You must log in or register to comment.
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.
They could have also talked them out of it, which still takes balls
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 think gun people are counting the police as good guys with guns.
Then why does everyone else need them?
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.
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.
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 read “The police shot the attacker 98 times” with a different interpretation at first lol.
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 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.
What’s funny is that I read “police shot attacker 98 times” as they shot one person 98 times. lol
Lmao dude same
There almost certainly one incident where that happened.
…and sadly, probably one where the person shot wasn’t a mass shooter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
imitation factor of a shotgun roar in an enclosed space is pretty potent
Are you willing to bet your life on that? Or would you rather stack the odds as heavily in your favor as you can?
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 ™ 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.
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.
How many people are entering the house?
In this case, it was three armed home intruders, plus a getaway driver.
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.
…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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”
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.
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.
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.
That’s how you don’t do infographics.
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.
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.
