• queermunist she/her
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -110 days ago

    Not all shooters are blindly suicidal. They can be menaced with a gun and told to surrender. Yeah, in some situations it won’t work, but in some situations it will.

    42 incidents. Not even one of them used a gun to force a surrender? Hard to believe.

    • @michaelmrose
      link
      English
      210 days ago

      It’s incredibly easy to believe. Many people own guns most of them don’t go around armed literally all the time. Fewer yet are going to get in a gun fight to the death with a shooter who is actively killing people all around them. Of those willing to do so basically anyone with even half a brain is going to take the shot. By the time you have yelled “drop the” they have enough time to bring the gun to bear on you. It makes more sense to execute you than comply.

      What you are describing is a movie fantasy.

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -410 days ago

        42 people choosing to risk their lives while unarmed is also pretty hard to believe.

        Also, your claim that surrender is a fantasy contradicts the fact that a bunch of shootings ended in surrender to the police. I think that strongly implies a bystander with a gun could achieve a similar result.

        • @michaelmrose
          link
          English
          19 days 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -2
            edit-2
            8 days 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
              link
              English
              18 days 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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -38 days 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.