love going out on the weekends to shoot with their buddies or hunt and leave nothing but criminals with guns? Dumb.
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?
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://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/
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.
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:
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?
Cops seem pretty jumpy
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?
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.
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:
He also violated the dress code, so we waited to let him get it right. Shooters have this one obligation goddamit.
Live action team fortress 2
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.
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.
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:
- Flee
- If you can't flee, hide.
- If you can't hide, fight back.
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.
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
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
What about the times the good guy with a gun is shot by the police?
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"
Chuck a few links up
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
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
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.
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
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:
- "the police shot the attacker 98 times" which just sounds like a normal headline about how police handle things.
- Very near that branch, you can accidentally see "the police died by suicide 38 times"
- and, similarly, "the police surrendered 15 times" which is a surprise because I thought that only happened at Uvalde.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
and most incidents end with only one or a few shots fired.
So about 28% of the times someone shot the attacker. Seems pretty good, I was expecting it to be lower
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
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.
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.
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'.
And there is going to be many who will say the answer to that is a "Good Cop With a Gun".
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.
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.
So none of the attackers managed to leave the scene after the police arrived?
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.
Just 6.6% of Americans have a CCW permit. Some do also open carry, but the number can't be that much higher
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.
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
Ima challenge your statement about "no indication the parent was bad." You yourself go on to explain how the parent purchases an automatic weapon for a kid who's had police visits for making threats... that's not bad? That's absolutely idiotic and insanely irresponsible. I'd go so far, even, to call it "bad". Hell, people die because of that "bad" decision.
That's a bad, bad parent in my book.
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:
- 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.
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:
- More people armed with and randomly carrying around guns which, you know, causes the problem.
- A potential to catch civilians in the crossfire while not actually taking down the shooter.
- Muddying who and where the attacker is (and how many attackers there are) for both police, security, and fleeing civilians who need to make panicked, split-second decisions.
