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.
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.
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.
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.
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.