You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
192 points

So in short, in the 433 cases, 12 of them is stop by good guy with gun and 42 of them is stop by good guy with massive balls.

So by the statistic provided we should give everyone massive balls instead of gun to stop gun violence.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Oh wow, I missed this. That’s a fantastic insight to pull out of this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points

I wish we could win this argument with logic, but I’m certain the fanatics will immediately latch onto the narrative that guns are being used by good guys already, but we obviously need more guns and less restrictions on them them to get those numbers up.

With Republicans, any fact against them is either ignored or bastardized to say the opposite of what it actually says.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Yeah, there’s rarely any logical sense being made because to them gun is a right, not privileges, and once privileges turn into right it take a dictator to take that away.

But then again, jailing people in shitty prison where most right are taken away is a okay 🤷

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

They only jail people outside of the in-group

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I think gun people are counting the police as good guys with guns.

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

No they don’t. If you ban guns from citizens, police would still have guns in the US.

The argument of “Good guys with a gun” is about citizens not able to kill the “bad guy with a gun” before the police arrive.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I see.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

Unbelievable that fucking guy or lady said that and got any upvotes. Living under a goddamn fucking rock. Thank you for correcting.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

That makes it 142/433 where the shooter was shot by a “good guy with a gun”. Hardly a great figure either way…

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Especially after the murdering was already done.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Then why does everyone else need them?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Well, you know, the more guns, the less gun violence. Yeeeeeeah, right. Since we officially have more guns than people, it should all be over soon.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

A genuine, actual answer is that when you’re being attacked, it is incredibly rare for a police officer to be standing there, ready to intervene. In life-or-death situations the police really only exist to take a report from whoever is left standing, and potentially make an arrest. There’s plenty of people out there who don’t have the strength to defend themselves in hand-to-hand combat, and even if they did, next to nobody has the skills necessary to reliably defend against a knife attack using their bare hands. That’s just plain how knife attacks work.

You can counter this with statistics that show that access to guns increases injuries and deaths, because they absolutely do, but pro-gun folks put the individual before the group on this issue. The individual, in their mind, should have the right to quick deadly force in order to facilitate defense of their own life, and other’s failure to handle that responsibility is not their problem and/or the price of that right.

There are always tradeoffs, in any policy you set for society. If you go the other direction there will be people who are victimized who would otherwise have been able to defend themselves. Which scenario is worse? How many victims of one type are worth victims of the other?

permalink
report
parent
reply

Tyranny, or something I believe is the argument.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

12 of them is stop by good guy with gun and 42 of them is stop by good guy with massive balls.

No. There is nothing to imply that the 42 people didn’t have a gun, just that they didn’t shoot the attacker. That part seems fishy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The chance that someone decided to go hand to hand with a gunman in the middle of blowing away the population whilst leaving their gun holstered is basically zero.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I recall reading like a gunman got tackled last year. If I get time I’ll dig it up

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Not what I said or implied, but no, that chance is not basically zero.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

True, they didn’t specify whether in that 42 cases the citizen does have a gun but did not fire, just aiming and intimidate. However the data did split between shot fired shot at the attacker(no mention hit or miss) vs subdued, not killed vs subdued, and also there’s a mention of the attacker surrender, so i assume “subdued” mean the attacker did not surrender but forced to give up whatever they’re doing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points
*

Oh yeah, I’m sure any of these cases were someone stopping to hold an active shooter at gunpoint and that somehow working out for them. Or maybe they used their gun as a melee weapon. Or maybe the attackers were subdued by being talked down over their common love of guns. Or maybe the active shooter ran out of ammo and came up to the good guy with a gun to get some more, at which point the good guy revealed they were actually tricking them into lowering their guard and put them into a headlock. Or maybe some other far-fetched bullshit that’ll let me equivocate over the fact that “good guys with guns” don’t do shit in the grand scheme of things.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-30 points

Jeez, that’s a lot of words you needed to make a clown out of yourself, just because you are pissed by objective fact.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points
*

They could have also talked them out of it, which still takes balls

permalink
report
parent
reply

Data is Beautiful

!dataisbeautiful@lemmy.world

Create post

A place to share and discuss visual representations of data: Graphs, charts, maps, etc.

DataIsBeautiful is for visualizations that effectively convey information. Aesthetics are an important part of information visualization, but pretty pictures are not the sole aim of this subreddit.

A place to share and discuss visual representations of data: Graphs, charts, maps, etc.

  A post must be (or contain) a qualifying data visualization.

  Directly link to the original source article of the visualization
    Original source article doesn't mean the original source image. Link to the full page of the source article as a link-type submission.
    If you made the visualization yourself, tag it as [OC]

  [OC] posts must state the data source(s) and tool(s) used in the first top-level comment on their submission.

  DO NOT claim "[OC]" for diagrams that are not yours.

  All diagrams must have at least one computer generated element.

  No reposts of popular posts within 1 month.

  Post titles must describe the data plainly without using sensationalized headlines. Clickbait posts will be removed.

  Posts involving American Politics, or contentious topics in American media, are permissible only on Thursdays (ET).

  Posts involving Personal Data are permissible only on Mondays (ET).

Please read through our FAQ if you are new to posting on DataIsBeautiful. Commenting Rules

Don't be intentionally rude, ever.

Comments should be constructive and related to the visual presented. Special attention is given to root-level comments.

Short comments and low effort replies are automatically removed.

Hate Speech and dogwhistling are not tolerated and will result in an immediate ban.

Personal attacks and rabble-rousing will be removed.

Moderators reserve discretion when issuing bans for inappropriate comments. Bans are also subject to you forfeiting all of your comments in this community.

Originally r/DataisBeautiful

Community stats

  • 457

    Monthly active users

  • 93

    Posts

  • 1.5K

    Comments