LEWISTON, ME—In the hours following a violent rampage in Maine in which a lone attacker killed at least 16 individuals and injured numerous others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Wednesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from …
            • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.worldEnglish
              81·
              1 year ago

              We are currently at 565 mass shootings this year.

              Let’s say every story you shared happened this year, just for the sake of simplicity. That is 10 scenarios. Again, not accurate, since you shared stories ranging in different years. But again, we are just doing some back of the napkin math.

              That means, there’s about a 1.77% chance that “a good guy with a gun” does solve things.

              So less than 2% chance. 2%.

              The success rate of a mass shooter gunning multiple people down is 98% and you are actively going, “Well actually armed citizens does work…” And simple math is showing that it works LESS THAN 2% this year, even when I fudged the numbers to assume all of those stories happened this year.

              • SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.worldEnglish
                24·
                1 year ago

                The biggest flaw in your math is that you think because I stopped listing articles that’s the only times it’s ever happened. On a similar note related to statistics, covid was killing 2% of people that got infected. Even after all the safety precautions and vaccines. Yet we still had to save as many of that 2% as possible, and rightfully so. But now that your math comes out to 2% of shooting situations being stopped, it’s no big deal? I’m having trouble understanding that logic.

                Sure, we can ban all guns under the assumption that no one will have guns, but do you not think that crime organizations will aquire them elsewhere? Drugs are illegal yet there’s no shortage there. I’m still having trouble seeing the logic.

                I get the sentiment of saving as many lives as possible. I just think the methodology in gun control is flawed. Help me join your side, what am I seeing wrong?

            • SubScionEnglish
              6·
              1 year ago

              It seems their point is that the percentages are similar to success, so although the subject is different, the comparison still stands.

              I’m sure people have been “the good guy with a gun” a number of times, but the chance of success and the risk of shooting an innocent factor into the continued use of that as an argument point against gun control.

              (Edited: they’re to their)

              • SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.worldEnglish
                13·
                1 year ago

                So what’s the threshold of success rate that everyone winaccurate. 10%? 50%? Everybody talks about gun control “because if we can save just one life…” I’m not saying everyone should go out and buy a gun. I know plenty of people I would trust with a pencil. The point to my comment was that to make the claim that not one instance has been stopped by a good guy with a gun is both completely outrageous and inaccurate. Also, I know plenty of civilians that have had far more training than most police officers and military. When I was enlisted we had to qualify once a year. The requirement? Hit a target 23 out of 40 times. That’s pretty low considering the lethality of the other 17 rounds that missed their mark. I would assume police requirements are similar although I honestly have no idea.

                • SubScionEnglish
                  11·
                  1 year ago

                  People will believe what they want to believe when it comes to gun control. I think the article itself does a pretty good job with parody alone to make it’s point. The “red wire” comment was also a decent comedic analogy of what the argument for a “good guy with a gun” is.

                  If you don’t see their intended point already, then I don’t think I can explain it in any way that will help.

    • xxcarpaii@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      51·
      1 year ago

      I feel like there’s some room to explore how many needless deaths have occurred the the hands of overzealous gun owners. I’ll be honest, I don’t know the statistics on “rightful” and “wrongful” executions.

      There’s at least two side to every argument, focusing on one side in any argument will only allow you to prove your own point.