One stat you’ll never get is violence prevented by the mere presence of a gun.
Ran into a hunter the other day. Oh boy was he fucking pissed to find me on his hunting lease, again. (I got lost. Sue me.) Dude was fucking shaking, about to choke trying to be polite. I suspect he would have beat my skinny ass if not for the pistol under my arm.
Are you suggesting that “school shootings” are the only type of violence that should be stopped?
That rapes shouldn’t be stopped?
That armed robberies shouldn’t be stopped?
That burglaries shouldn’t be stopped?
That muggings shouldn’t be stopped?
You are specifically asking for a contradiction: An event that simultaneously occurred, and was prevented by an armed individual. I cannot answer your paradoxical scenario.
A better question is how many murders happened because of the availability of firearms vs how many crimes did the use of a firearm prevent a violent crime.
I suspect many many many more murders happen because of how easy it us to get guns vs how many crimes are stopped because of them.
But as soon as you go there, you have to weigh 1,220,000 reported violent crimes (most criminal violence goes unreported) against ~19,000 murders (virtually all murders are reported).
You’re 64 times more likely to report a violent crime than to be murdered, and several times more likely than that to experience (but not report) a violent crime.
Guns are used far more often to stop those violent crimes than to commit murder.
Indeed. Especially when virtually all defensive gun use involves the attacker running away as soon as they realize the danger they are in. These attempts are some of the least likely types of violent crime to be reported.
And again your last sentence is yet another claim that you could not prove. It could be the case but it might not be and neither one of us has any way to prove it because the pro-gun lobbies shut down any rational scientific study that might demonstrate that guns are the issue (not claiming guns are the problem but they stifle any research into it).
I am aware of how the CDC was censured for non-scientific propaganda they were peddling in the 90s. I am also aware that the justice department (the appropriate entity for this sort of study) has never been restricted in the way you suggest.
I am also aware that the CDC did conduct a study (during Obama’s administration) that largely confirmed pro-gun claims, and has subsequently been suppressed.
If they are somehow immune from violent perpetrators, I would agree. For example, if the “public building” has armed security.
Otherwise, we’re just creating unarmed victim zones.
From my perspective, it’s zones that are free of hammers looking for nails.
You are calling out the armed civilian argument. Please point me to an armed civilian who has stopped a school shooting.
One stat you’ll never get is violence prevented by the mere presence of a gun.
Ran into a hunter the other day. Oh boy was he fucking pissed to find me on his hunting lease, again. (I got lost. Sue me.) Dude was fucking shaking, about to choke trying to be polite. I suspect he would have beat my skinny ass if not for the pistol under my arm.
Are you suggesting that “school shootings” are the only type of violence that should be stopped?
That rapes shouldn’t be stopped?
That armed robberies shouldn’t be stopped?
That burglaries shouldn’t be stopped?
That muggings shouldn’t be stopped?
You are specifically asking for a contradiction: An event that simultaneously occurred, and was prevented by an armed individual. I cannot answer your paradoxical scenario.
A better question is how many murders happened because of the availability of firearms vs how many crimes did the use of a firearm prevent a violent crime.
I suspect many many many more murders happen because of how easy it us to get guns vs how many crimes are stopped because of them.
That is, indeed, a better question.
But as soon as you go there, you have to weigh 1,220,000 reported violent crimes (most criminal violence goes unreported) against ~19,000 murders (virtually all murders are reported).
You’re 64 times more likely to report a violent crime than to be murdered, and several times more likely than that to experience (but not report) a violent crime.
Guns are used far more often to stop those violent crimes than to commit murder.
Your last sentence is impossible to prove.
Indeed. Especially when virtually all defensive gun use involves the attacker running away as soon as they realize the danger they are in. These attempts are some of the least likely types of violent crime to be reported.
And again your last sentence is yet another claim that you could not prove. It could be the case but it might not be and neither one of us has any way to prove it because the pro-gun lobbies shut down any rational scientific study that might demonstrate that guns are the issue (not claiming guns are the problem but they stifle any research into it).
I am aware of how the CDC was censured for non-scientific propaganda they were peddling in the 90s. I am also aware that the justice department (the appropriate entity for this sort of study) has never been restricted in the way you suggest.
I am also aware that the CDC did conduct a study (during Obama’s administration) that largely confirmed pro-gun claims, and has subsequently been suppressed.
I never suggested anything of the sort. I asked a simple question of you which you don’t seem to be able to answer.
Correct. I specifically said that I couldn’t answer it. Would you care to address any of the other points I presented?
Proof?