• Rivalarrival
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    22 hours ago

    I think it makes sense to not allow them in parks, public buildings, etc.

    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.

    • kinther@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      20 hours ago

      You are calling out the armed civilian argument. Please point me to an armed civilian who has stopped a school shooting.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        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.

      • Rivalarrival
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        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.

        • MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          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.

          • Rivalarrival
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            44 minutes ago

            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.

              • Rivalarrival
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                26 minutes ago

                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.

        • kinther@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          20 hours ago

          I never suggested anything of the sort. I asked a simple question of you which you don’t seem to be able to answer.

          • Rivalarrival
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            20 hours ago

            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?