You must log in or register to comment.
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.
The really sad thing about this graph is the fact that 433 active shootings barely covers half a year
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 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 The graph is a little out of date but you can verify the current data by checking the source listed, the only thing that isn’t displayed publicly on that page is the subdivision of the now 27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.
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 in most cases the bad guy with a gun is stopped by a bad guy with a gun (himself).
Right.
- That means “good guy with gun” argument is wrong
- That means mental health intervention can prevent a much larger proportion of these tragedies
The Hitler strategy, classic.
The fact that there are 433 data points means it’s not working
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.
Oh wow, I missed this. That’s a fantastic insight to pull out of this.
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
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.
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.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.
branches that don’t have anything to do with guns
Branch that doesn’t involve shooting the attacker.
Keep trying. You will not get there, but at least you tried.
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.
Thank you for standing up to the slavering morons around here about bad statistical graphics.
All I’m getting out of this is that police are, in fact less than 50% effective, so we’d better plan on dealing with it ourselves.
The chance that someone decided to go hand to hand with a gunman in the middle of blowing away the population whilst leaving their gun holstered is basically zero.
I recall reading like a gunman got tackled last year. If I get time I’ll dig it up
Not what I said or implied, but no, that chance is not basically zero.
They could have also talked them out of it, which still takes balls
I think gun people are counting the police as good guys with guns.
That makes it 122/433 where the shooter was stopped by a “good guy with a gun”. Hardly a great figure either way…
Especially after the murdering was already done.
Then why does everyone else need them?
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.
A genuine, actual answer is that when you’re being attacked, it is incredibly rare for a police officer to be standing there, ready to intervene. In life-or-death situations the police really only exist to take a report from whoever is left standing, and potentially make an arrest. There’s plenty of people out there who don’t have the strength to defend themselves in hand-to-hand combat, and even if they did, next to nobody has the skills necessary to reliably defend against a knife attack using their bare hands. That’s just plain how knife attacks work.
You can counter this with statistics that show that access to guns increases injuries and deaths, because they absolutely do, but pro-gun folks put the individual before the group on this issue. The individual, in their mind, should have the right to quick deadly force in order to facilitate defense of their own life, and other’s failure to handle that responsibility is not their problem and/or the price of that right.
There are always tradeoffs, in any policy you set for society. If you go the other direction there will be people who are victimized who would otherwise have been able to defend themselves. Which scenario is worse? How many victims of one type are worth victims of the other?
How does this turn into a knife argument? That’s just a distraction. We do already restrict certain types of knives, plus you can’t walk down a city street with a machete.
More importantly I can shut a door between myself and an attacker. Try that if they have a gun
They’re saying that if someone tries to attack you with a knife (or even no weapon), pro-gun proponents argue you should have a right to a firearm to defend yourself against that attacker, citing that most people straight up do not have the physical ability to ward off the attacker (who is on average an adult man).
I would argue having a firearm is unlikely to help. At close range, knife has the advantage and you probably won’t even get the gun out. At longer range, running/avoiding is a better choice if you can.
There’s a few YouTube channels that I think do a good job of being level-headed when it comes to analysing self-defense and giving decent advice around it. Hard2Hurt, Armchair Violence (a more general channel that recently did a video on unarmed knife defense), and Active Self Protection are three that come to mind right off the bat. All three say the same thing: • avoid sketchy locations if you can • pay attention to the people around you, especially in what are called “transition areas” like when you walk out of a store • deescalate conflict as much as possible (without giving in to demands) • leave as soon as you’re able • only fight when your hand is forced
As far as I’m aware, they all also advocate for carrying pepper spray and participating in folkstyle wrestling to use as your defensive base for things that don’t require lethal force. The problem is, you don’t have the only say on whether a situation will become a threat to your health and safety or not. Sometimes you’re just unlucky and a guy flips out on you for something petty and now you’ve got a guy pushing and shoving yelling about how he’s gonna fuck you up and you can see a pocket knife clipped in his pocket.
Most firearm uses are at very close range. If you practice your draw—and you absolutely fucking should—you should be able to draw and fire multiple rounds with a person busy punching or stabbing you. (Through what usually happens is the victim manages to get a window of separation and uses that to draw their weapon.) After a few shots your attacker will have had enough time to react to what you’re doing, but most people react to being shot in the gut by falling over. It’s mostly a psychological thing, but surprisingly effective. Once they do that, turn and run. All you’re trying to do is get them to stop hurting you so you can get away safely.
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.
No they don’t. If you ban guns from citizens, police would still have guns in the US.
The argument of “Good guys with a gun” is about citizens not able to kill the “bad guy with a gun” before the police arrive.
Unbelievable that fucking guy or lady said that and got any upvotes. Living under a goddamn fucking rock. Thank you for correcting.
I see.
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?
No, I came here, looking for that exact comment
The worst part is the scenario is mildly believable knowing our police force.
Guns have really improved since the year 131.
The Aelia Capitolina PD were fucking loose cannons, man.
He’s dead jim
this has me laughing uncontrollably… it’s so specific but also because it’s the police, it’s not impossible. god there’s tears in my eyes from laughing
“Shooter is down. Three clean shots to the chest. Johnson, put 95 more in him, and we can all go home.”
“you can keep the crack, this one actually did something”
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
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.
In aus where we have minimal guns off duty officers and security dont carry guns.
In Malaysia too! Because we have strict gun rule, rarely these are needed, and security are just someone that work for the premise owner to keep order on minor stuff. Security with gun are meant for intimidating only and rarely justified firing it at people without gun.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’
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
You should see the data for people improperly using cars or medications or alcohol. Pretty scary stuff, I think everything should be illegal.
I think they take away your good-guy card before that happens
Ah, the classic no true good guy fallacy.
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.
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.
What about the times the good guy with a gun is shot by the police?
Talk about overkill, “Police shot the attacker 98 times”
60% of the time, it works every time.
Once the police arrive odds are someone is going to die.
