That’s how you don’t do infographics.
It’s confusing. Usually such a pic means a single stream of possibilities branching, so to say. Here multiple branches are for the same data point.
They could at least make them different colors, which would be the components of the initial color if combined. I think I’ve even seen such a graph.
That guns being available to the general public, including some of the most deadly ones, inherently do A LOT more harm than good. This doesn’t even cover the police arriving and shooting the good guy with a gun thinking he is the bad guy, or good guys with guns shooting each other. The fact that guns are allowed to the general public in US is complete lunacy.
I disagree, they would do a lot of good if part of any weapons being available (not just guns, but FPV drones and ammo for them, anti-tank and anti-air missiles, small mortars, and so on), but not for crime levels. The benefit would be in improving political stability (no, it wouldn’t help MAGA and such, because they don’t really want a violent takeover, they want an administrative takeover and then unpunished violence against those who can’t defend themselves).
When only rifles are available, it doesn’t help that end at all - you can’t fight the government or the invading army or some terrorists with just rifles.
So I agree that one has to pick a lane here. If we understand private weapons’ ownership as that well-organized militia to protect against tyranny yadda-yadda, then that includes a lot of stuff. Drones with grenades at least. If we don’t and, say, the national guard is that militia, then allowing just pistols and rifles lacks the advantages, preserving the harm.
Gun rights aren’t for stopping active mass shooting events. Gun rights are to protect yourself and you small circle of family because the police are always too far away.
Active shootings are bad for regular people to try to stop because usually those people who do, end up being killed by the policemen they finally show up. A regular guy with a gun can never be expected to rush into a school to confront a shooter.
A regular armed citizen will be charged with a crime if they stop a school shooter or any other spree shooter in a gun free zone.
This data is disingenuous because they are plotting a unicorn event with a normal event to prove that Unicorns aren’t helpful. The question doesn’t make sense.
Your criticism assumes the person with the gun is responding to the attack, running toward the sound of the gunshots.
Concealed weapons aren’t for responders. Concealed weapons are for the targeted, intended victims; the people already present when the attacker begins.
This chart includes only those scenarios where a criminal attacker was not stopped before firing their first shot, and was not stopped until they had continued shooting long enough to be grouped with the rest of the attackers on this chart. It includes only people who were allowed to continue their attack long enough to qualify, and does not include attacks that were prevented entirely, or were stopped before reaching the chart’s threshold.
The chart also fails to address one of the main reasons why so many of these shooters decide to stop shooting and run away: how many of them saw guns in the hands of their intended victims, and left before those victims fired a shot?
It also doesn’t make any distinction between events that took place where the intended victims were allowed to be armed or not. Of course there will be less instances of armed defenders in areas where arms are prohibited.
OPs premise is akin to the “small government” advocates who ruin government services and then point at how they don’t work.
This one actually demonstrates some flaws in this graph format. Maybe it’s just how it’s expressed this time, but, here are some insights you might gain from this presentation that aren’t actually the case:
- “the police shot the attacker 98 times” which just sounds like a normal headline about how police handle things.
- Very near that branch, you can accidentally see “the police died by suicide 38 times”
- and, similarly, “the police surrendered 15 times” which is a surprise because I thought that only happened at Uvalde.
Like, I get what is trying to be conveyed here but the format requires a lot of work for my brain to parse and makes it harder to understand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sankey_diagram, specifically made with https://www.sankeymatic.com/ from the looks of it.
5% not bad
It’s 2%, off-duty officer and security shouldn’t be included because they’re the people that supposed to have gun and carry one around by default.
In aus where we have minimal guns off duty officers and security dont carry guns.
And for that 2%, you get:
- More people armed with and randomly carrying around guns which, you know, causes the problem.
- A potential to catch civilians in the crossfire while not actually taking down the shooter.
- Muddying who and where the attacker is (and how many attackers there are) for both police, security, and fleeing civilians who need to make panicked, split-second decisions.
You know what, the American obsession with guns has never been anything to do with “protection”, it’s about being ammosexual.
Most people who carry guns are doing it for self-defense, not civil defense.
The rules of an Active-shooter event are:
- Flee
- If you can’t flee, hide.
- If you can’t hide, fight back.
Carrying a concealed weapon doesn’t change that. I have a little 380 pocket pistol I’ll occasionally carry. It’s low-capacity, low-power, and low-accuracy. No way am I volunteering to take on a psychopath with a long gun who isn’t worried about collateral damage with my little pea shooter, and anyone Who expects me too just because I’m armed can kiss my ass.
I carry a pistol to protect me from muggers and car-jackers, not to protect the public.
Having the general public feeling that they need to carry a gun for self defense just sounds crazy to me.
Stabbings have risen here in the UK but generally it’s either a rare occasion where some nutter is on the run or it’s gang related. In general I would never feel the need to carry my own knife around for self defense. I don’t know anyone who carries a knife around with them for self defense.
Imo only an idiot would carry a knife for self-defence, especially if untrained. If someone (probably women especially) feels unsafe, carrying CS-spray would be more reasonable imo.
Almost all of our gun violence is the same, gang/drug related. The media here acts like it’s random killings all over the place, its not. You have a better chance of drowning in a pool than getting killed by an ar15 here, yet people, even in this thread, think it’s something that happens like every 3 seconds.
I’d feel fine with someone carrying a weapon if it’s based on a reasonable fear, and they make an effort to stay trained/safe with the weapon. For instance, they exited an abusive relationship with a significant other who feels they “belong” to them.
But there’s a lot of people who stretch the statement of “I don’t feel safe” to far more cases than make sense.
Would anyone you know tell you if they carried a knife for self-defense, given that it’s generally a crime to do so in the UK?
