• michaelmrose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Basically you doubt… reality and want to somehow assign credit for guns you hallucinated exist even when people used their feet and fists. Face it random joe with a gun saving the day during a mass shooting is so rare as to be non-existent. Good guys with guns are basically worthless in such misadventures.

    If we look at home use is even dumber. Having a gun in the average house increases your chance of death.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      What I doubt is that, of 42 people who stopped a shooter, literally zero of them used a gun to nonviolently deescelate. Zero? That’s definitely possible, I’m not arguing against that. What I’m saying is, because the data isn’t organized well, it’s unclear. It only says that they subdued the attacker without shooting. That does not indicate that they didn’t have a gun.

      Sometimes, rarely, you can stop a bad guy with a gun by just pointing a gun at him.

      • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think you don’t understand how few people have a gun at their hip at any given time despite how many having one at home.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          Well it looks like at least 22 people definitely had a gun, or 33% of shooters that were subdued by a bystander were shot.

          But not even one of them used a gun to force a surrender without firing? Possible! Unlikely.