LEWISTON, ME—In the hours following a violent rampage in Maine in which a lone attacker killed at least 16 individuals and injured numerous others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Wednesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from …
I mean sure, but that’s completely irrelevant to my comment.
It seems their point is that the percentages are similar to success, so although the subject is different, the comparison still stands.
I’m sure people have been “the good guy with a gun” a number of times, but the chance of success and the risk of shooting an innocent factor into the continued use of that as an argument point against gun control.
(Edited: they’re to their)
So what’s the threshold of success rate that everyone winaccurate. 10%? 50%? Everybody talks about gun control “because if we can save just one life…” I’m not saying everyone should go out and buy a gun. I know plenty of people I would trust with a pencil. The point to my comment was that to make the claim that not one instance has been stopped by a good guy with a gun is both completely outrageous and inaccurate. Also, I know plenty of civilians that have had far more training than most police officers and military. When I was enlisted we had to qualify once a year. The requirement? Hit a target 23 out of 40 times. That’s pretty low considering the lethality of the other 17 rounds that missed their mark. I would assume police requirements are similar although I honestly have no idea.
People will believe what they want to believe when it comes to gun control. I think the article itself does a pretty good job with parody alone to make it’s point. The “red wire” comment was also a decent comedic analogy of what the argument for a “good guy with a gun” is.
If you don’t see their intended point already, then I don’t think I can explain it in any way that will help.