> died by suicide
Sometimes even bad guys with a gun stop themselves.
If they didn’t have guns, how could they kill the shooter? That’s why thy shouldn’t ban guns! /s
Unless thay weren’t actually ‘bad’ people, rather they found themselves having to use a gun as the only option left to them. One notable bit of info missing is why these people had a gun and why were they using it?
This chart is taking into account situations where a person shot or attempted to shoot multiple unrelated people in a public setting. The stereotypical mass shooting. I really don’t care what someone is going through, my sympathy for the poor and disenfranchised does not extend to indiscriminate murder
Thanks for clarifying. My point was not to ilicit sympathy, any such violence is ahorant and the perpetrator must take responsibility, ultimately, but rather to illicit empathy. To understand how and why people end up in such a place then creates the starting point to find solutions, or at least, minimise how frequently they may occur within a population in the future.
As such, I’m inclined to think that in at least some of the cases where the individual commits suicide once the police turn up, they have reached a total breaking point, so to speak, and the last option they can see has gone so suicide is sll that’s left.
This to me doesn’t suggest a ‘bad’ person, more so someone who has found themselves in a terrible place, particularly in cases where that’s no fault of their own, and are wndingvup doing something bad. Being ‘bad’ to me is closer to gansta/mobster mentality - e.g. killing people is fine, so long as its not us, and i cant imagine any mass shooter being someone like that. There are a myriad of variables of course, and this may only apply to some of the people painted as ‘bad’ in this infografic.
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
Let’s also keep in mind your average gun owner is not owning/carrying to stop a mass shooting. They are using them for self defense, especially night stand guns. If someone’s breaking into my house, I’m not calling the police and hiding hoping they get there in time. I’m defending my family myself, at that exact moment
But that’s kind of a problem. I don’t see how your weapon can be useful for self defense in this case while also being properly secured by a responsible owner. Maybe pairing it with an alarm system or dog can get you enough warning to do both
They make quick access safes which can be mounted on or near your bed, so instead of leaving a loaded gun in a drawer where anyone can get it, it’s in a locked safe with either a fingerprint or button combo unlock. The safe can be opened in seconds by someone who knows what they are doing but would otherwise keep the loaded weapon secure.
Good luck getting to it when you already have the attacker standing over you.
That’s not the point. If they are already standing over you then you would be dead before you wake up. But we should never act like that is the only scenario possible
“We?”
It’s a word that in this moment means “you and I”
usually home intruders don’t just walk into the bedrooms of the house while stealing shit. So that probably.
this doesn’t include times where the good guy was pressure for the bad guy to not attempt it. There’s a reason why shootings in schools are popular, there’s only 1 or 2 armed people there compared to the 1,000+ kids.
Also: This chart only shows what happened to the attacker. It doesn’t give you a picture of the innocent people on the scene shot by cops, the cops shot by cops, the “good guy with a gun” who shoots another good guy with a gun, and so on. 12/433 may be accurate, but by the time you deduct points for innocent deaths caused by people with guns on the scene, you’re creeping back down to zero again.
If not everyone would have guns it would probably be a lot less than 433 active shootings in the same timeframe 😅. The 12 would go to 0 quick. But the 433 would decrease a lot more than 12 🥳
Very few people actually carry weapons in public in most of the US, concealed or openly. It’s nothing like “most people”, or even “most gun-owners”. I have a lifetime concealed-carry permit, but my guns stay in the safe, save for specific events.
In my experience, this statement varies drastically by what region you are in the country.
I’d also like to point out …. While the usual argument is that criminals would still have guns, many shootings like this are perpetrated by people who weren’t criminals. While the parent had poir judgement and failed their supervisory responsibility, as far as I know the kid in this latest shooting g had a “legal” gun.
While criminals with guns are certainly a problem, better gun control and mental health resources could prevent an outsized number of deaths, injuries, trauma. And don’t forget the family of the perpetrator: most other possible outcomes would be better for them than what happened
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”
The really crazy thing about the graph is that there are 433 fucking datapoints!
Even crazier, the graph is two years old.
It’s the kids that are the problem, not the assault weapons. Every kid should be strapped. That would solve all problems. That and tariffs. We can get that number up to a 1000. 1000 is better than 433.
Hoo-rah! USA!
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.
It’s not disingenuous because it’s answering what lots of right wing people say about mass shootings instead of gun control. "Why don’t we arm the teachers, why is it a gun free zone " etc. This is the answer to that question, not your statement.
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.
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?
Where on this chart does it show casualty rate per incident?
Just the casualty rate of the perpetrator, not the victims.
I count casualty_rate = number_shot / (number_shot + number_subdued)
Which in this case is 22/64 = 34% casualty rate for civilians
and 98/131 = 75% casualty rate for police
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.
No it’s not, dgu’s happen all the damn time. Hell there is a subreddit that tracks the ones that are found. There are countless videos of people being attacked, and pulling a firearm and the violence magically stops. That’s a DGU, even though no round was fired. So it doesn’t show up on lists like these, which have an agenda.
There are two different categories: “active shooter” and “mass shooting”.
An “active shooter” has strict definitions and is tracked by the FBI. These are the events depicted in this graph. An active shooter trying to kill people at random in a public place. The number of casualties is irrelevant. A few years back a guy tried to attack a courthouse in Texas and was killed by a cop before he even got a shot off. That still counts as an active shooter.
A “mass shooting” has no single definition, and media and government organizations that use the term set their own parameters. Many of them define it as “four or more people killed or injured”, regardless of circumstances.
The problem with the term “mass shooter” (and the reason why the FBI doesn’t use it) is that it’s overly broad. Guy goes nuts and kills his family before offing himself? Mass shooting. Robocop shoots four guys in the dick? Mass shooting.
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.
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.
Just 6.6% of Americans have a CCW permit. Some do also open carry, but the number can’t be that much higher
One major flaw in this analysis is the assumption that a concealed carry permit is required.
29 states do not require permits for concealed carry.
Permits are only required in 21 of the 50 states.
8 of those 21 states require permits, but do not actually issue permits upon demand. These are states like California, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, etc. The people of these states are part of the total number of Americans, but are ineligible to acquire permits. They should not be included.
The overwhelming majority of active permits are from the 13 states where permits are required and are issued on demand.
The concentration of guns ranges from virtually zero in the 8 most restrictive states, to well over 10% in the remaining 42 states.
True and all that makes a difference, like in the states with restrictive laws on carry you’re less likely to have someone armed to defend, etc. Guns can only be a good defense when they’re there.
I’d be interested to find the total number who carry regularly though, but I couldn’t unfortunately.
I feel like this is probably what accounts for why it’s twice as likely that an unarmed civilian than one with a gun will subdue the attacker, despite the much greater difficulty and danger of doing so
I’d assume so as well. I figure if the unarmed defender had a gun there they probably would have used it lol.
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’.
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”
Chuck a few links up
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”
Yeah but them you’ll have people pulling the fire alarm and speeding down the crowded hallway. Maximum effect and all that
its not a serious proposal, the point is neither are security guards, giant fences with barbed wire, or giving every student a weapon. The only successful solution has ever been putting responsibility on gun owners and sellers to be responsible about who they give guns to and when.
I realize, I was just teasing a bit by providing horrific imagery
The most 'Mercan thing on the internet today.
Sooo technically most of the time a “Bad guy with a gun” is stopped by a “Bad guy with a gun”.
That’s why you should make sure they all have access to guns.
Statistically, we need more bad guys with guns, to stop themselves.
And here my friends is why it is important to learn to interpret data, because by the numbers, you are correct.
