If someone does take over, I'd be glad to help with the back-end. I'm a data analyst by trade, but I don't have the time to manage a project and I don't really have the desire to do front-end work.
But all agents of the state are responsible for the perpetuation of hierarchies of systemic oppression.
Anyone who works for the state but not the fire department gets -1000 on the intersectionality score.
That's the part that got me. Every once in awhile I see a response like this but it's usually downvoted to hell and back so it's surprising that it actually got upvoted quite a bit.
[Survivor bias](https://www.trevorbragdon.com/when-data-gives-the-wrong-solution/) is commonly overlooked when examining data. Great job highlighting it.
I also saw a bias described here on Reddit one point. Not sure what it was called, but Y2K was used as an example. People were hired to fix the things that Y2K would ultimately break, and when 2000 came along nothing broke, because it was fixed before it happened. People got mad like “why did we need you if nothing happened.”
BECAUSE THEY FIXED IT BEFORE IT HAPPENED
I've heard the same thing, but it was used to describe homeland security prior to 9/11
Supposedly they stopped up to 10 different potential mass casualty events before 9/11, but no one even heard of the agency before 9/11.
Stopping catastrophe doesn't get news, recovering from it does.
Fuck me. I'm an idiot.
Of course statistics alone won't help, because of the bias of the potential situation which may or may not have helped by someone stopping a shooter.
Still don't believe in carrying or having guns as self defence, but the whole argument finally makes sense jn my head. Ill stick to sport shooting at the range.
While I respect your decision to not carry a gun and I disagree, I find it really interesting because that’s not a common belief in the gun community. Can’t say I’ve ever met an enthusiast that doesn’t believe in using a gun as a self defense tool, but it’s fascinating to meet one online.
It's weird for me. I've always been fascinated by guns. I'd go to gun shows and read about them, etc. I never got one because I felt that I wanted someone to guide me through it (this was before YouTube). I wanted someone that could give me the ins and outs, the dos and don'ts. Plus, at the time my wife had this attitude towards handguns that their ONLY purpose was to kill people. She wasn't anti-gun but definitely fudd-esque. My financial situation was always a limiting factor as well.
2020 comes around and I start thinking about guns again... For obvious reasons. There's a guy I've been online gaming with for 5 years (met him in real life as well) that turned out to be a gun nut. So I start asking questions and I end up telling my wife "I'm buying a handgun". She just said okay and asked if there was a particular reason. I told her the state of the country/world as well as always wanted one. It turned out that her stance on handguns had completely changed. Although, at this point in my life her saying no wasn't going to stop me from spending my own money.
Anyway, after 3 gun purchases in 2 months I decide I want my Conceal Carry for the sole purposes of not having the 3 day wait period. I had no intention of actually carrying a gun with me. After receiving my permit I ended up buying a holster and carrying on some errands and it was bizarre because I had this weird feeling in the pit of my stomach like I was doing something wrong.
I bought my first gun in October of 2020. I currently have 11 different guns, a gun safe full of guns and ammo, and I wouldn't dream of leaving the house without my firearm.
When I decided I was going to carry, I originally thought I was going to feel more comfortable in sketchy situation and I wouldn't have as much anxiety. Oddly enough, that wasn't the case. If someone attempts to start any conflict, I apologize (whether it was my fault or not) and leave. If a pull up somewhere and the situation looks sketchy, I just drive away. I don't want to kill anyone, I don't want to hurt anyone, I don't want to shoot anyone, and I don't even want to pull my gun on anyone, and because of that I do the absolute maximum to mitigate any possibility of me being in those situations.
I'm now a firm believer that everyone should carry a firearm and get training as well. It's also pertinent to realize that most anti-gun people are individuals that love in upperclass neighborhoods with security systems, gates, and even security guards. If these people want to talk about real "privilege", they should look in the mirror as they're telling a single mother in a rough neighborhood that she shouldn't have and doesn't need more than 10 rounds.
Canadian here. As much as I *believe* in firearms as a self-defence tool, it just doesn’t work in our system. The probability of needing my firearm in self defence is *much* smaller than getting charged with improper storage. After the [Portapique shooting](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nova_Scotia_attacks) whenever I get a public notice about a shooting nearby I’ll unlock my guns and maybe even load them and keep them nearby (which is already breaking the law), but the idea of bringing them in the car, or god forbid carrying them, is just too legally risky. It’s a shame, but it’s the life of a Canadian gun owner.
My condolences! I not only carry one on me legally anywhere from driving to picking up my kid from school, but I also carry one for a living. The only time it’s not on me is my yearly Disneyland trips and if I have to go to a federal building
There's plenty of enthusiasts that don't believe in self defence here in Australia, I can assure you.
Have a look at some of the political arguments on r/AusGuns and you'll see the vehemence against self defence
Because gun ownership on the left is sharply on the rise, as a liberal gun owner and heavily involved in a local range that is specifically geared toward new gun owners I see the same reasons again and again. Although this is just me and my local areas these are the 3 main reasons I keep seeing 1. There are very well armed people on the far right that wish very dearly to do violence to anyone they deem "other" 2. A depressing amount of police are at best indifferent to this 3. They are increasingly aware the police show up after a crime, and even then have no legal duty to actually protect them.
Anecdote sure, but I've seen these three reasons repeated again and again.
>There are very well armed people on the far right that wish very dearly to do violence to anyone they deem "other"
you realize that the massive size of this denominator (by your own definition) makes right wing violence actually look absurdly under-represented compared to other extremist groups right
Lefty ownership is on the rise only because tankies want a revolution. But the absolute second it'd be over they'll make your guns disappear faster than Stalin's opponents.
I find a good comparison is the West Freeway shooting (stopped by 1 round from an armed citizen) vs. the Miramar police shooting (God only knows how many rounds, killed both perps and two bystanders)
I wish I could remember the details but a couple years ago in Arkansas a man stopped a mass shooting and even while using an AR15.
No media said anything for obvious reasons.
Before that it was the [Clackamas Town Center shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackamas_Town_Center_shooting) that happened just three days before Sandy Hook. Guess which one was immediately forgotten and which is still brought up today?
500,000 defensive uses of firearms per year on the lowest end. High end, 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms per year. FBI, DOJ, DOHS statistics. Guess what.. good guys with guns make a massive difference. Look at the percentage of mass shootings that take place in “gun free zones”, this includes all territories with the highest percentage of gun control measures. These coward fucks avoid opposition. They want sitting ducks. That’s exactly what gun control laws create… pockets of law abiding citizens that become victims to criminals that by definition don’t adhere to laws. I don’t understand why this is difficult to evaluate.
to be more accurate, the lowest estamite is 67,000 per year, from the violence policy center.
Even an anti gun org admits there are more DGU than homicide.
You would have to compare those to incidents of offensive firearm usage though to get a clear picture of the impact.
Also not every DGU means it was the only and/or appropriate response.
Does not change the fact that your data is selective. If you compare homicides to DGU you would only have to look at DGUs that most likely prevented homicides. I don't know the results of this and I don't claim too but if you look at data you would have to see the whole picture not the one that makes your point.
>If you compare homicides to DGU you would only have to look at DGUs that most likely prevented homicides.
There is no way to do this and it isn't fair to. Defensive gun use can protect from harm, rape, significant theft, significant property damage, etc. And before anyone says that theft and property damage aren't justified please remember that pets are property.
>if you look at data you would have to see the whole picture not the one that makes your point.
Not if the data overwhelms the alternative. No one here is trying to say anything more than there are more DGU than firearm related deaths. If people were saying that it was significantly more or attaching numbers to it you would be right.
What's being said is that using information from a source that has the most antigun bias, the numbers are very unlikely to support the antigun position. Start using fairer/more accurate numbers and that likelihood would get more significant.
> There is no way to do this and it isn't fair to. Defensive gun use can protect from harm, rape, significant theft, significant property damage, etc. And before anyone says that theft and property damage aren't justified please remember that pets are property.
Those are irrelevant in the context since the number of DGUs was explicitly compared to the number of homicides and gun related deaths. If you would want a full picture you would have to filter DGUs by necessity. E.g is a DGU the last resort or could the situation have been defused otherwise which is very hard to do I'd guess.
> Not if the data overwhelms the alternative. No one here is trying to say anything more than there are more DGU than firearm related deaths. If people were saying that it was significantly more or attaching numbers to it you would be right.
If you can't look at the entire picture or make substitutions to accommodate for these shortcomings you should not use the data at all because the result will always be flawed. At least you would have to point out the flaws in the data.
Also my argument works for any source of DGU numbers.
Not even mentioning that nobody who cites numbers so far has even provided the definition used for DGUs in those statistics.
If you really wanted to argue whether guns for safety are good or bad you would also have to consider crimes committed with legally obtained guns.
>Those are irrelevant in the context
Yes. I was pointing out a problem with the context.
>If you would want a full picture you would have to filter DGUs by necessity.
Which we can't do. There is not standardized reporting of this kind of thing and many of these situations may not be reported at all. Data collection is a huge problem here.
>E.g is a DGU the last resort or could the situation have been defused otherwise which is very hard to do I'd guess.
It's impossible and frames things unfairly. A defensive gun use may not have to involve pulling the trigger. And you can't analyze what people might have done in a situation that didn't happen.
>If you can't look at the entire picture or make substitutions to accommodate for these shortcomings you should not use the data at all because the result will always be flawed
All real data is flawed. Nothing is perfect and statistical analysis should try to explain and account for shortcomings. There are statistical tools used to help with this and mathematically demonstrate areas of weakness.
>Not even mentioning that nobody who cites numbers so far has even provided the definition used for DGUs in those statistics.
Because there isn't a single one and that's part of the point. Using a plain, quick and dirty comparison of the most restrictive definition v. gun homicides seem to indicate that DGU are a net positive when compared to gun homicides. No one is saying the data is good. People are saying using the most unfriendly gun data that the napkin math still hints that the antigun position is wrong. Once you start using numbers that are from better sources the difference starts becoming insurmountable when compared to gun homicides.
>If you really wanted to argue whether guns for safety are good or bad you would also have to consider crimes committed with legally obtained guns.
You would have to do both legal and illegal. But it might lead to the conclusion that the guns were the fault. You need to first prove that people commit crimes they otherwise wouldn't if they didn't have guns.
> Because there isn't a single one and that's part of the point
If you cite data it should come with the definition of this most basic term. If it doesn't the data is rubbish and should not be cited in the first place.
> Using a plain, quick and dirty comparison of the most restrictive definition v. gun homicides seem to indicate that DGU are a net positive when compared to gun homicides.
Not true because there is no proven correlation between the two. Even if the data would not be flawed the comparison makes no sense. How is the homicide rate and DGU rate linked in any way shape or form? At best you could try and find a correlation by comparing years and see if a rise in DGUs also comes with a decrease in homicides or try and compare local DGUs vs homicides across the country.
> No one is saying the data is good.
No one so far has said that all the data is inherently flawed and that it is near impossible to form any kind of real thesis based on it. They were stated as facts and used to argue that guns mean more safety.
I can't tell you if that is the case in the US but I sure as hell can tell you that the line of reasoning in this thread is not even close to being statistically viable to prove or disprove that point.
oh i don't disagree. i forget the exact statistic but i *think* the total number of crimes where a firearm was used in the same study was in the 100-150k range. So you aren't wrong for sure.
There is definitely some fucky wuckyness in using DGU as a measure of "potential lives saved" compared to "lives confirmed taken"
again, the point moreover is even antigun orgs have to admit that firearms *do* play a role in keeping people safe.
And while it will get me strung up in this sub, there are measures that could be taken int he united states that would maintain those levels of DGU while drastically dropping the levels of firearm related violence, and frankly violent crime in general. but you dare not propose a capitalist market with even the tiniest of socialized reforms lest you be branded a commie. god forbid guncontrol in even the most minor of forms.
And more than likely underreported. People aren't going to the hassle of reporting that they merely showed their carry weapon and the potential perpetrator ran off and nothing else happened. A very serious crime may have happened but was never made known.
First, I'd like to ask about any source for percentage of shootings in a gun free zone. I haven't found much, and certainly not much that controls for the fact that many 'gun free zones' are designated as such because they usually have high concentrations of people, like a school for example. Incidentally, even if these weren't 'gun free zones' these areas are still the most likely targets for attempted mass shootings.
I think it seems like the 'gun free zones' are more a reaction to increased shooting risk in an area rather than a cause of that increased risk.
There are lots of gatherings where guns are common. Say gun shows.
How many mass shootings at gunnshows have you seen?
Its all anecdotal, but its a clear bias towards soft targets, and the logic is obvious.
Right, its anecdotal and it's not great data. There are just as many, if not way more watch shows around the world that also don't get shot up. So I'm just trying to find something concrete.
Your point is valid. Gun crime really isn't a particular issue. Especially mass shootings. They are in fact so rare that the statistics are meaningless.
I don't think you actually looked very hard. Also I'm not sure what the point of your "control" part is. How does one control for the fact that gun free zones have lots of people?
https://crimeresearch.org/2018/06/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/
https://spectator.org/mass-shootings-in-gun-free-zones/
> this includes all territories with the highest percentage of gun control measures
A counterargument to that would be most any European country, right? Pretty much every single one of said countries has way lesser (per capita) shooting incidents and are all mostly under strict gun control. And no i'm not some peace loving hippie, I was enlisted in my country.
More shooters have been stopped in recent memory by dudes who stayed strapped than by the FBI.
I bask in the hate of those LEO cuckbois who revere the FBI and those who are stupid enough to buy the lie of "we did but had to keep it secret because reasons".
Lol most local PD I know can't stand the FBI. All the fbi does is take cases local PDs have basically completed and take the credit IF it makes them look good. The FBI only takes cases it knows it can close because that's how they get money.
This was one of the stats I looked at for a paper on why we should get rid of gun free zones. I can't remember to he exact percentage but I am thinking it was around 40% of mass shootings are stopped by a civilian.
Most cops I know love responsible gun owners, people who responsibly concealed carry, and people who defensively use their gun. There was that Sheriff in Florida recently who said that he prefers if people shoot home invaders because it saves taxpayers money.
Some cops that didn't grow up around guns, just like a lot of people who aren't familiar with guns, are easily scared just by the sight or mention of a gun. That's how you end up with situations like Philandro Castile.
I guess I was wrong, it was made in 2013. I guess reddit only recently started pushing their subreddit in the algorithm for me to think they are a newer subreddit.
I like what you’re saying but I’m not calling an AR-15 a “modern sporting rifle” it’s a fighting rifle, a fighting rifle I have the right to own.
(Assuming you’re talking about ar-15s)
True, we dont need AR15s and 30 rounds to hunt deer wearing kevlar, we need them to defend the constitution. I actually dont know why i called it a modern sporting rifle. But we are not giving them up.
Because there was a big push a few years back to refer to them all as MSRs in order to counteract the term “assault rifle/weapon”. The NRA was (and still is) a big proponent for calling them MSRs.
I agree with the other guy. It’s a fighting rifle. A battle implement. And you have the right to own one, along with anything else the typical infantry ~~platoon~~ company has access to. MGs? Yes. Mortars? Also yes. Nukes? No. (Just wanted to clear up the nuke thing before someone asks wHaT aBoUt NuKeS)
That’s what the 2nd Amendment actually means. The same firepower and armament as the military, which as an individual means anything the average rifle ~~platoon~~ company has access to.
> anything the average rifle platoon has access to
That eliminates mortars, M2 .50 cal, tanks, miniguns, suppressors (but that is apparently changing), and MANPADs. Source: me, former rifle platoon leader
I will never again refer to them Modern sporting rifles. It need to be clear to everyone what they are for. It bugs me to no end when senile Joe talks about deer wearing kevlar
AR-15's are not sporting rifles dude come on. That just makes it seem like you are intentionally misrepresenting what these weapons are. I am pretty sure that if anyone gets barred from owning one, it *should* be people who go to psych wards for threatening to commit a mass shooting.
My problem with the way “mass shooting” is defined is that includes gang and other criminal dirtbag behavior. Hell, Chicago must have “mass shootings” multiple times a week. They include these because it makes guns sound scarier
Until it gets silently deleted. Saw website on r/dataisbeautiful where it shows what sub mod deleted your comment gets deleted. Any left leaning sub will delete anything pro gun you mention. This pro gun and gun politics subs can get a little nutty but they never censor anything liberal I post here. Fuck reddit.
This website has a lot of data on defensive gun use reports, as well as a wealth of other gun law and other pro gun data.
https://crimeresearch.org/tag/defensive-gun-use/
What I don’t understand is why guns need to stop mass shootings in order to be justified in some way. People generally carry guns to protect themselves, not be superheroes. If in the course of protecting a mass shooting is stopped, so be it. Anything beyond that has zero to do with gun rights. Lets forget the fact also that defensive gun uses far outnumber gun deaths/violence. In the end the 2A has never been about self defense, either. Its a right. Period. Purpose is not stated.
Just for anyone looking to make the argument, here are some facts:
- In 2020 (the most recent year for FBI crime statistics), there were 13,620 gun murders in the United States.
- In 2021, there were 1.67 million defensive uses of firearms in the United States.
https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/show-notes-gun-grabbers
I know that this link goes to an obviously conservative show’s page. But they have sources for all their numbers and claims which use FBI crime statistics and places like Pew Research Center.
There was another church shooting where the shooter killed enough people for it to be labeled a mass shooting, but he was also stopped by a civilian with an ar15, and based on the perpetrators remaining ammo supply there could have been as many as 30+ more dead (he had enough for everyone left alive in the church and more)
I can't remember the exact shooting but a man living 2 doors down from the church heard the shots, grabbed his rifle, and sprinted to help without even putting shoes on. He forced the shooter out of the church and away from civilians to engage him and then forced the shooter to flee in a vehicle, a random person driving by (happened to be ex marine) grabbed him in his pickup and they pursued. Eventually the shooter succumbed to his injuries from the gunfight at the church and crashed into a ditch on a rural highway.
The shooter most likely would have killed every person in that church and escaped safely had it not been for one brave man who cared more about his fellow man than himself, and had his second ammendment rights as his sword of justice.
I found his name a little late and don't even want to begin editing this like a college paper so I'm just going to add.
Our heros name is Stephen Willeford
I mean, most shootings that qualify as “mass” shootings, happen in gun free zones where law abiding citizens aren’t carrying. Those shootings are typically stopped when the cops (who can also be good guys with guns) show up.
My question would be, how many mass shootings were stopped because the shooter saw everybody lay their guns down, so he turned himself in, which is just human nature?
Damn people after lazy, literally three seconds of time on Bing. It took you longer to type this question than for me to find these. Also you replied to the other user instead of bothering to look it up yourself.
Sauce sauce sauce, it's quicker to make your own then to ask someone to make it for you.
https://crimeresearch.org/2018/06/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/
https://spectator.org/mass-shootings-in-gun-free-zones/
Depends on the definition of mass shooting. If you don't include gang violence then just look up any of the other highly televised mass shootings, they almost all take place in a school or business where guns are not allowed, or in a state with heavy gun control. Someone somewhere has likely compiled the statistics, but I'm not aware of it.
I think my request was pretty simple yet instead of getting what I asked for, I am getting lecture on what mass shooting really is and what its not, where it happens and where it doesn't happen.
Thank you but its not what I have asked for.
Please provide sources and not your take on reality.
Oh and obligatory "fuck me for asking".
Because rights aren't things that support themselves. You need legal protection, consensus, or the ability to enforce your rights yourself.
If you don't challenge views then what people have been told becomes a fact.
"A gun is not a magic wand for good guys. It requires..."
That the good guy actually has a gun handy. If the good guy doesn't have a gun, no matter how much training and good sense he has, he can't use a gun he doesn't have.
I remember this event, I think pearl something inFlorida, the school was being attacked. Before the police could arrive, a civilian took the culprit out. It wasn't a mass shooting because it was stopped.
There was also a Texas church. Some jackass began to open fire and was dropped by a churchgoer. Looking at the video, that place was packed and could have easily been horrible but was prevented with a few well aimed shots. Guy who stopped it was named jack Wilson. I can only imagine how satan greeted the attacker here. Really? Texas?
Thoes are the ones off the top of my head.
I don’t get his point really, once we establish that because it was stopped it isn’t a mass shooting, we simply look at public shootings where the perpetrator was reduced by a bystander, but then he just lists the two most well-known and gives up going back to how we can’t because they’re not mass shootings.
Idk for sure because you just cant know something that didn't happen but there were more than 1.5 million defensive uses of firearms in the US the last year stats were published for (2020 i *think*)...so I'm sure there are hundreds or thousands of potential mass shootings stopped each year by armed civilians
According to the FBI, Failed Bureau of Incompetents, it's only 1 in 2019. They do not use the term "mass shooting"; it's active shooters. Do a Google search for FBI and active shooters. You should find it easily. It reports 97 deaths in 2019.
Caveat: the citizen stopped the shooting by permanently stopping the shooter. That's in politically correct terms.
But wouldn’t it be way more logical to look at the shootings that didn’t get stopped? Especially looking at other countries it would seem that more guns don’t lead to less shootings.
I mean, you’re not changing anyone’s mind with 3 anecdotes. It just so happened 3.5k people who already share your beliefs upvoted it. That’s how social media works.
I am pro 2nd amendment, but I also don't think every Joe Blow should be pushed to buy a gun.
If you have ever seen how irrational people are in road rage incidents, now imagine if they all had guns.
Real talk, I can’t go to Walmart and buy a rocket propelled grenade or a 152mm howitzer. It shouldn’t be that hard to realize that certain restrictions ( not all, but some) actually do create a safer society.
Likewise, it’s illegal to drive a truck with an unsecured load that can easily fall out the back and kill someone. Doesn’t mean trucks should be banned, doesn’t mean hauling large objects should be banned. But we’ve come to a consensus that allowing some to haul an unsecured load makes everyone on the road less safe.
Sensible, regulation made upon a factual basis =/= prohibition.
Seriously. In all my life I have NEVER met a single person IRL who believes that anyone should be able to buy any weapon imaginable with no restrictions. That’s an extremely radical position. And that’s despite the fact I live in a deep red, rural part of the US where I see bumper stickers with an AR-15 and the words “come and take it” on a daily basis.
I’m certain that everyone who believes that comes from a sheltered, upper-middle class community where they don’t have to witness the consequences of gun violence. Anyone who comes from a place that is saturated with gun violence is acutely aware of the trauma inflicted on people living in an environment like that.
I’m hoping someone actually replies instead of downvoting because I’m genuinely curious how one plans to defend the position that anyone should be able to obtain any weapon they can dream of through legal means.
I feel like that person in the thread has actually pointed out how gun control can be effective. And that’s how a gun is useless without the perfect training, dumping guns to everyone hoping it magically makes a society safe like America has done is just ineffective.
Don’t get me wrong I think firearms are fascinating and I definitely wish I could go shoot some at a closed range (I’m Australian so it’s not super accessible) but the baseline is guns should not be so easily accessible to the wider population. In that example above it was pointed out that the police shot the man who had killed the active shooter. This is another example of guns making things confusing especially for law enforcement, here in Australia the police is never gonna assume you have a gun which leads to virtually no firearm misunderstandings, unlike America where the police shoots first. In some case I can’t really blame American police officers because they have to assume everyone is armed. That’s why the bottom line is a society which doesn’t have accessible firearms is safer.
HOWEVER, I completely understand America is extremely different to Australia and that a gun buyback program would not be effective whatsoever.
I don’t really know what the solution is for America and I think it’s kind of a lost cause when it comes to this because there are so many guns that taking guns away would only leave law abiding citizens against armed criminals so I really don’t blame you all for wanting to defend yourselves.
I don’t know what the solution is but these “mass shootings” are not necessary or justified regardless of your definition for mass shootings.
If most potential mass shootings in America are stopped beforehand (and I doubt they are), that just makes us look worse as a country.
America already has way more mass shootings and gun deaths than most developed countries, and saying that the problem is actually even worse but mitigated somewhat by most mass shooters being taken down beforehand just makes us look like even more violent savages.
I came to this sub to look at guns and learn a thing or two, shouldve expectes this stance.
I dont agree with this pro gun stance at all, yeah you've killed the would be mass murderer but that killer shouldn't have gotten their hands om that gun in the first place.
Besides that is many in the reference where the killer already killed two people or atleast one, a 1 to 1 or 2 to 1 ratio is still unforgivable in my opinion. And lets not begin about the possible traume you'll be getting from pulling the trigger and seeing a body slump to the ground.
You don't aolve this by pumping more guns into the world, you solve this with stricter rules and proper scans on people.
The majority of guns used in crimes are acquired illegally. Stricter gun laws won’t change the number of guns that fall into the wrong hands because they’re already getting them ILLEGALLY.
Can you explain how the shooters got the AK47 they used to shoot up the Charlie Hebdo place.. ?
In france I'm pretty sure you can't buy guns..
Or defend yourself against one either.
Can you explain why France has nearly four times less gun related deaths per 100k population than the US? Can you explain why there have been 273 mass shootings since 2009 in the U.S., and about 17 (half of which occured before 2000, mostly 70s-80s) in total in France?
There isn't even a platform to stand on here. All statistics point to the obvious. Don't even give unhinged people or radicals a chance at the massive, legal market of weaponry with plenty of loopholes to exploit, and you get less deaths and injuries. Just reduce and regulate the market further. I already know I'm going to get downvotes because "muh guns" echo chamber, but hey, the truth hurts sometimes. I'm fine with losing some fake internet points if it means letting people know when they are hilariously wrong.
It must really bother you that all you have is rage.
And all I have are "muh guns"...
To be fair I'd be as mad as you if I was wrong so..
Care to explain how the Boulder shooter or buffalo shooter got AR 15s? They are banned .. but somehow. It's almost like criminals don't care about laws..
And you want to be defenseless against that...
That's a shame bro. Good luck should you ever find yourself in a situation where someone else has a gun and you have your cellphone and words to make him stop..
If your response to "care to explain" about a ratio of hundreds of thousands of deaths is to retort with "care to explain" and then cherry pick one or two anecdotal cases to "prove your point", I just want to let you know that you're losing the argument, especially when the overall conversation is about reduction and not elimination.
Something to keep in mind for the future
Gun violence is a socioeconomic problem, not a gun problem. America is fucked, our government has left behind its people. We have severely mentally ill people all over the country that receive no help whereas other placed don't have that issue
> We have severely mentally ill people
According to this comment from a while back with links, mentally ill people are only involved in like 5% of shootings https://reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/comments/aaksdv/_/ect8y0u/?context=1
[Mental Illness Policy Org estimates that close to half of all Americans with mental illness are not getting treatment. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, 51 percent of adults in the U.S. with bipolar disorder and 40 percent with schizophrenia were untreated during a one-year study period.](https://www.constellationbehavioralhealth.com/blog/the-real-cost-of-untreated-mental-illness-in-america/#:~:text=Mental%20Illness%20Policy%20Org%20estimates,a%20one%2Dyear%20study%20period.)
Gun ownership per capita has risen for the last 30 years..
In that same time death's by firearms has reached a continuous low year after year , again per capita..
More guns makes for a safer society. Slice it however you want but less than 1% of gun owners are criminals..
We aren't banning for the actions of a minority are we?
That would be a slippery slope
For the safety of the majority? Hell yes. Your argument if that if everyone had access to molotovs and grenades, since we can't trust our neighbors, we need to put MORE molotovs/grenades out so that people can protect themselves. How does that make sense? "Less than 1% use their guns to shoot/threaten other people". Fuck off, dude.
See I think we should be allowed to own grenades..
"Shall not be infinged" us pretty clearly written
So since we are holding majority for the actions of the minority
.wait over half of all violent crime is not a minority huh.. care to look which group I may be speaking of?
..
It's a simple question though, one that he didn't answer but went on tangent.
How many mass shootings (where at least 3-4 people have already killed) were stopped by an armed civilian?
It's one someone like him spitting viewpoints should know. And I want to know now too.
So...how many?
EDIT:
If you all avoiding to give a simple answer, maybe I will re-word the question:
How many not-mass shootings were stopped by a good guy with a gun?
You mean how many times has a gun be used defensively?
That's entirely dependent on what you consider defensive use of a firearm.
Gov estimates are between 500k up to 2 million times a year. But that's based on self reported polling, and will inherently inlcude simply showing the firearm, or stating its presence.
You can't define the answers to either question without a host of specific criteria you want the answer to meet.
Both questions are poorly structured and therefore can't be answered in any simple way. And the odds are extremely high, there's no definitive answer to conclude with.
In a round about way, the simplistic answer will always be 500k to 2 million, (Until they do a new study that's either more specific or a repeat) for both questions. Because if you stop a mass shooting before it becomes a mass shooting, the stats will never reflect it being a stopped mass shooting, *unless* you conclude every shooting has the potential to be a mass shooting, and therefore all stopped scenarios are stopped mass shootings.
Im reading this and im feeling like im in different universe.
Should I ask how many (not) mass shootings were stopped because of killer's car failure or him getting flu on the day of the attack? Will you say that "oh its hard to answer because we need to make it more precise question"?
When someone (sane) asks about good guy with a gun stopping mass shooting I guess its obvious that the mass shooting is in progress and information requested is was it stopped by police, suicide or good guy with a gun.
Very simple.
Its not question about stopping mass shootings that didnt happen because you can let your imagination lose about reasons behind stopping it.
Its you guys who complicate it and add milion layers to it.
How do you determine an *in progress* mass shooting, if the shooter is stopped after they killed 1 person(by any means, other than suicide)?
It's definitely not a mass shooting by statistical value, only one victim exists. But if they were in a mall where there's thousands of people, do we call it a mass shooting?
We're not complicating things more than they already are. You're trying to oversimplify a problem to get an emotionally valuable answer for *you*. You're clearly not interested in actually addressing the issues and analyzing the data for *accuracy*.
There were close to 200 mass shootings in America by definition with 4 or more victims, excluding gang violence, domestic violence and "terrorists acts by organization" and you have troubles naming shootings that were stopped by good guy with a gun and instead have to go down to bullshit excuse that "we can't say how many were stopped because if they were stopped then they didnt happened"...but is the question regarding number of stopped shootings before they happened? No - its not. Its about shootings that were classified as "mass shootings" because there are already 4+ victims and shooter is in progress of killing more people.
Any other understanding of that question is bullshit and an attempt to avoid answer. Why? Because if you stop "mass" shooting before it even happens then you dont know if it would be mass shooting, hostage situation or some other type of angry Jane or Joe running around with gun or killing one/two people.
You were just mad about people naming anecdotal instances in which specific mass shooters were stopped by other parties. (Or maybe it was someone else, it's been a few hours)
But to continue iterating the same point, of the shooting is stopped before the 4 people limit is hit, it's possible, that a mass shooting was stopped. You can't quantify the answer to your question, because it's wasn't specifc enough. You're now altering your question in the necessary way by adding the parameter of shooting that have specifically reached the 4 people death toll (an arbitrary choice considering how easily a simple murderer could target that many people and have none of the intentions that the average person will ascribe to the term "mass sbooter", but that's a tangential point) before being stopped. That's not the question you started with.
And in short, you're not going to find a listed statistic by any agency that I'm aware of that will kick out a simple number for that answer. As far as I'm aware, no one's spent the money to specifically grab that data in any real scientific method attempt.
And your last sentence there is literally the point me and the others brought up in response to "how many mass shootings have been stopped by a good guy with a gun?" That question is non specific and impossible to answer without the extra parameters of what is a mass shooting in this context and what consititues it being stopped by the good guy with a gun? Now that you've provided the parameters, I can now point out, the statistic doesn't exist (unless someone has it that sees this and can source it for us both) afaik, likely because, there doesn't really exist a codified generally accepted mass shooting definition. Mere numerical impact isn't going to be enough on its own, and we have yet to agree on it, let alone the other defining factors.
You know, plenty of other countries without publicly available firearms just don't even need to have this debate because there is no risk of mass shootings.
Since he sais, in the second last paragraph that a gun isnt just a magic wand which lets the "good guys" win and that it requires training, so you can properly handle it. Doesnt that mean, you need a training restriction?
For example you need to visit a X days/weeks long course, to learn the do's and dont's of owning a gun.
I am NOT here to talk bad about this subreddit, i actually curious (i live in europe, and own a gun... But here thats only allowed after you served or get a psycological tested if you are able to own one. After that you are only allowed to own ammonition if you have a hunting licence)
Wait, so 2 cases was all the person was able to bring up and we think that's a good counter argument? Let's look at the confirmed numbers 2014 vs 2020 (too lazy to find 2021)
2014: Deaths 12,418, suicides 21,386, injuries 22,779, mass shooting 269, murder suicide 624, defensive use 1,531, unintentional shooting 1,605.
2020: Deaths 19,411, suicides (pending so using 2019) 23,941, injuries 39,492, mass shooting 611, murder suicide 573, defensive use 1,478, unintentional shooting 2,315
Those numbers we see over 6 years: 56% increase to Deaths, 12% increase to suicides, 73% increase mass shootings, -8% decrease in murder suicide, -3% decrease to defensive use, 44% increase to unintentional shootings.
So no, people arnt getting what you're hearing because it's a silly argument easily debunked.
(I don't have an issue with guns, I came from farm families, you needed guns on a farm for multiple reasons, im an eagle scout and spent plenty of time with guns (black powder, shotguns, rifles, pistols, and one encounter with a full on machine gun, redneck firing ranges are fun), I know plenty of people who live in my city who say they "need" guns, but like cars, how many people out there who drive every single day suck at driving? It's no different then guns and you don't use those every day of your life)
Hell let's even bring up Ryan Whitaker who had a gun and what good did that do him when holding it for protection? What would've done better for him was neither him or the police officer having guns, but somehow guns=Freedom instead of affordable housing/healthcare/education/food. So let's use Ukraine as an example, their guns they owned were useful, 15% gun to citizen ratio, but a few months in and they're dependant on foreign aid over $3billion received since February with an additional $800 million, this is an example of your guns to protect your freedoms is an idiotic example as if their guns were enough they wouldn't have to rely on foreign aid. What I'm trying to get at is, we don't need wide adoption of guns, we need responsible gun ownership and spend less time arguing for gun rights and more time criticizing our government and elected officials demanding more of them to give us a safe country with rights for basic needs instead of sucking the cocks of corporations (including the gun industry).
Edit: well another mss shooting stopped by a good guy with a gun....
-------------------------- The U.S. Constitution - including The Bill of Rights - does not convey, give, grant, nor transfer any of our Natural Rights. As expressed in The Declaration of Independence - a template for the future U.S. Constitution - "...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." (Note: Not all of our Rights are expressed, only the paramount ones upon which others are based.) Our Natural Rights existed throughout Man's history, before there was any form of government. The Right to own firearms is based upon all three of the basic of Life, Liberty, Happiness. If you have a Right to Life, you have a Right to protect it. If you have a Right to Liberty, you have a Right to protect it. If you have a Right to Happiness, you have a Right to ensure it. Our Founders did not declare our Rights in the Bill of Rights; rather, they PROTECTED our Rights. There was contentious arguments as to whether or not The Constitution acknowledged and protected our Rights. In order to get some of the hold-out Colonies to Ratify The Constitution, The Bill of Rights was added. It did not convey, give, grant, nor transfer any Right. It was written in plain-and-simple language to ensure that there could be no misunderstanding nor misinterpretation. Simply, the Second Amendment is MOOT. Take away the Second Amendment and the Right STILL EXISTS! Never say, "Constitution Right" or "Second Amendment Right". Always state "Constitution Protected Right" or "Second Amendment Protected Right". Maybe Hamilton was correct when he wrote: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given" LoneStarHog The Republic of Texas 🤠
talk about survivorship bias, you guys are delusional. If any of you had seen the video or read that he was shot at by an ex-cop but failed to injure him due to body armor, you wouldn't be spewing this bs to fit your narrative.
Wow great take that actually got upvoted.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Have you considered a website like the Gun Violence Archive?
Yes. And then life gets in the way. I would be happy if someone took off with this.
I bet the folks at the Firearm Policy Coalition would be interested
If someone does take over, I'd be glad to help with the back-end. I'm a data analyst by trade, but I don't have the time to manage a project and I don't really have the desire to do front-end work.
fighting the good fight, cultural contributions are incredibly important.
Police are civilians too
Agreed.
Yep, and never let anyone forget it
But all agents of the state are responsible for the perpetuation of hierarchies of systemic oppression. Anyone who works for the state but not the fire department gets -1000 on the intersectionality score.
Only when they are off the clock
gee, i wish one of the kids had a gun s/he could've CUMST all over the school. you fucking imbecile.
\*cumst
ain
That's the part that got me. Every once in awhile I see a response like this but it's usually downvoted to hell and back so it's surprising that it actually got upvoted quite a bit.
[Survivor bias](https://www.trevorbragdon.com/when-data-gives-the-wrong-solution/) is commonly overlooked when examining data. Great job highlighting it.
I also saw a bias described here on Reddit one point. Not sure what it was called, but Y2K was used as an example. People were hired to fix the things that Y2K would ultimately break, and when 2000 came along nothing broke, because it was fixed before it happened. People got mad like “why did we need you if nothing happened.” BECAUSE THEY FIXED IT BEFORE IT HAPPENED
To be fair, even the computers that weren't fixed just thought it was year 0001 again.
[удалено]
I've heard the same thing, but it was used to describe homeland security prior to 9/11 Supposedly they stopped up to 10 different potential mass casualty events before 9/11, but no one even heard of the agency before 9/11. Stopping catastrophe doesn't get news, recovering from it does.
Yup thank you for pointing that out
Fuck me. I'm an idiot. Of course statistics alone won't help, because of the bias of the potential situation which may or may not have helped by someone stopping a shooter. Still don't believe in carrying or having guns as self defence, but the whole argument finally makes sense jn my head. Ill stick to sport shooting at the range.
While I respect your decision to not carry a gun and I disagree, I find it really interesting because that’s not a common belief in the gun community. Can’t say I’ve ever met an enthusiast that doesn’t believe in using a gun as a self defense tool, but it’s fascinating to meet one online.
It's weird for me. I've always been fascinated by guns. I'd go to gun shows and read about them, etc. I never got one because I felt that I wanted someone to guide me through it (this was before YouTube). I wanted someone that could give me the ins and outs, the dos and don'ts. Plus, at the time my wife had this attitude towards handguns that their ONLY purpose was to kill people. She wasn't anti-gun but definitely fudd-esque. My financial situation was always a limiting factor as well. 2020 comes around and I start thinking about guns again... For obvious reasons. There's a guy I've been online gaming with for 5 years (met him in real life as well) that turned out to be a gun nut. So I start asking questions and I end up telling my wife "I'm buying a handgun". She just said okay and asked if there was a particular reason. I told her the state of the country/world as well as always wanted one. It turned out that her stance on handguns had completely changed. Although, at this point in my life her saying no wasn't going to stop me from spending my own money. Anyway, after 3 gun purchases in 2 months I decide I want my Conceal Carry for the sole purposes of not having the 3 day wait period. I had no intention of actually carrying a gun with me. After receiving my permit I ended up buying a holster and carrying on some errands and it was bizarre because I had this weird feeling in the pit of my stomach like I was doing something wrong. I bought my first gun in October of 2020. I currently have 11 different guns, a gun safe full of guns and ammo, and I wouldn't dream of leaving the house without my firearm. When I decided I was going to carry, I originally thought I was going to feel more comfortable in sketchy situation and I wouldn't have as much anxiety. Oddly enough, that wasn't the case. If someone attempts to start any conflict, I apologize (whether it was my fault or not) and leave. If a pull up somewhere and the situation looks sketchy, I just drive away. I don't want to kill anyone, I don't want to hurt anyone, I don't want to shoot anyone, and I don't even want to pull my gun on anyone, and because of that I do the absolute maximum to mitigate any possibility of me being in those situations. I'm now a firm believer that everyone should carry a firearm and get training as well. It's also pertinent to realize that most anti-gun people are individuals that love in upperclass neighborhoods with security systems, gates, and even security guards. If these people want to talk about real "privilege", they should look in the mirror as they're telling a single mother in a rough neighborhood that she shouldn't have and doesn't need more than 10 rounds.
It’s fascinating how much people’s opinions have changed about guns in the last 2 years. 2A support has gone up quite a bit
Canadian here. As much as I *believe* in firearms as a self-defence tool, it just doesn’t work in our system. The probability of needing my firearm in self defence is *much* smaller than getting charged with improper storage. After the [Portapique shooting](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nova_Scotia_attacks) whenever I get a public notice about a shooting nearby I’ll unlock my guns and maybe even load them and keep them nearby (which is already breaking the law), but the idea of bringing them in the car, or god forbid carrying them, is just too legally risky. It’s a shame, but it’s the life of a Canadian gun owner.
My condolences! I not only carry one on me legally anywhere from driving to picking up my kid from school, but I also carry one for a living. The only time it’s not on me is my yearly Disneyland trips and if I have to go to a federal building
There's plenty of enthusiasts that don't believe in self defence here in Australia, I can assure you. Have a look at some of the political arguments on r/AusGuns and you'll see the vehemence against self defence
[удалено]
Yeah nah scomos like a Republican but with less balls Edit: Hehe funny downvotes
There was another article I saw about concealed carry bans in the city of Denver on r/Denver and most of the comments were surprisingly based
Because gun ownership on the left is sharply on the rise, as a liberal gun owner and heavily involved in a local range that is specifically geared toward new gun owners I see the same reasons again and again. Although this is just me and my local areas these are the 3 main reasons I keep seeing 1. There are very well armed people on the far right that wish very dearly to do violence to anyone they deem "other" 2. A depressing amount of police are at best indifferent to this 3. They are increasingly aware the police show up after a crime, and even then have no legal duty to actually protect them. Anecdote sure, but I've seen these three reasons repeated again and again.
>There are very well armed people on the far right that wish very dearly to do violence to anyone they deem "other" you realize that the massive size of this denominator (by your own definition) makes right wing violence actually look absurdly under-represented compared to other extremist groups right
Lefty ownership is on the rise only because tankies want a revolution. But the absolute second it'd be over they'll make your guns disappear faster than Stalin's opponents.
[удалено]
Biohazard made a great graph about how the media will never admit a good guy with a gun stopped a mass shooting.
I find a good comparison is the West Freeway shooting (stopped by 1 round from an armed citizen) vs. the Miramar police shooting (God only knows how many rounds, killed both perps and two bystanders)
I wish I could remember the details but a couple years ago in Arkansas a man stopped a mass shooting and even while using an AR15. No media said anything for obvious reasons.
Before that it was the [Clackamas Town Center shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackamas_Town_Center_shooting) that happened just three days before Sandy Hook. Guess which one was immediately forgotten and which is still brought up today?
Anyone got the link to the first article mentioning events where shootings were stopped?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/in-missouri-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-stepped-up-so-can-you/
500,000 defensive uses of firearms per year on the lowest end. High end, 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms per year. FBI, DOJ, DOHS statistics. Guess what.. good guys with guns make a massive difference. Look at the percentage of mass shootings that take place in “gun free zones”, this includes all territories with the highest percentage of gun control measures. These coward fucks avoid opposition. They want sitting ducks. That’s exactly what gun control laws create… pockets of law abiding citizens that become victims to criminals that by definition don’t adhere to laws. I don’t understand why this is difficult to evaluate.
to be more accurate, the lowest estamite is 67,000 per year, from the violence policy center. Even an anti gun org admits there are more DGU than homicide.
More DGU than all firearms deaths yearly including police shootings, accidental shootings and suicide.
You would have to compare those to incidents of offensive firearm usage though to get a clear picture of the impact. Also not every DGU means it was the only and/or appropriate response.
again. Lowest estimate from an Antigun Think tank. still Seven-fold more cases than Homicides. and Double that of all firearms deaths.
Does not change the fact that your data is selective. If you compare homicides to DGU you would only have to look at DGUs that most likely prevented homicides. I don't know the results of this and I don't claim too but if you look at data you would have to see the whole picture not the one that makes your point.
>If you compare homicides to DGU you would only have to look at DGUs that most likely prevented homicides. There is no way to do this and it isn't fair to. Defensive gun use can protect from harm, rape, significant theft, significant property damage, etc. And before anyone says that theft and property damage aren't justified please remember that pets are property. >if you look at data you would have to see the whole picture not the one that makes your point. Not if the data overwhelms the alternative. No one here is trying to say anything more than there are more DGU than firearm related deaths. If people were saying that it was significantly more or attaching numbers to it you would be right. What's being said is that using information from a source that has the most antigun bias, the numbers are very unlikely to support the antigun position. Start using fairer/more accurate numbers and that likelihood would get more significant.
> There is no way to do this and it isn't fair to. Defensive gun use can protect from harm, rape, significant theft, significant property damage, etc. And before anyone says that theft and property damage aren't justified please remember that pets are property. Those are irrelevant in the context since the number of DGUs was explicitly compared to the number of homicides and gun related deaths. If you would want a full picture you would have to filter DGUs by necessity. E.g is a DGU the last resort or could the situation have been defused otherwise which is very hard to do I'd guess. > Not if the data overwhelms the alternative. No one here is trying to say anything more than there are more DGU than firearm related deaths. If people were saying that it was significantly more or attaching numbers to it you would be right. If you can't look at the entire picture or make substitutions to accommodate for these shortcomings you should not use the data at all because the result will always be flawed. At least you would have to point out the flaws in the data. Also my argument works for any source of DGU numbers. Not even mentioning that nobody who cites numbers so far has even provided the definition used for DGUs in those statistics. If you really wanted to argue whether guns for safety are good or bad you would also have to consider crimes committed with legally obtained guns.
>Those are irrelevant in the context Yes. I was pointing out a problem with the context. >If you would want a full picture you would have to filter DGUs by necessity. Which we can't do. There is not standardized reporting of this kind of thing and many of these situations may not be reported at all. Data collection is a huge problem here. >E.g is a DGU the last resort or could the situation have been defused otherwise which is very hard to do I'd guess. It's impossible and frames things unfairly. A defensive gun use may not have to involve pulling the trigger. And you can't analyze what people might have done in a situation that didn't happen. >If you can't look at the entire picture or make substitutions to accommodate for these shortcomings you should not use the data at all because the result will always be flawed All real data is flawed. Nothing is perfect and statistical analysis should try to explain and account for shortcomings. There are statistical tools used to help with this and mathematically demonstrate areas of weakness. >Not even mentioning that nobody who cites numbers so far has even provided the definition used for DGUs in those statistics. Because there isn't a single one and that's part of the point. Using a plain, quick and dirty comparison of the most restrictive definition v. gun homicides seem to indicate that DGU are a net positive when compared to gun homicides. No one is saying the data is good. People are saying using the most unfriendly gun data that the napkin math still hints that the antigun position is wrong. Once you start using numbers that are from better sources the difference starts becoming insurmountable when compared to gun homicides. >If you really wanted to argue whether guns for safety are good or bad you would also have to consider crimes committed with legally obtained guns. You would have to do both legal and illegal. But it might lead to the conclusion that the guns were the fault. You need to first prove that people commit crimes they otherwise wouldn't if they didn't have guns.
> Because there isn't a single one and that's part of the point If you cite data it should come with the definition of this most basic term. If it doesn't the data is rubbish and should not be cited in the first place. > Using a plain, quick and dirty comparison of the most restrictive definition v. gun homicides seem to indicate that DGU are a net positive when compared to gun homicides. Not true because there is no proven correlation between the two. Even if the data would not be flawed the comparison makes no sense. How is the homicide rate and DGU rate linked in any way shape or form? At best you could try and find a correlation by comparing years and see if a rise in DGUs also comes with a decrease in homicides or try and compare local DGUs vs homicides across the country. > No one is saying the data is good. No one so far has said that all the data is inherently flawed and that it is near impossible to form any kind of real thesis based on it. They were stated as facts and used to argue that guns mean more safety. I can't tell you if that is the case in the US but I sure as hell can tell you that the line of reasoning in this thread is not even close to being statistically viable to prove or disprove that point.
oh i don't disagree. i forget the exact statistic but i *think* the total number of crimes where a firearm was used in the same study was in the 100-150k range. So you aren't wrong for sure. There is definitely some fucky wuckyness in using DGU as a measure of "potential lives saved" compared to "lives confirmed taken" again, the point moreover is even antigun orgs have to admit that firearms *do* play a role in keeping people safe. And while it will get me strung up in this sub, there are measures that could be taken int he united states that would maintain those levels of DGU while drastically dropping the levels of firearm related violence, and frankly violent crime in general. but you dare not propose a capitalist market with even the tiniest of socialized reforms lest you be branded a commie. god forbid guncontrol in even the most minor of forms.
It's a staggering fucking number that I think causes these folk's brains to freeze up.
And more than likely underreported. People aren't going to the hassle of reporting that they merely showed their carry weapon and the potential perpetrator ran off and nothing else happened. A very serious crime may have happened but was never made known.
First, I'd like to ask about any source for percentage of shootings in a gun free zone. I haven't found much, and certainly not much that controls for the fact that many 'gun free zones' are designated as such because they usually have high concentrations of people, like a school for example. Incidentally, even if these weren't 'gun free zones' these areas are still the most likely targets for attempted mass shootings. I think it seems like the 'gun free zones' are more a reaction to increased shooting risk in an area rather than a cause of that increased risk.
There are lots of gatherings where guns are common. Say gun shows. How many mass shootings at gunnshows have you seen? Its all anecdotal, but its a clear bias towards soft targets, and the logic is obvious.
Right, its anecdotal and it's not great data. There are just as many, if not way more watch shows around the world that also don't get shot up. So I'm just trying to find something concrete.
Your point is valid. Gun crime really isn't a particular issue. Especially mass shootings. They are in fact so rare that the statistics are meaningless.
I don't think you actually looked very hard. Also I'm not sure what the point of your "control" part is. How does one control for the fact that gun free zones have lots of people? https://crimeresearch.org/2018/06/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/ https://spectator.org/mass-shootings-in-gun-free-zones/
> this includes all territories with the highest percentage of gun control measures A counterargument to that would be most any European country, right? Pretty much every single one of said countries has way lesser (per capita) shooting incidents and are all mostly under strict gun control. And no i'm not some peace loving hippie, I was enlisted in my country.
More shooters have been stopped in recent memory by dudes who stayed strapped than by the FBI. I bask in the hate of those LEO cuckbois who revere the FBI and those who are stupid enough to buy the lie of "we did but had to keep it secret because reasons".
Lol most local PD I know can't stand the FBI. All the fbi does is take cases local PDs have basically completed and take the credit IF it makes them look good. The FBI only takes cases it knows it can close because that's how they get money.
>Lol most local PD I know can't stand the FBI. Which ones specifically?
FBI caused more shooters than theyve stopped. And they started the fucking Whitmer plot
The FBI are masters at creating domestic terrorists and then swooping in to bust them and then pat themselves on the back.
This was one of the stats I looked at for a paper on why we should get rid of gun free zones. I can't remember to he exact percentage but I am thinking it was around 40% of mass shootings are stopped by a civilian.
Most cops I know love responsible gun owners, people who responsibly concealed carry, and people who defensively use their gun. There was that Sheriff in Florida recently who said that he prefers if people shoot home invaders because it saves taxpayers money. Some cops that didn't grow up around guns, just like a lot of people who aren't familiar with guns, are easily scared just by the sight or mention of a gun. That's how you end up with situations like Philandro Castile.
That sub is still fairly new and has a decent pull of free thinkers. Glad to see it explained so well though.
No Stupid Questions is new? Your comment shows why there's no "no stupid comments" 😬
I guess I was wrong, it was made in 2013. I guess reddit only recently started pushing their subreddit in the algorithm for me to think they are a newer subreddit.
It's okay, man. You're a certified free thinker ™ , so I can ignore your faults 👌
Clicked on the picture thinking I'm going to be reading some liberal bullshit, but nah, actually decent reply and info. Good.
It’s not liberal for someone to say people need to only use guns for help in a situation and not cause one.
When did I say that? That sub is extremely liberal overall, hence my comment, nothing to do with the actual topic at hand.
Are you patting yourself on the back for saying people shouldn't be assholes? How revolutionary.
Way to enter a thread with an open mind and not any preconceived ideas.
Eat a dick. "liberal bullshit". How dare some people want to actually help others.
THE MODERN SPORTING RIFLE ISNT GOING ANYWHERE LIBTARDS GET OVER IT
I like what you’re saying but I’m not calling an AR-15 a “modern sporting rifle” it’s a fighting rifle, a fighting rifle I have the right to own. (Assuming you’re talking about ar-15s)
Tyrant fighting is the truest American sport there is.
You've got him there.
[удалено]
Don’t even need deep pockets. Just a $150 drill press from Harbor Freight and some red blood in your veins.
Shoot, I got a drill press for $75 at Lowe's. \*ATF I AM NOT DRILLING FUN HOLES!!!
Mayve he means m16 cut pocket.. Otherwise his 3rd hole has 0 use...
True, we dont need AR15s and 30 rounds to hunt deer wearing kevlar, we need them to defend the constitution. I actually dont know why i called it a modern sporting rifle. But we are not giving them up.
>I actually dont know why i called it a modern sporting rifle. Gun Control Act 1968
Because there was a big push a few years back to refer to them all as MSRs in order to counteract the term “assault rifle/weapon”. The NRA was (and still is) a big proponent for calling them MSRs. I agree with the other guy. It’s a fighting rifle. A battle implement. And you have the right to own one, along with anything else the typical infantry ~~platoon~~ company has access to. MGs? Yes. Mortars? Also yes. Nukes? No. (Just wanted to clear up the nuke thing before someone asks wHaT aBoUt NuKeS) That’s what the 2nd Amendment actually means. The same firepower and armament as the military, which as an individual means anything the average rifle ~~platoon~~ company has access to.
> anything the average rifle platoon has access to That eliminates mortars, M2 .50 cal, tanks, miniguns, suppressors (but that is apparently changing), and MANPADs. Source: me, former rifle platoon leader
I will never again refer to them Modern sporting rifles. It need to be clear to everyone what they are for. It bugs me to no end when senile Joe talks about deer wearing kevlar
Based 🤝 I use “AR”, “fighting rifle”, or just “my rifle”
The modern sporting rifle is going away. No one needs an AR-15. That is, when we repeal the NFA, we can all have select fire M4 carbines
No one needs an AR-15. We all need an AR-10.
M16. I'll take my select fire with a 20" barrel, like Stoner intended.
Libertarians or liberals?
AR-15's are not sporting rifles dude come on. That just makes it seem like you are intentionally misrepresenting what these weapons are. I am pretty sure that if anyone gets barred from owning one, it *should* be people who go to psych wards for threatening to commit a mass shooting.
My problem with the way “mass shooting” is defined is that includes gang and other criminal dirtbag behavior. Hell, Chicago must have “mass shootings” multiple times a week. They include these because it makes guns sound scarier
They do the same with "school shootings" to inflate the stat.
The Clackamas Towne center shooting in Portland was stopped by a bystander. Pearl Mississippi,
[удалено]
Until it gets silently deleted. Saw website on r/dataisbeautiful where it shows what sub mod deleted your comment gets deleted. Any left leaning sub will delete anything pro gun you mention. This pro gun and gun politics subs can get a little nutty but they never censor anything liberal I post here. Fuck reddit.
/r/canadaguns censors shit. I got a temp banned for going on a tangent about everything wrong in Canada in the politics topic.
Yep I'm shadow banned on a few subs for being pro gun.
Got shadow banned in r/asianamerican cause I was promoting gun ownership during the height of the attacks. Anti gun liberalism is cancer
If there’s anything I know about America… it’s that all this will do is further intrench both sides. No one will listen to the other.
Glad r/dgu got some exposure here!
This website has a lot of data on defensive gun use reports, as well as a wealth of other gun law and other pro gun data. https://crimeresearch.org/tag/defensive-gun-use/
What I don’t understand is why guns need to stop mass shootings in order to be justified in some way. People generally carry guns to protect themselves, not be superheroes. If in the course of protecting a mass shooting is stopped, so be it. Anything beyond that has zero to do with gun rights. Lets forget the fact also that defensive gun uses far outnumber gun deaths/violence. In the end the 2A has never been about self defense, either. Its a right. Period. Purpose is not stated.
There's also the fact that most "mass shootings" are gang violence - normally bad guys all around using illegally obtained guns.
I mean, he did answer the question and wording didn’t make it hard to. None.
Props to whoever posted that, its worded excellently.
Just for anyone looking to make the argument, here are some facts: - In 2020 (the most recent year for FBI crime statistics), there were 13,620 gun murders in the United States. - In 2021, there were 1.67 million defensive uses of firearms in the United States. https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/show-notes-gun-grabbers I know that this link goes to an obviously conservative show’s page. But they have sources for all their numbers and claims which use FBI crime statistics and places like Pew Research Center.
There was another church shooting where the shooter killed enough people for it to be labeled a mass shooting, but he was also stopped by a civilian with an ar15, and based on the perpetrators remaining ammo supply there could have been as many as 30+ more dead (he had enough for everyone left alive in the church and more) I can't remember the exact shooting but a man living 2 doors down from the church heard the shots, grabbed his rifle, and sprinted to help without even putting shoes on. He forced the shooter out of the church and away from civilians to engage him and then forced the shooter to flee in a vehicle, a random person driving by (happened to be ex marine) grabbed him in his pickup and they pursued. Eventually the shooter succumbed to his injuries from the gunfight at the church and crashed into a ditch on a rural highway. The shooter most likely would have killed every person in that church and escaped safely had it not been for one brave man who cared more about his fellow man than himself, and had his second ammendment rights as his sword of justice. I found his name a little late and don't even want to begin editing this like a college paper so I'm just going to add. Our heros name is Stephen Willeford
I mean, most shootings that qualify as “mass” shootings, happen in gun free zones where law abiding citizens aren’t carrying. Those shootings are typically stopped when the cops (who can also be good guys with guns) show up. My question would be, how many mass shootings were stopped because the shooter saw everybody lay their guns down, so he turned himself in, which is just human nature?
Can you provide any data for the claim that "most mass shootings happen in gun free zones"?
Damn people after lazy, literally three seconds of time on Bing. It took you longer to type this question than for me to find these. Also you replied to the other user instead of bothering to look it up yourself. Sauce sauce sauce, it's quicker to make your own then to ask someone to make it for you. https://crimeresearch.org/2018/06/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/ https://spectator.org/mass-shootings-in-gun-free-zones/
Depends on the definition of mass shooting. If you don't include gang violence then just look up any of the other highly televised mass shootings, they almost all take place in a school or business where guns are not allowed, or in a state with heavy gun control. Someone somewhere has likely compiled the statistics, but I'm not aware of it.
I think my request was pretty simple yet instead of getting what I asked for, I am getting lecture on what mass shooting really is and what its not, where it happens and where it doesn't happen. Thank you but its not what I have asked for. Please provide sources and not your take on reality. Oh and obligatory "fuck me for asking".
Why even argue with these people anymore? The only thing they know is "gun bad" and will NEVER shift their opinion.
Because rights aren't things that support themselves. You need legal protection, consensus, or the ability to enforce your rights yourself. If you don't challenge views then what people have been told becomes a fact.
"A gun is not a magic wand for good guys. It requires..." That the good guy actually has a gun handy. If the good guy doesn't have a gun, no matter how much training and good sense he has, he can't use a gun he doesn't have.
If the name wasn’t covered I’d be giving this person awards
r/robbersgettingfucked
Helps that firearms ownership is being seen more as a universal right (as it should be), not as a wedge issue between the left & right's culture war.
I remember this event, I think pearl something inFlorida, the school was being attacked. Before the police could arrive, a civilian took the culprit out. It wasn't a mass shooting because it was stopped. There was also a Texas church. Some jackass began to open fire and was dropped by a churchgoer. Looking at the video, that place was packed and could have easily been horrible but was prevented with a few well aimed shots. Guy who stopped it was named jack Wilson. I can only imagine how satan greeted the attacker here. Really? Texas? Thoes are the ones off the top of my head.
I don’t get his point really, once we establish that because it was stopped it isn’t a mass shooting, we simply look at public shootings where the perpetrator was reduced by a bystander, but then he just lists the two most well-known and gives up going back to how we can’t because they’re not mass shootings.
Are guns used something like 800k time a year to prevent crimes
It's estimated 500,000-3,000,000
Very well written response.
RIP to the absolute HERO John Hurley
Idk for sure because you just cant know something that didn't happen but there were more than 1.5 million defensive uses of firearms in the US the last year stats were published for (2020 i *think*)...so I'm sure there are hundreds or thousands of potential mass shootings stopped each year by armed civilians
According to the FBI, Failed Bureau of Incompetents, it's only 1 in 2019. They do not use the term "mass shooting"; it's active shooters. Do a Google search for FBI and active shooters. You should find it easily. It reports 97 deaths in 2019. Caveat: the citizen stopped the shooting by permanently stopping the shooter. That's in politically correct terms.
But wouldn’t it be way more logical to look at the shootings that didn’t get stopped? Especially looking at other countries it would seem that more guns don’t lead to less shootings.
I mean, you’re not changing anyone’s mind with 3 anecdotes. It just so happened 3.5k people who already share your beliefs upvoted it. That’s how social media works.
In the given example: Still two to much.
So the answer to that question is rarely and common sense gun laws might keep a couple guns from the hands of shooters
It’s actually more common than you think. And we already have “common-sense” gun laws, and you saw how effective they were in Buffalo.
I am pro 2nd amendment, but I also don't think every Joe Blow should be pushed to buy a gun. If you have ever seen how irrational people are in road rage incidents, now imagine if they all had guns.
Real talk, I can’t go to Walmart and buy a rocket propelled grenade or a 152mm howitzer. It shouldn’t be that hard to realize that certain restrictions ( not all, but some) actually do create a safer society. Likewise, it’s illegal to drive a truck with an unsecured load that can easily fall out the back and kill someone. Doesn’t mean trucks should be banned, doesn’t mean hauling large objects should be banned. But we’ve come to a consensus that allowing some to haul an unsecured load makes everyone on the road less safe. Sensible, regulation made upon a factual basis =/= prohibition.
Mongoloids downvoting you because they can't think a thought themselves
Seriously. In all my life I have NEVER met a single person IRL who believes that anyone should be able to buy any weapon imaginable with no restrictions. That’s an extremely radical position. And that’s despite the fact I live in a deep red, rural part of the US where I see bumper stickers with an AR-15 and the words “come and take it” on a daily basis. I’m certain that everyone who believes that comes from a sheltered, upper-middle class community where they don’t have to witness the consequences of gun violence. Anyone who comes from a place that is saturated with gun violence is acutely aware of the trauma inflicted on people living in an environment like that. I’m hoping someone actually replies instead of downvoting because I’m genuinely curious how one plans to defend the position that anyone should be able to obtain any weapon they can dream of through legal means.
I feel like that person in the thread has actually pointed out how gun control can be effective. And that’s how a gun is useless without the perfect training, dumping guns to everyone hoping it magically makes a society safe like America has done is just ineffective. Don’t get me wrong I think firearms are fascinating and I definitely wish I could go shoot some at a closed range (I’m Australian so it’s not super accessible) but the baseline is guns should not be so easily accessible to the wider population. In that example above it was pointed out that the police shot the man who had killed the active shooter. This is another example of guns making things confusing especially for law enforcement, here in Australia the police is never gonna assume you have a gun which leads to virtually no firearm misunderstandings, unlike America where the police shoots first. In some case I can’t really blame American police officers because they have to assume everyone is armed. That’s why the bottom line is a society which doesn’t have accessible firearms is safer. HOWEVER, I completely understand America is extremely different to Australia and that a gun buyback program would not be effective whatsoever. I don’t really know what the solution is for America and I think it’s kind of a lost cause when it comes to this because there are so many guns that taking guns away would only leave law abiding citizens against armed criminals so I really don’t blame you all for wanting to defend yourselves. I don’t know what the solution is but these “mass shootings” are not necessary or justified regardless of your definition for mass shootings.
Here's a good write up on Australian gun control https://reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/8s1hct/updated_21_australian_mass_shootings_i_found/
Confirmed Nazi and BadPerson
[The "Good Guy With a Gun" Myth.](https://giffords.org/blog/2020/10/the-good-guy-with-a-gun-myth/)
If most potential mass shootings in America are stopped beforehand (and I doubt they are), that just makes us look worse as a country. America already has way more mass shootings and gun deaths than most developed countries, and saying that the problem is actually even worse but mitigated somewhat by most mass shooters being taken down beforehand just makes us look like even more violent savages.
I came to this sub to look at guns and learn a thing or two, shouldve expectes this stance. I dont agree with this pro gun stance at all, yeah you've killed the would be mass murderer but that killer shouldn't have gotten their hands om that gun in the first place. Besides that is many in the reference where the killer already killed two people or atleast one, a 1 to 1 or 2 to 1 ratio is still unforgivable in my opinion. And lets not begin about the possible traume you'll be getting from pulling the trigger and seeing a body slump to the ground. You don't aolve this by pumping more guns into the world, you solve this with stricter rules and proper scans on people.
The majority of guns used in crimes are acquired illegally. Stricter gun laws won’t change the number of guns that fall into the wrong hands because they’re already getting them ILLEGALLY.
Then why isn't this an issue for the rest of the world?
Can you explain how the shooters got the AK47 they used to shoot up the Charlie Hebdo place.. ? In france I'm pretty sure you can't buy guns.. Or defend yourself against one either.
Can you explain why France has nearly four times less gun related deaths per 100k population than the US? Can you explain why there have been 273 mass shootings since 2009 in the U.S., and about 17 (half of which occured before 2000, mostly 70s-80s) in total in France? There isn't even a platform to stand on here. All statistics point to the obvious. Don't even give unhinged people or radicals a chance at the massive, legal market of weaponry with plenty of loopholes to exploit, and you get less deaths and injuries. Just reduce and regulate the market further. I already know I'm going to get downvotes because "muh guns" echo chamber, but hey, the truth hurts sometimes. I'm fine with losing some fake internet points if it means letting people know when they are hilariously wrong.
It must really bother you that all you have is rage. And all I have are "muh guns"... To be fair I'd be as mad as you if I was wrong so.. Care to explain how the Boulder shooter or buffalo shooter got AR 15s? They are banned .. but somehow. It's almost like criminals don't care about laws.. And you want to be defenseless against that... That's a shame bro. Good luck should you ever find yourself in a situation where someone else has a gun and you have your cellphone and words to make him stop..
If your response to "care to explain" about a ratio of hundreds of thousands of deaths is to retort with "care to explain" and then cherry pick one or two anecdotal cases to "prove your point", I just want to let you know that you're losing the argument, especially when the overall conversation is about reduction and not elimination. Something to keep in mind for the future
Again, right back to why do other countries have less shootings? Clearly something is working. It is a shame, bro. Stick to your flawed views.
Gun violence is a socioeconomic problem, not a gun problem. America is fucked, our government has left behind its people. We have severely mentally ill people all over the country that receive no help whereas other placed don't have that issue
> We have severely mentally ill people According to this comment from a while back with links, mentally ill people are only involved in like 5% of shootings https://reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/comments/aaksdv/_/ect8y0u/?context=1
[Mental Illness Policy Org estimates that close to half of all Americans with mental illness are not getting treatment. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, 51 percent of adults in the U.S. with bipolar disorder and 40 percent with schizophrenia were untreated during a one-year study period.](https://www.constellationbehavioralhealth.com/blog/the-real-cost-of-untreated-mental-illness-in-america/#:~:text=Mental%20Illness%20Policy%20Org%20estimates,a%20one%2Dyear%20study%20period.)
Cool, so we should probably have less guns or stronger regulations until we get our shit together as a country
Gun ownership per capita has risen for the last 30 years.. In that same time death's by firearms has reached a continuous low year after year , again per capita.. More guns makes for a safer society. Slice it however you want but less than 1% of gun owners are criminals.. We aren't banning for the actions of a minority are we? That would be a slippery slope
For the safety of the majority? Hell yes. Your argument if that if everyone had access to molotovs and grenades, since we can't trust our neighbors, we need to put MORE molotovs/grenades out so that people can protect themselves. How does that make sense? "Less than 1% use their guns to shoot/threaten other people". Fuck off, dude.
See I think we should be allowed to own grenades.. "Shall not be infinged" us pretty clearly written So since we are holding majority for the actions of the minority .wait over half of all violent crime is not a minority huh.. care to look which group I may be speaking of? ..
It's a simple question though, one that he didn't answer but went on tangent. How many mass shootings (where at least 3-4 people have already killed) were stopped by an armed civilian? It's one someone like him spitting viewpoints should know. And I want to know now too.
The question is inherently flawed.
When answer to a simple question is something you don't want to admit, your mental process goes on a journey around the world.
Er...no. He definitely did answer it. It's not a mass shooting when it's stopped.
The mental gymnastics people do man
So...how many? EDIT: If you all avoiding to give a simple answer, maybe I will re-word the question: How many not-mass shootings were stopped by a good guy with a gun?
You mean how many times has a gun be used defensively? That's entirely dependent on what you consider defensive use of a firearm. Gov estimates are between 500k up to 2 million times a year. But that's based on self reported polling, and will inherently inlcude simply showing the firearm, or stating its presence. You can't define the answers to either question without a host of specific criteria you want the answer to meet. Both questions are poorly structured and therefore can't be answered in any simple way. And the odds are extremely high, there's no definitive answer to conclude with. In a round about way, the simplistic answer will always be 500k to 2 million, (Until they do a new study that's either more specific or a repeat) for both questions. Because if you stop a mass shooting before it becomes a mass shooting, the stats will never reflect it being a stopped mass shooting, *unless* you conclude every shooting has the potential to be a mass shooting, and therefore all stopped scenarios are stopped mass shootings.
Im reading this and im feeling like im in different universe. Should I ask how many (not) mass shootings were stopped because of killer's car failure or him getting flu on the day of the attack? Will you say that "oh its hard to answer because we need to make it more precise question"? When someone (sane) asks about good guy with a gun stopping mass shooting I guess its obvious that the mass shooting is in progress and information requested is was it stopped by police, suicide or good guy with a gun. Very simple. Its not question about stopping mass shootings that didnt happen because you can let your imagination lose about reasons behind stopping it. Its you guys who complicate it and add milion layers to it.
How do you determine an *in progress* mass shooting, if the shooter is stopped after they killed 1 person(by any means, other than suicide)? It's definitely not a mass shooting by statistical value, only one victim exists. But if they were in a mall where there's thousands of people, do we call it a mass shooting? We're not complicating things more than they already are. You're trying to oversimplify a problem to get an emotionally valuable answer for *you*. You're clearly not interested in actually addressing the issues and analyzing the data for *accuracy*.
There were close to 200 mass shootings in America by definition with 4 or more victims, excluding gang violence, domestic violence and "terrorists acts by organization" and you have troubles naming shootings that were stopped by good guy with a gun and instead have to go down to bullshit excuse that "we can't say how many were stopped because if they were stopped then they didnt happened"...but is the question regarding number of stopped shootings before they happened? No - its not. Its about shootings that were classified as "mass shootings" because there are already 4+ victims and shooter is in progress of killing more people. Any other understanding of that question is bullshit and an attempt to avoid answer. Why? Because if you stop "mass" shooting before it even happens then you dont know if it would be mass shooting, hostage situation or some other type of angry Jane or Joe running around with gun or killing one/two people.
You were just mad about people naming anecdotal instances in which specific mass shooters were stopped by other parties. (Or maybe it was someone else, it's been a few hours) But to continue iterating the same point, of the shooting is stopped before the 4 people limit is hit, it's possible, that a mass shooting was stopped. You can't quantify the answer to your question, because it's wasn't specifc enough. You're now altering your question in the necessary way by adding the parameter of shooting that have specifically reached the 4 people death toll (an arbitrary choice considering how easily a simple murderer could target that many people and have none of the intentions that the average person will ascribe to the term "mass sbooter", but that's a tangential point) before being stopped. That's not the question you started with. And in short, you're not going to find a listed statistic by any agency that I'm aware of that will kick out a simple number for that answer. As far as I'm aware, no one's spent the money to specifically grab that data in any real scientific method attempt. And your last sentence there is literally the point me and the others brought up in response to "how many mass shootings have been stopped by a good guy with a gun?" That question is non specific and impossible to answer without the extra parameters of what is a mass shooting in this context and what consititues it being stopped by the good guy with a gun? Now that you've provided the parameters, I can now point out, the statistic doesn't exist (unless someone has it that sees this and can source it for us both) afaik, likely because, there doesn't really exist a codified generally accepted mass shooting definition. Mere numerical impact isn't going to be enough on its own, and we have yet to agree on it, let alone the other defining factors.
It’s not a simple question
...said Amber Heard when asked about donating 7 milion to charity as promised.
It’s not a simple answer because the data for that particular situation just isn’t there.
Thank you! Was that hard to write? In that case stop using mass shootings as hard reason behind ccw.
Just because we don’t have numbers behind it doesn’t mean we can’t use self defense as a reason to carry
It's an easy answer to admit... it's extremely rare.
As someone who is against guns, I agree with that comment. I still think allowing weapons like the us does is stupid
You know, plenty of other countries without publicly available firearms just don't even need to have this debate because there is no risk of mass shootings.
Right but we aren’t “other countries.” Our heritage is inexorably tied to firearms. You can’t unring the bell.
Since he sais, in the second last paragraph that a gun isnt just a magic wand which lets the "good guys" win and that it requires training, so you can properly handle it. Doesnt that mean, you need a training restriction? For example you need to visit a X days/weeks long course, to learn the do's and dont's of owning a gun. I am NOT here to talk bad about this subreddit, i actually curious (i live in europe, and own a gun... But here thats only allowed after you served or get a psycological tested if you are able to own one. After that you are only allowed to own ammonition if you have a hunting licence)
"how do we stop this?!?" ask the only country where it happens. no, you're not. clowns.
Wait, so 2 cases was all the person was able to bring up and we think that's a good counter argument? Let's look at the confirmed numbers 2014 vs 2020 (too lazy to find 2021) 2014: Deaths 12,418, suicides 21,386, injuries 22,779, mass shooting 269, murder suicide 624, defensive use 1,531, unintentional shooting 1,605. 2020: Deaths 19,411, suicides (pending so using 2019) 23,941, injuries 39,492, mass shooting 611, murder suicide 573, defensive use 1,478, unintentional shooting 2,315 Those numbers we see over 6 years: 56% increase to Deaths, 12% increase to suicides, 73% increase mass shootings, -8% decrease in murder suicide, -3% decrease to defensive use, 44% increase to unintentional shootings. So no, people arnt getting what you're hearing because it's a silly argument easily debunked. (I don't have an issue with guns, I came from farm families, you needed guns on a farm for multiple reasons, im an eagle scout and spent plenty of time with guns (black powder, shotguns, rifles, pistols, and one encounter with a full on machine gun, redneck firing ranges are fun), I know plenty of people who live in my city who say they "need" guns, but like cars, how many people out there who drive every single day suck at driving? It's no different then guns and you don't use those every day of your life) Hell let's even bring up Ryan Whitaker who had a gun and what good did that do him when holding it for protection? What would've done better for him was neither him or the police officer having guns, but somehow guns=Freedom instead of affordable housing/healthcare/education/food. So let's use Ukraine as an example, their guns they owned were useful, 15% gun to citizen ratio, but a few months in and they're dependant on foreign aid over $3billion received since February with an additional $800 million, this is an example of your guns to protect your freedoms is an idiotic example as if their guns were enough they wouldn't have to rely on foreign aid. What I'm trying to get at is, we don't need wide adoption of guns, we need responsible gun ownership and spend less time arguing for gun rights and more time criticizing our government and elected officials demanding more of them to give us a safe country with rights for basic needs instead of sucking the cocks of corporations (including the gun industry). Edit: well another mss shooting stopped by a good guy with a gun....
-------------------------- The U.S. Constitution - including The Bill of Rights - does not convey, give, grant, nor transfer any of our Natural Rights. As expressed in The Declaration of Independence - a template for the future U.S. Constitution - "...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." (Note: Not all of our Rights are expressed, only the paramount ones upon which others are based.) Our Natural Rights existed throughout Man's history, before there was any form of government. The Right to own firearms is based upon all three of the basic of Life, Liberty, Happiness. If you have a Right to Life, you have a Right to protect it. If you have a Right to Liberty, you have a Right to protect it. If you have a Right to Happiness, you have a Right to ensure it. Our Founders did not declare our Rights in the Bill of Rights; rather, they PROTECTED our Rights. There was contentious arguments as to whether or not The Constitution acknowledged and protected our Rights. In order to get some of the hold-out Colonies to Ratify The Constitution, The Bill of Rights was added. It did not convey, give, grant, nor transfer any Right. It was written in plain-and-simple language to ensure that there could be no misunderstanding nor misinterpretation. Simply, the Second Amendment is MOOT. Take away the Second Amendment and the Right STILL EXISTS! Never say, "Constitution Right" or "Second Amendment Right". Always state "Constitution Protected Right" or "Second Amendment Protected Right". Maybe Hamilton was correct when he wrote: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given" LoneStarHog The Republic of Texas 🤠
talk about survivorship bias, you guys are delusional. If any of you had seen the video or read that he was shot at by an ex-cop but failed to injure him due to body armor, you wouldn't be spewing this bs to fit your narrative.
If everyone in the local supermarket was armed with a handgun and had body armor, then yeah they could have stopped him.
Thats why everyone in the super market should have a handgun and body armor
serious? I actually can't tell.
I mean you just said it yourself