15ish% of Americans carry sometimes, around 7% always.
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.
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.
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.
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)^20 which 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.