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.

So in most cases the bad guy with a gun is stopped by a bad guy with a gun (himself).

I read "The police shot the attacker 98 times" with a different interpretation at first lol.

I agree with the point this is trying to make, but I don't think it does its job.

Like, the whole argument from the 'good guy with a gun' crowd is about stopping them early. You'd need to cross reference each of these catagories with 'how many people did the mass shooter kill'. And, this would really only be a strong argument vs the 'good guy with a gun' point if the 'shot by bystander' result had no fewer average deaths.

Additionally, it's easy to clap back with 'well, yeah, our society doesn't have enough "good people" trained with guns, that's why it's only 5%!'

Again, I don't agree with those points, it's just that this chart is pretty bad at presenting an argument against them.

Okay, so I'm not the only one who read "shot the attacker 98 times" and for a split second imagined this scenario where 131 times, the attacker was shot a gratuitous and strangely precise number of times, right?

This one's only counting active mass shooters. When it's still a lesser shooting with under 4 victims, the odds of a vigilante rando with a gun - that is, a citizen packin' heat and not a cop off the clock - stopping the violence is about 1 in 7000.

So, once a year in America.

The really crazy thing about the graph is that there are 433 fucking datapoints!

Don't forget when cops shoot the good guy with a gun!

Here are a few I could find quickly. There's at least one more that I just happen to recall that didn't come up because I can't seem to remember where it happened. I think it was more recent than any of these. And I'm quite sure there are many more than that, this was just the most time I was willing to spend googling at the moment.

https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/560798-police-chief-hails-good-guy-with-a-gun-after-officer-kills/

https://www.bet.com/article/eokrmr/black-man-kaun-green-disarm-shooter-shot-by-police

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/12/good-guy-with-a-gun-comes-to-rescue-police-kill-him/

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/nra-quiet-police-shoot-black-armed-good-guy-with-a-gun-alabama-ca37e7e5475a/

Statistically, we need more bad guys with guns, to stop themselves.

Sooo technically most of the time a "Bad guy with a gun" is stopped by a "Bad guy with a gun".

Had a little trouble reading this at first, I was like, "The cops showed up and shot the person 98 times? Police brutality is so ridiculously out of hand!." Then I realized I was reading it wrong, but decided the statement was still valid.

I feel like if police arrive on scene, they're probably shooting whoever has a gun, "good guy" or "bad guy." Cops seem pretty jumpy. Perhaps if we could make the good guys and bad guys wear differently colored hats?

You know what, the American obsession with guns has never been anything to do with "protection", it's about being ammosexual.

The really sad thing about this graph is the fact that 433 active shootings barely covers half a year

> died by suicide

Sometimes even bad guys with a gun stop themselves.

Is there a statistic how many bystanders were hurt by armed citizen bystander?

What about the times the good guy with a gun is shot by the police?

The fact that there are 433 data points means it's not working

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun... In an action movie, in real life, there's kinda too much chaos going on for anyone to differentiate between the "bad guy" and the "good guy", or for the "good guy" to know the situation.

I've heard of more times where someone tried to play hero and was gunned down by the police who mistook him for the real shooter than I have any reports of "Hero Gunman slays horrible villain"

Wow, 12/433 “good guy with a gun. That’s higher than I expected! However you still need to compare to deaths caused by “careless guy with gun” plus “scared/angry guy with gun”, which includes the latest school shooting and is much much higher

The 133 real heros are the attackers that stop the attack by leaving the scene of the crime promptly to avoid incarceration.

I think republicans should pivot into "only a good guy with a truck can stop a bad guy with a gun" because it makes as much sense.

"if the teacher had a 4x4 mazda truck they could run over the attacker if the school was a fully paved parking garage. We should consider making the school cooridors driveable"

I'd like to know how many times a civil with an AR-15 has saved the day.

Talk about overkill, "Police shot the attacker 98 times"

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.

I took an active shooter training class at our sheriff's dept some years ago. At the end they had a Q&A period, and nearly all the questions were coming from obvious gun owners who just wanted one of the deputies there to give them the ok to shoot during an active shooter event, just some sort of official recognition that they were in the clear to do it. The deputies weren't having any of it and the farthest they would go was, "You do whatever you feel is necessary to stay safe and protect yourself." I'm assuming they couldn't endorse vigilantism or for citizens to be bringing guns into active shooter situations, since even the firearm accuracy of cops is supposedly only ~30%. The people in the crowd kept coming up with ever more wild scenarios, just trying to get somebody to tell them it was ok. "You're telling me, that if there was an active shooter that had your wife and kids hostage, and I'm standing there with a gun, you wouldn't tell me it was ok to take the shot?" was one question I remember a guy asking. It was like, they're obviously not going to tell you what you want to hear, can we move the fuck on?

What's funny is that I read "police shot attacker 98 times" as they shot one person 98 times. lol

The most 'Mercan thing on the internet today.

Is this just USA data?

It's behind a paywall so I can't see the methodology. Do they control for mass shooter events vs robberies, or targeted murders (single target), or gang activity?

So its 64-131 between work done by bystanders vs. work done by police?

And casualty rate is actually lower for bystanders doing the work (with their guns) than the police?

and most incidents end with only one or a few shots fired.

Gift link

Who Stops a ‘Bad Guy With a Gun’? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/22/us/shootings-police-response-uvalde-buffalo.html?unlocked_article_code=1.JE4.-AFH.HWsiqcxUpNY9

So about 28% of the times someone shot the attacker. Seems pretty good, I was expecting it to be lower

Neat! Now do one showing how many bills were proposed to address the issues that cause gun violence, and how many were actually signed into law!

The biggest problem i have with gun violence is that the politicians talk about taking action or protecting our constitutional rights, but can't come to any agreement on anything at all. It's literally their job to negotiate these things.

Must be misreading this, or in 33 times "The attacker ... subdued the attacker"

Now show the states where this happened, and compare gun laws. Normalize for population. I'm genuinely curious if states with tighter gun control have more shootings and no chance for a good guy with a gun to stop them because they themselves can't get guns. To expand, look where good guy with gun did stop it and what state it was in.

I also want to point out that mathematically, guns are positive integers. A good guy with a gun vs a bad guy with a gun is not 'gun + (-gun) =0gun' it's 'gun + gun = 2gun'.

I need a clarification if there's any crossover between the "attacker has been subdued before the police arrived" and "attacker was shot by the police after their arrival"

dataisveryinteresting

does this not breakout the individual being "attacked" having a gun or is that literally just not a real data point?

But if we all had guns then a lot more would end in shot by citizen.

I'm guessing the number of incidents would climb higher too, though.

Permanently Deleted

So none of the attackers managed to leave the scene after the police arrived?

And there is going to be many who will say the answer to that is a "Good Cop With a Gun".

Also important to note a few things about this data, the frequency which people carry and the likelihood of the shooting happening in an area where one isn't legally allowed to carry.

According to this https://checkyourfact.com/2018/03/05/fact-check-what-percentage-of-americans-have-concealed-carry-permits/

Just 6.6% of Americans have a CCW permit. Some do also open carry, but the number can't be that much higher, and not all of those people even carry regularly, some only do sometimes, let's call it a generous 10-12% carry regularly. Even at 10%, that isn't very many, you're more likely to not have anyone armed around you.

Especially considering that most often, the type of mass shootings we're talking about are public mass shootings, not mass shootings at someone's house party that are gang related. Clubs, bars, schools, theaters, concerts, etc, are by and large areas where you're not allowed to carry. Even some stores like walmart prohibit carrying guns inside (and have had shootings before.) This is also going to lessen the likelihood that someone will be armed to respond. Depending on sources the numbers of how many mass shootings take place in said gun free zones varies wildly. If we're cutting out robberies and gang activity, John Lott at the Crime Prevention Research Center puts the number at 98%, if we're including the gangs, drugs, and robberies, Everytown puts the number at 10%.

For an armed civilian to respond, one of those 6.6% of people has to be legally allowed to carry, and have happened to bring their gun today, and even then they still have a gunfight to win they can easily lose. 22/433 is 5.08% of times an armed civilian was the one who stopped the crime, at 6.6% or even 10% of people carrying, I'm gonna say 5.08% is not that bad and the number could go up if more sane people would carry and be ready to save themselves and others should the need arise.

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.

That's how you don't do infographics.

GET YOUR FREE TRIAL NOW FRO OUR WEBSITE https://enjoychannels.com/

are you looking for best ireland IPTV ? we have what you are looking for get Your free trial now from https://enjoychannels.com/ we have more than 90K Channels

Ireland /UK / US focused IPTV service + Plenty More. Positive Feedback come and speak to our current members. Contact me for a Free trial and a invite to our discord server.

⦁ All PPV with multiple Links, Full Sport including all 3pm's and ifollow ,European Football, Motorsport , Rugby, NBA,NFL,MLB ,UFC , NHL AND CHL , Irish and Scottish and lots of international

Full VOD system which is kept up to date , we also take requests to add to this

catch up

EPG

No VPN required but your welcome to use one

Great support

Please PM me for a Free trial

We support a range of Device's so whatever you have we can get you setup on

Android Devices

Firesticks

IOS devices/Apple devices

PC

Mag box

Smart TV

Chromecast

ZGemma

We Support a range of our own hardcoded apps(XCIPTV,LTQ,Smarters,Flix) a few UI's displayed below but we also support generic apps like tivimate , GSE , IptvX etc... once subscribed.

If we tried to meet in the middle, what could help more gun owners be responsible gun owners?

What we know about that recent school shooting is exactly the counter case. There’s no indication the parent was bad. Apparently the kid had some issues and the system and his parents failed him. However, how do you gift a kid an AR-15 and let him use and store it unsupervised? Especially how do you do this after a police visit that the kid made threats? There’s a lot to think about for this case but an important one is how did the parent think this was ok? Much more often than “good guy with gun” is “parent gave kid unsupervised use of gun”.

Clearly trusting that such a large population of gun owners are all responsible gun owners, is not working. Can not work. Can not work and too many people are being killed. Holding the parent responsible is a start but doesn’t make up for the lives lost, plus we want to prevent it, not just ruin more lives

5% not bad

I have a vibe that this is anti gun propaganda.

When in reality if a good person with a gun had have been willing and available early enough the results could be vastly different.