Who Stops a "Bad Guy With a Gun"?

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.

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.
- 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 🤷
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.
- 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.
- They could have also talked them out of it, which still takes balls
- 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.
- 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.
I think gun people are counting the police as good guys with guns.
- 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.
- That makes it 142/433 where the shooter was shot by a “good guy with a gun”. Hardly a great figure either way…
- Then why does everyone else need them?
Oh wow, I missed this. That's a fantastic insight to pull out of this.

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

With average cop accuracy that'd probably exhaust their armory's ammo supply
- Lucky they busted old Billy and his one pot plant, and seized all his cash. That will refill the sheriff coffers.
"sprinkle some crack on 'em. Open and shut case Johnson!"
Do you think they got them?
That seems excessive.

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

The Hitler strategy, classic.
Right.
That means “good guy with gun” argument is wrong
That means mental health intervention can prevent a much larger proportion of these tragedies

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.

Also, the data needs to include how many people are accidentally shot by guns through improper usage and storage.
From the numbers I have seen, far more children are killed accidentally by good-guy-guns then they are saved by those very same guns
- We need good kids with guns to shoot the bad kids with guns!?
- I think they take away your good-guy card before that happens
- You should see the data for people improperly using cars or medications or alcohol. Pretty scary stuff, I think everything should be illegal.
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%!'
I agree. It's pathetic how shit arguments that make no actual sense are allowed to fly by millions of people.
- Cause many people don't want their beliefs challenged. They want to live without accepting facts, or even regardless of facts.
- Its the culture war mentality.
  "Our idea would work, if the damn Wokes didn't stop us all from having guns at all times!"
  Its always the reason why 'their ideas don't work'; cause their opponents aren't 'letting them'
The other problem with the "good guy with a gun" is how many people does an attacker need to kill before you are the good guy killing the bad guy? One? And what if you didn't witness it? The "good guy" with the gun attacking another guy with a gun without knowing what's going on, are they still the "good guy" in that scenario? It's a mess.
The whole thing stems from fallacious logic. Arming everyone doesn't stop bad guys murdering people, at best it might curtail the length of some attacks and at worst it causes innocents to die as so-called "good guys" try to save the day and make it worse.
Prevention is the way forward, as then 0 people die. And the best way to do that is no one has guns (not even most police; just a small subset of specialist police). That is an anathema or sacrilegious to Americans, but it's the approach taken in many democratic and free countries in the world.
If the chart is trying to make a point, it's making the wrong one anyway.
- How many people does the attacker need to kill? Ideally, none. If an attacker is attempting to kill someone and that person is killed instead of the potential victim, good.
  If I'm out and someone tries to attack me, I'm pulling out my pistol and ending it right there. I'm not trying to be a "good guy with a gun," I'm just carrying to protect myself.
  and zero people die Are you dense? Murder will still happen because people have been killing people before guns. You're also gonna take guns away from law-abiding people like me who love going out on the weekends to shoot with their buddies or hunt and leave nothing but criminals with guns? Dumb.
I think it also misses a special case, where a active shooting would have happened, but a 'good guy with a gun' stopped it before a death toll occurred by either holding the shooter at gunpoint or shooting them.
This would likely be a rare case that would be much harder to quantify but you know it will be argued it's needed for that case.
- That is covered in this graphic as subdued by bystander, it’s a small amount and they include cases where people didn’t subdue with gun.
  They don’t stop a shorter before it happens. It’s not a scenario that exists. If you shoot someone before they draw their weapon to shoot, your the active shooter.

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 has me laughing uncontrollably... it's so specific but also because it's the police, it's not impossible. god there's tears in my eyes from laughing
- "Shooter is down. Three clean shots to the chest. Johnson, put 95 more in him, and we can all go home."
The worst part is the scenario is mildly believable knowing our police force.
No, I came here, looking for that exact comment
Guns have really improved since the year 131.
- The Aelia Capitolina PD were fucking loose cannons, man.

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!
In what time frame did those shooting happen?

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/

- It is, however, one of the outcomes, and is not represented. I'm not demanding it should be added, but I think it makes the "Good guy with a gun" argument even weaker.
  No fucking way I'm pulling out my gun if I think there's a >0 possibility Police are on the scene. Now I have to not only worry about taking care of the bad guy, but also about being shot to death by police.
- The bottom line is, people who feel safer with a gun than with the right to see a doctor, are not mature adults with a healthy sense of rational fear.
- In Germany, where there is stricter gun control, there was an incident in which a bystander tackled the knife attacker. The police mistook the bystander as the perpetrator, and because the police were distracted, the attacker got up and stabbed two more people including one of the police officers. https://apnews.com/article/germany-mannheim-stabbing-police-officer-death-a66c14970a53464aff0c1c77a7196481
  I agree with others. The idea of "good guy with a gun will stop the bad guy with a gun" is pretty much wishful thinking if the police arrives on the scene and mistakes who. It does not matter whether there is gun control or not, the good guy could be mistaken in the midst of chaos.

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.

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.

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.

In all of the situations, the police shot at least one dog.
Just to be sure they shot something.
- This is why more schools need therapy dogs: it might encourage the police to actually enter the building during active shootings.
To be fair, it might be both
- Nah. The cops shot an average of 98 times
which is more than half the time when cops show up anyways, and more than double of the rate where they successfully subdue the attacker or convinced them to surrender.

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.
- And that they are suicidal.
  US domestic policy is starting to make sense
Guys with no guns that think it's immature that several children die from frail men with ego issues every day:

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?

Cops seem pretty jumpy
Come on, it's not like a cop would yell "SHOTS FIRED" because of a falling acorn and proceed to empty his clip, would it?
- Not just empty his clip, but also fatally wounded the person he was transporting at the time. He thought that the guy in the backseat, having already been patted down twice, handcuffed and detained; had a gun.
  This was definitely a reasonable amount of anxiety for a state-sponsored bully to have /s
- Think I would rather be shot(chance being shot really) by a cop than let a demonstrated murderer continue picking targets based on whatever bullshit criteria they have in mind.
  I can maybe take a bullet or three(~200lbs of ... dubious composition). Children, the elderly or other likely targets? Not so much.
  EDIT: Imagine prefering random people get shot in a mass shooting(and/or by cops) vs the random "I can take it" self-proclaimed dumbass you encountered on the internet. Congrats, seven random morons, you've drank the just-as-toxic-but-sopposedly-opposite-of-toxic-masculinity kool-aide.
This was basically the active shooter training I had to attend when I worked at a big office. Even if you’re a “good guy with a gun” when the officials, armed site security or police, roll in they have no idea and you run a huge risk of being assumed to be the aggressor.
- Hell, they have a tendency to shoot each other, too. Cops shooting cops and cops shooting security guards are both things that happen.
Uvalde cops be like:
He also violated the dress code, so we waited to let him get it right. Shooters have this one obligation goddamit.
Live action team fortress 2

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.

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
If they didn't have guns, how could they kill the shooter? That's why thy shouldn't ban guns! /s

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

Quiet! You'll scare the gun lobby with that logic talk!
- Unfortunately they will probably just ignore it instead of acknowledging it.
Probably not b/c it's literally illegal for Congress to investigate gun violence harm thanks to the NRA.

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
- https://lemmy.ml/comment/13559989

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

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

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 🥳
- 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
- 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.
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
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.

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.

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

Basically never because they are ridiculously impractical for normal to carry around so they are virtually never available for anything to even think about using.

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

60% of the time, it works every time.

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

Lmao dude same
There almost certainly one incident where that happened.
...and sadly, probably one where the person shot wasn't a mass shooter.

The most 'Mercan thing on the internet today.

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.

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.

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?

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

I can see it getting hard to read.
A bystander subdued the attacker 42 times
- Like a wrestling match, just repeated body slams and tackles!
The police subdued the attacker 33 times

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.

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

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'.

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

Ima challenge your statement about "no indication the parent was bad." You yourself go on to explain how the parent purchases an automatic weapon for a kid who's had police visits for making threats... that's not bad? That's absolutely idiotic and insanely irresponsible. I'd go so far, even, to call it "bad". Hell, people die because of that "bad" decision.
That's a bad, bad parent in my book.
- Jesus, how the fuck is your comment evenly split on up/down-votes? Shitty parenting is shitty parenting.

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.

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"

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

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

dataisveryinteresting

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