this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024
1011 points (93.8% liked)
Comic Strips
12957 readers
1444 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- [email protected]: "I use Arch btw"
- [email protected]: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Demonstrably false.
https://archive.is/xQqYY
Gotta be honest, those numbers are looking pretty good if only 7% of people always carry but 34% of shootings were stopped by one of those 7%. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a good majority of the remaining 65% weren't stopped with a gun because nobody there had one at the time. Same for the ones that weren't stopped by any bystanders armed or otherwise.
In at least one of those police just stood outside with theirs for two hours.
Where did you get that "65%" and "34%" from? It doesn't match the information in the graph you are responding to.
Then what percent of 64 is 42 and 22?
Oh, I see. You're only counting the times when a bystander successfully intervened. (And now you're being snarky about it, rather than just saying that's what you did.)
In my interpretation, the 113 times where the attacker left the scene are also relevant.
Well we could count the times where nobody intervened, but that doesn't negate that "that means there was nobody there with a gun to intervene" either. (And I was born snarky tyvm.)
Sure they're relevant, it's just that in most of them there was no gun other than the one held by the shooter (who in many cases wasn't allowed to bring it either) and nobody stopped him with their judo.
Of the ones that did get stopped, 34% were stopped with something that is only 8% likely to be there. That's still significant numbers whether you like it or not.
Even still, 22 is 9% of 249, that's still at least consistent with "likelihood gun there" based on 8% of carriers. I'd say it further supports my guess that "when not, it because gun not there."
And none of this even takes into account the propensity to choose gun free zones as targets further lessening the likelihood of armed response, but I think I'll mention that now.
Finally, it's a bit out of the scope of mass shootings alone but as for defensive gun use per year Harvard estimates it at 100,000/yr, which is more than our gun deaths including suicide yearly. That is also worth mention as while mass shootings themselves are also rare, defense with firearms happens more than death with firearms yearly as a whole.
Hmm.. If you say 8% of people carry guns, then surely there's a much higher than 9% chance that someone will have a gun at the scene. So something seems a bit off there.
I'd suggest that instead of just imagining how the percentage of people carrying guns might effect these stats, it might be better to try to measure that effect by looking at similar stats for other countries where gun carrying is far less common.
Idk sounds about right to me, 8%-8%. What do you expect, 8% of people carry so 50% of people have a gun on them at any given time? No, more like 8% of people have one at any given time, therefore 8% chance. Your figures seem off to me considering there are none, "nuh uh" isn't a rebuttal.
Yes I'd imagine in other countries where no bystanders have guns shootings and stabbings are stopped less by bystanders with guns, because they don't have them. We can see this play out in cases like the one in the UK where the shooter was stopped with a mammoth tusk ripped from a nearby museum. Frankly this seems to support my hypothesis that you have to have a gun to be able to use a gun.
I'm saying that if 8% of people carry guns and there are 20 such people at a particular location, then the probability that someone in the group has a gun would be
1-(1-0.08)^20which is around 80%. For 1 person, it's 8%, for 2 people it's 15%, and so on.But whatever. I can see you are firmly in the camp of 'we need good people with guns to stop bad people with guns' - a view that basically only exists where gun-violence is endemic.
Well unfortunately, there's already 600,000,000 with no registry to know where, so those are staying. That puts your options at either protect yourself should you ever have to (hopefully, and likely, you never will) or don't and just hope it all works out. Sure, in countries where there already aren't guns I'm not saying they should get more, but they're here to stay.
And I know that if I were in a mass shooting and had to try and stop the shooter, I'd rather have one than not, idk about you.
And yet there is no way of knowing that, so you're just making an unprovable assertion. I showed data.
That 34% came from your data, feel free to search for the amount of carriers and choose your favorite estimate and use that, it's still lower than 34%. As for the motivations for "not stop with gun" think critically, it's simply more likely that if such a low percentage of people carry daily, there's a higher chance that nobody there has one at any given location/time (aside from expected locations like "gun store" or "police station" where of course the likelihood of the presence of guns jumps to 100%, but for some reason those are rarely targeted). Would you rather stop a shooter with a gun of your own or risk bare handing it?
See above, re: unprovable assertion.
Yes yes ignore any other data, I'm gonna be honest dude I don't actually care if you believe the data or not, you can look it up if you really care but you're clearly more interested in dismissing it so, have a nice day I guess, this little subthread has reached its logical conclusion, goodbye.
I can't look up data that doesn't exist.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=percent+of+americans+carry+guns&ia=web
Since you evidentially are unaware of the existence of search engines I'll provide this helpful link.
Now, if you just wholly reject the concept of estimates (lol but you do you) you can go with the raw "has CCW" number which is tracked, though low (due to constitutional carry/open carry), and would benefit my argument. Again IDGAF, 34% ain't that bad of a percentage for how few people carry whether you believe it or not, and you're clearly dead set on your preconceived notions that misrepresented data is good and estimates are bad (though there is the 8% of americans with verifiable CCW permits, that ain't no estimate), so again I must bid thee adeu.
Sorry, that doesn't prove that there were no armed people in the majority of those situations. That's not how statistics work. It is not an even distribution and I don't think you're stupid enough to believe it is. You made an unprovable assertion.
Ok pal.
That's certainly one way to weasel out of the uncomfortable truth that statistics about owning any consumer good over a broad population in a capitalist system is not evenly distributed.
You're the one who doesn't want to engage, you can't then claim I'm "weaseling out." You've put forth no counter argument to argue further, this is your doing not mine, I'm just refusing to play your silly game.
I'm engaging with you this entire time and "that is not an even distribution" is literally a counter-argument. You just don't like it.
If it helps to use the 8% verifiable "CCW holders" then fine, there's still a low likelihood that any given person there has a gun to respond. The fact that you don't believe in "probability" isn't really my issue, everyone else understands it just fine.
Are you "refusing to play my silly game" or are you accepting that I am engaging with you and making a counter-argument and will continue to discuss this with me?
Because it can't be both.
I'm refusing to play by reiterating my original point and elaborating on said silly game of "nuh uh estimations and mathematical probability are fake news." Check your house for gas leaks.
And now that you've decided to hurl insults, we're done here.
Incidentally, a gas leak is one of the options I'm looking into in four to five years depending on the laws in Canada or certain other countries. Shall I let you know?
We've been done, you just refuse to shut up when someone politely declines your silly bullshit lol.
"Depending on the laws..." is it only legal to kill yourself or others with a gas leak in Canada? You planning on starting a gas leak? Not sure I want to know what you mean by that weird ass sentence but if you're experiencing suicidal or homicidal ideation of some sort please seek help, it's never the option you should take. I don't like you and don't let me know, but someone does I'm sure and I hope you get the help you need.
If you don't like me, wouldn't you want to know?
That's exactly what the medically-assisted euthanasia will be doing, so thank you. I thought you didn't like me.
No? Ideally we would just stop talking now and that's that. I don't hope you die or kill someone just because I don't like you, if you wish that on people just because you don't like them you seriously need help.
Although I suppose I didn't consider medically assisted, I'm not opposed to that, as much as I'm not a fan of you I'm sorry to hear it.
In any case fuck off.
Yes, again, the medically euthanasia is the help.
And I doubt you're sorry to hear it. You're certainly not sorry it's happening. But hearing it probably does make you uncomfortable. Too bad for you that your fragile senses have to be hurt by the idea of someone being euthanised.
And of course you want someone who you hate and think should fuck off to die. You just don't want to admit it to yourself. That's okay.
Ironic that someone who fantasizes about killing someone with a gun in a mass shooting is now saying that a bad person dying is bad.
Well technically it would also solve that problem, but I meant "mental help for wishing death against those you dislike" help, they're different "helps."
No I mean I'm sorry to hear it in a general "it sucks anyone should have to go through that" way, I don't have to like you, you suck.
I never said "die," I said "fuck off." As in "go away and stop talking to me." Are you really this dense or are you fucking with me?
What are you even on about? I never said I fantasize about mass shootings, I'm a hair away from reporting you which I do not do usually.
Why should it suck if someone you think is a bad person should have to go through that if it doesn't suck if a bad person gets shot? Would you prefer I be shot?
I never said it's good when someone gets shot either, you're sure a fan of putting words in other people's mouth.
What is good is self defense, what's not good is forgoing self defense in a futile attempt to rid a country of 600,000,000 guns, of their guns. Why don't you want women to be able to protect themselves from attacks? They are the fastest growing group of new owners for half a decade now, right above POC which is the second fastest, but you don't want women and POC to have their rights. (See, we can both play these stupid games.)
In fact since you like numbers, why don't we compare defensive gun uses to gun deaths yearly and see which one is more? I have all the figures if you're too lazy to look them up because I've already told them to 100 people just like you who are against defending yourself, but of course you'll just reject that too since it doesn't fit your narrow worldview hmm?
By the way are you aware of what the words "shut up and go away" mean? Do I need to use a different language? Cállate verga.
I'm aware that no one is forcing you to reply to me. You are free to shut up and go away yourself whenever you like if you wish for this conversation to end.
You clearly don't since you keep continuing it.
The thread has gotten so small my reply button disappeared, so I'm definitely not replying any further.
You dropped your argument btw.
I knew you wanted to keep talking to me. All that talk of wanting me to stop talking to you was a lie. Why did you lie?
And if you reply with claiming it wasn't a lie, it means you want to keep talking to me, which proves it's a lie. Good luck with that.