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.
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.
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.