So in short, in the 433 cases, 12 of them is stop by good guy with gun and 42 of them is stop by good guy with massive balls.
So by the statistic provided we should give everyone massive balls instead of gun to stop gun violence.
I wish we could win this argument with logic, but I’m certain the fanatics will immediately latch onto the narrative that guns are being used by good guys already, but we obviously need more guns and less restrictions on them them to get those numbers up.
With Republicans, any fact against them is either ignored or bastardized to say the opposite of what it actually says.
Yeah, there’s rarely any logical sense being made because to them gun is a right, not privileges, and once privileges turn into right it take a dictator to take that away.
But then again, jailing people in shitty prison where most right are taken away is a okay 🤷
They only jail people outside of the in-group
I think gun people are counting the police as good guys with guns.
No they don’t. If you ban guns from citizens, police would still have guns in the US.
The argument of “Good guys with a gun” is about citizens not able to kill the “bad guy with a gun” before the police arrive.
I see.
Unbelievable that fucking guy or lady said that and got any upvotes. Living under a goddamn fucking rock. Thank you for correcting.
That makes it 142/433 where the shooter was shot by a “good guy with a gun”. Hardly a great figure either way…
Especially after the murdering was already done.
Then why does everyone else need them?
A genuine, actual answer is that when you’re being attacked, it is incredibly rare for a police officer to be standing there, ready to intervene. In life-or-death situations the police really only exist to take a report from whoever is left standing, and potentially make an arrest. There’s plenty of people out there who don’t have the strength to defend themselves in hand-to-hand combat, and even if they did, next to nobody has the skills necessary to reliably defend against a knife attack using their bare hands. That’s just plain how knife attacks work.
You can counter this with statistics that show that access to guns increases injuries and deaths, because they absolutely do, but pro-gun folks put the individual before the group on this issue. The individual, in their mind, should have the right to quick deadly force in order to facilitate defense of their own life, and other’s failure to handle that responsibility is not their problem and/or the price of that right.
There are always tradeoffs, in any policy you set for society. If you go the other direction there will be people who are victimized who would otherwise have been able to defend themselves. Which scenario is worse? How many victims of one type are worth victims of the other?
How does this turn into a knife argument? That’s just a distraction. We do already restrict certain types of knives, plus you can’t walk down a city street with a machete.
More importantly I can shut a door between myself and an attacker. Try that if they have a gun
They’re saying that if someone tries to attack you with a knife (or even no weapon), pro-gun proponents argue you should have a right to a firearm to defend yourself against that attacker, citing that most people straight up do not have the physical ability to ward off the attacker (who is on average an adult man).
I would argue having a firearm is unlikely to help. At close range, knife has the advantage and you probably won’t even get the gun out. At longer range, running/avoiding is a better choice if you can.
There’s a few YouTube channels that I think do a good job of being level-headed when it comes to analysing self-defense and giving decent advice around it. Hard2Hurt, Armchair Violence (a more general channel that recently did a video on unarmed knife defense), and Active Self Protection are three that come to mind right off the bat. All three say the same thing: • avoid sketchy locations if you can • pay attention to the people around you, especially in what are called “transition areas” like when you walk out of a store • deescalate conflict as much as possible (without giving in to demands) • leave as soon as you’re able • only fight when your hand is forced
As far as I’m aware, they all also advocate for carrying pepper spray and participating in folkstyle wrestling to use as your defensive base for things that don’t require lethal force. The problem is, you don’t have the only say on whether a situation will become a threat to your health and safety or not. Sometimes you’re just unlucky and a guy flips out on you for something petty and now you’ve got a guy pushing and shoving yelling about how he’s gonna fuck you up and you can see a pocket knife clipped in his pocket.
Most firearm uses are at very close range. If you practice your draw—and you absolutely fucking should—you should be able to draw and fire multiple rounds with a person busy punching or stabbing you. (Through what usually happens is the victim manages to get a window of separation and uses that to draw their weapon.) After a few shots your attacker will have had enough time to react to what you’re doing, but most people react to being shot in the gut by falling over. It’s mostly a psychological thing, but surprisingly effective. Once they do that, turn and run. All you’re trying to do is get them to stop hurting you so you can get away safely.
Well, you know, the more guns, the less gun violence. Yeeeeeeah, right. Since we officially have more guns than people, it should all be over soon.
Tyranny, or something I believe is the argument.
The last time citizens with guns stood up against the government was the Civil War, and they were standing up for their right to enslave other Americans.
Think someone needs to revisit the math.
Definitely agreed.
Oh wow, I missed this. That’s a fantastic insight to pull out of this.
12 of them is stop by good guy with gun and 42 of them is stop by good guy with massive balls.
No. There is nothing to imply that the 42 people didn’t have a gun, just that they didn’t shoot the attacker. That part seems fishy.
Oh yeah, I’m sure any of these cases were someone stopping to hold an active shooter at gunpoint and that somehow working out for them. Or maybe they used their gun as a melee weapon. Or maybe the attackers were subdued by being talked down over their common love of guns. Or maybe the active shooter ran out of ammo and came up to the good guy with a gun to get some more, at which point the good guy revealed they were actually tricking them into lowering their guard and put them into a headlock. Or maybe some other far-fetched bullshit that’ll let me equivocate over the fact that “good guys with guns” don’t do shit in the grand scheme of things.
Jeez, that’s a lot of words you needed to make a clown out of yourself, just because you are pissed by objective fact.
I think you’re pissed at the objective fact that 12/433 is fucking nothing and your “good guy with a gun” argument is a pathetic farce, so you’re trying muddy the waters by shifting the argument to a ridiculous, unfounded, unfalsifiable notion that any of the 42 subduers might’ve had literally anything to do with “good guys” having firearms.
I think you’re pissed at the objective fact that 12/433 is fucking nothing and your “good guy with a gun” argument
There is nothing in what I said that would imply what side of “good guy with a gun” argument I am on and there is nothing in the data that says anything about whether the 42 people had a gun.
My point is this is terrible and confusing representation of the data, as is often the case in any “data is beautiful” community.
But keep kicking around mad that the version that supports your narrative is not the only possible one :D
Yeah, so terrible and confusing that they didn’t mention guns in branches that don’t have anything to do with guns outside of a gun fetishist’s fanfiction.
So, I can imagine someone with a gun menacing the attacker at gunpoint and forcing them to surrender. No shots fired.
But the data doesn’t include this for bystanders. Maybe that’s because it doesn’t happen in real life, or maybe they muddied the watters. We can’t know because we can’t see the data they used to make this graphic.
branches that don’t have anything to do with guns
Branch that doesn’t involve shooting the attacker.
Keep trying. You will not get there, but at least you tried.
Thank you for standing up to the slavering morons around here about bad statistical graphics.
All I’m getting out of this is that police are, in fact less than 50% effective, so we’d better plan on dealing with it ourselves.
They could have also talked them out of it, which still takes balls
True, they didn’t specify whether in that 42 cases the citizen does have a gun but did not fire, just aiming and intimidate. However the data did split between
shot firedshot at the attacker(no mention hit or miss) vs subdued, not killed vs subdued, and also there’s a mention of the attacker surrender, so i assume “subdued” mean the attacker did not surrender but forced to give up whatever they’re doing.The chance that someone decided to go hand to hand with a gunman in the middle of blowing away the population whilst leaving their gun holstered is basically zero.
I recall reading like a gunman got tackled last year. If I get time I’ll dig it up
I think you missed the point. People sometimes DO manhandle the shooter. They don’t do so whilst having the option of blowing away the shooter.
Not what I said or implied, but no, that chance is not basically zero.
So in most cases the bad guy with a gun is stopped by a bad guy with a gun (himself).
The Hitler strategy, classic.
Right.
- That means “good guy with gun” argument is wrong
- That means mental health intervention can prevent a much larger proportion of these tragedies
I read “The police shot the attacker 98 times” with a different interpretation at first lol.
With average cop accuracy that’d probably exhaust their armory’s ammo supply
Lucky they busted old Billy and his one pot plant, and seized all his cash. That will refill the sheriff coffers.
“sprinkle some crack on 'em. Open and shut case Johnson!”
Do you think they got them?
That seems excessive.
I agree with the point this is trying to make, but I don’t think it does its job.
Like, the whole argument from the ‘good guy with a gun’ crowd is about stopping them early. You’d need to cross reference each of these catagories with ‘how many people did the mass shooter kill’. And, this would really only be a strong argument vs the ‘good guy with a gun’ point if the ‘shot by bystander’ result had no fewer average deaths.
Additionally, it’s easy to clap back with ‘well, yeah, our society doesn’t have enough “good people” trained with guns, that’s why it’s only 5%!’
Again, I don’t agree with those points, it’s just that this chart is pretty bad at presenting an argument against them.
Also, the data needs to include how many people are accidentally shot by guns through improper usage and storage.
From the numbers I have seen, far more children are killed accidentally by good-guy-guns then they are saved by those very same guns
We need good kids with guns to shoot the bad kids with guns!?
we need good kids with guns to shoot the neutral kids with guns who might take someone else out when they shoot themselves.
I think they take away your good-guy card before that happens
Ah, the classic no true good guy fallacy.
You should see the data for people improperly using cars or medications or alcohol. Pretty scary stuff, I think everything should be illegal.
it’s easy to clap back with ‘well, yeah, our society doesn’t have enough “good people” trained with guns, that’s why it’s only 5%!’
I agree. It’s pathetic how shit arguments that make no actual sense are allowed to fly by millions of people.
Cause many people don’t want their beliefs challenged. They want to live without accepting facts, or even regardless of facts.
Its the culture war mentality.
“Our idea would work, if the damn Wokes didn’t stop us all from having guns at all times!”
Its always the reason why ‘their ideas don’t work’; cause their opponents aren’t ‘letting them’
The other problem with the “good guy with a gun” is how many people does an attacker need to kill before you are the good guy killing the bad guy? One? And what if you didn’t witness it? The “good guy” with the gun attacking another guy with a gun without knowing what’s going on, are they still the “good guy” in that scenario? It’s a mess.
The whole thing stems from fallacious logic. Arming everyone doesn’t stop bad guys murdering people, at best it might curtail the length of some attacks and at worst it causes innocents to die as so-called “good guys” try to save the day and make it worse.
Prevention is the way forward, as then 0 people die. And the best way to do that is no one has guns (not even most police; just a small subset of specialist police). That is an anathema or sacrilegious to Americans, but it’s the approach taken in many democratic and free countries in the world.
If the chart is trying to make a point, it’s making the wrong one anyway.
I would also zoom in on the suicide of the attacker.
That’s some wild stuff to show these people needed help loooong before they did this.
Homicidal ideation does not always equate to wanting to live with having killed someone, and a lot of these people are closer to normal than they realize until they are facing potential consequences for their actions. I would posit that killing oneself after doing something so heinous is one of the saner outcomes.
A lot of people experience “fucked around, found out” immediately or shortly after they cross a line, before anyone else has a chance to tell them they fucked up.
Yeah I can see that too. It’s a shame the US government banned research into firearm violence by the CDC.
How many people does the attacker need to kill? Ideally, none. If an attacker is attempting to kill someone and that person is killed instead of the potential victim, good.
If I’m out and someone tries to attack me, I’m pulling out my pistol and ending it right there. I’m not trying to be a “good guy with a gun,” I’m just carrying to protect myself.
and zero people die Are you dense? Murder will still happen because people have been killing people before guns. You’re also gonna take guns away from law-abiding people like me who love going out on the weekends to shoot with their buddies or hunt and leave nothing but criminals with guns? Dumb.
I think it also misses a special case, where a active shooting would have happened, but a ‘good guy with a gun’ stopped it before a death toll occurred by either holding the shooter at gunpoint or shooting them.
This would likely be a rare case that would be much harder to quantify but you know it will be argued it’s needed for that case.
That is covered in this graphic as subdued by bystander, it’s a small amount and they include cases where people didn’t subdue with gun.
They don’t stop a shorter before it happens. It’s not a scenario that exists. If you shoot someone before they draw their weapon to shoot, your the active shooter.
It also leaves out the situations where the bad guy with the gun was stopped before becoming an active shooter.
Okay, so I’m not the only one who read “shot the attacker 98 times” and for a split second imagined this scenario where 131 times, the attacker was shot a gratuitous and strangely precise number of times, right?
this has me laughing uncontrollably… it’s so specific but also because it’s the police, it’s not impossible. god there’s tears in my eyes from laughing
“Shooter is down. Three clean shots to the chest. Johnson, put 95 more in him, and we can all go home.”
“you can keep the crack, this one actually did something”
The worst part is the scenario is mildly believable knowing our police force.
No, I came here, looking for that exact comment
Guns have really improved since the year 131.
The Aelia Capitolina PD were fucking loose cannons, man.
He’s dead jim
This one’s only counting active mass shooters. When it’s still a lesser shooting with under 4 victims, the odds of a vigilante rando with a gun - that is, a citizen packin’ heat and not a cop off the clock - stopping the violence is about 1 in 7000.
So, once a year in America.
There are two different categories: “active shooter” and “mass shooting”.
An “active shooter” has strict definitions and is tracked by the FBI. These are the events depicted in this graph. An active shooter is someone trying to kill people at random in a public place. The number of casualties is irrelevant. A few years back a guy tried to attack a courthouse in Texas and was killed by a cop before he even got a shot off. That still counts as an active shooter.
A “mass shooting” has no single definition, and media and government organizations that use the term set their own parameters. Many of them define it as “four or more people killed or injured”, regardless of circumstances.
The problem with the term “mass shooter” (and the reason why the FBI doesn’t use it) is that it’s overly broad. Guy goes nuts and kills his family before offing himself? Mass shooting. Robocop shoots four guys in the dick? Mass shooting.
EDIT: It’s worth noting that the linked source clarifies that the graph shows all active shooter incidents between the year 2000 and 2021. This throws off your calculation significantly.
No it’s not, dgu’s happen all the damn time. Hell there is a subreddit that tracks the ones that are found. There are countless videos of people being attacked, and pulling a firearm and the violence magically stops. That’s a DGU, even though no round was fired. So it doesn’t show up on lists like these, which have an agenda.
The really crazy thing about the graph is that there are 433 fucking datapoints!
Even crazier, the graph is two years old.
It’s the kids that are the problem, not the assault weapons. Every kid should be strapped. That would solve all problems. That and tariffs. We can get that number up to a 1000. 1000 is better than 433.
Hoo-rah! USA!
In what time frame did those shooting happen?
Don’t forget when cops shoot the good guy with a gun!
Here are a few I could find quickly. There’s at least one more that I just happen to recall that didn’t come up because I can’t seem to remember where it happened. I think it was more recent than any of these. And I’m quite sure there are many more than that, this was just the most time I was willing to spend googling at the moment.
https://www.bet.com/article/eokrmr/black-man-kaun-green-disarm-shooter-shot-by-police
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/12/good-guy-with-a-gun-comes-to-rescue-police-kill-him/
This is about that stupid argument against gun regulation.
What cops do is a different issue.
In Germany, where there is stricter gun control, there was an incident in which a bystander tackled the knife attacker. The police mistook the bystander as the perpetrator, and because the police were distracted, the attacker got up and stabbed two more people including one of the police officers. https://apnews.com/article/germany-mannheim-stabbing-police-officer-death-a66c14970a53464aff0c1c77a7196481
I agree with others. The idea of “good guy with a gun will stop the bad guy with a gun” is pretty much wishful thinking if the police arrives on the scene and mistakes who. It does not matter whether there is gun control or not, the good guy could be mistaken in the midst of chaos.
It is, however, one of the outcomes, and is not represented. I’m not demanding it should be added, but I think it makes the “Good guy with a gun” argument even weaker.
No fucking way I’m pulling out my gun if I think there’s a >0 possibility Police are on the scene. Now I have to not only worry about taking care of the bad guy, but also about being shot to death by police.
How many of those 12 citizens that stopped the attacker had that happen too?
Personally I don’t think it’s worth sacrificing the clarity of the image with even more rare specifics.
Well out of 12, there were 4 posted when the good guy with a gun dies. That isn’t including any of the ones we don’t know about, but that would be a 33% that you would die if you are a good guy with a gun and you “save the day.”
Man, it’s just a point of discussion. I literally said I’m not demanding it should be added.
And, in the examples I gave, at least two of them did stop the attacker before being killed by police.
The bottom line is, people who feel safer with a gun than with the right to see a doctor, are not mature adults with a healthy sense of rational fear.
Statistically, we need more bad guys with guns, to stop themselves.
And here my friends is why it is important to learn to interpret data, because by the numbers, you are correct.
Sooo technically most of the time a “Bad guy with a gun” is stopped by a “Bad guy with a gun”.
That’s why you should make sure they all have access to guns.
And that they are suicidal.
US domestic policy is starting to make sense
Guys with no guns that think it’s immature that several children die from frail men with ego issues every day:
Had a little trouble reading this at first, I was like, “The cops showed up and shot the person 98 times? Police brutality is so ridiculously out of hand!.” Then I realized I was reading it wrong, but decided the statement was still valid.
In all of the situations, the police shot at least one dog.
Just to be sure they shot something.
This is why more schools need therapy dogs: it might encourage the police to actually enter the building during active shootings.
Imo the dog is more likely to stop the shooter.
To be fair, it might be both
Nah. The cops shot an average of 98 times
which is more than half the time when cops show up anyways, and more than double of the rate where they successfully subdue the attacker or convinced them to surrender.
I feel like if police arrive on scene, they’re probably shooting whoever has a gun, “good guy” or “bad guy.” Cops seem pretty jumpy. Perhaps if we could make the good guys and bad guys wear differently colored hats?
Cops seem pretty jumpy
Come on, it’s not like a cop would yell “SHOTS FIRED” because of a falling acorn and proceed to empty his clip, would it?
Not just empty his clip, but also fatally wounded the person he was transporting at the time. He thought that the guy in the backseat, having already been patted down twice, handcuffed and detained; had a gun.
This was definitely a reasonable amount of anxiety for a state-sponsored bully to have /s
In the link it specifically states the person wasn’t harmed (somehow). Unless there was a new development in the story this is false. ACAB and all that but we can’t spread misinformation.
Either I’m misremembering or one of the things I’ve seen on it was wrong then. I watched this video earlier this week and I thought I remembered seeing body cam footage of them actually going to check on the guy after the shooting and the dude was dead in the backseat
That would be a cut together clip. Disinformation. I’m sorry you were subjected to it but in the case of the loud acorn the person detained was amazingly not physically harmed.
i definitely remember the dude not getting hit by even a single shot, at least significantly so.
Think I would rather be shot(chance being shot really) by a cop than let a demonstrated murderer continue picking targets based on whatever bullshit criteria they have in mind.
I can maybe take a bullet or three(~200lbs of … dubious composition). Children, the elderly or other likely targets? Not so much.
EDIT: Imagine prefering random people get shot in a mass shooting(and/or by cops) vs the random “I can take it” self-proclaimed dumbass you encountered on the internet. Congrats, seven random morons, you’ve drank the just-as-toxic-but-sopposedly-opposite-of-toxic-masculinity kool-aide.
I can maybe take a bullet or three
/s?
Two friends of mine had perpetrators walk up and empty their clips into them. The smaller friend didn’t make it, but the larger one did miraculously survive with 8 bullets in his torso. I’d be morbidly curious to see if there was research supporting that the extra mass made the difference
I mean, there’s statistically more area without a critical organ/blood vessel to be hit. Plus you have more blood, so you can lose more in total.
I think the difference would be small, especially compared to other variables though.
You might be surprised. Some people get shot 20 times and walk away without any irreparable damage. It’s all effectively random.
it depends on where you get hit, unless you get hit directly in a main artery, or dont get tended to quick enough, you’ll more than likely be fine given enough time.
Sorry, why /s? Cops aren’t even particularly good(or safe) shots. I would be more worried about them hitting another bystander in their attempts to shoot me.
I’m not saying I would enjoy being shot, but statistically, about two-thirds of gun-shot victims survive(source: the Brady campaign), and, mass of jello that I am, I am in pretty good health since my time wiring barges up over the last year.
That said, this is assuming I happen to be armed and choose to put myself in harm’s way, which is another consideration where I would prefer to be harmed vs others. Odds are good it would be because I chose to do something objectively stupid, versus others whose only choices are to run, hide, or confront their attckers un-armed and otherwise un-prepared.
“I can maybe take a bullet or three” sounded like such over the top bravado I was hoping it was meant tongue in cheek.
Don’t get me wrong though I was just commenting on that sentence. I am not meaning to undermine your point about police and their (lack of) aim.
Opposite of Bravado. I see myself as disposable vs most people until shown different, and most people I know who say such things as I have here and mean them seem to feel the same way about themselves. A mistake I don’t live to learn from(or learn of) is less terrifying than a failure to do right by others.
I’m not saying I definitely won’t just hide, cry, piss and shit myself, but I didn’t do any of that(until hours later) the last few times I had guns pointed at me, and no, I don’t mean by friends or due to personal shenanigans(unless you count signing on certain government forms). It has been over 15 years since the last time though.
This was basically the active shooter training I had to attend when I worked at a big office. Even if you’re a “good guy with a gun” when the officials, armed site security or police, roll in they have no idea and you run a huge risk of being assumed to be the aggressor.
Hell, they have a tendency to shoot each other, too. Cops shooting cops and cops shooting security guards are both things that happen.
Uvalde cops be like:
He also violated the dress code, so we waited to let him get it right. Shooters have this one obligation goddamit.
Live action team fortress 2
You know what, the American obsession with guns has never been anything to do with “protection”, it’s about being ammosexual.
Most people who carry guns are doing it for self-defense, not civil defense.
The rules of an Active-shooter event are:
- Flee
- If you can’t flee, hide.
- If you can’t hide, fight back.
Carrying a concealed weapon doesn’t change that. I have a little 380 pocket pistol I’ll occasionally carry. It’s low-capacity, low-power, and low-accuracy. No way am I volunteering to take on a psychopath with a long gun who isn’t worried about collateral damage with my little pea shooter, and anyone Who expects me too just because I’m armed can kiss my ass.
I carry a pistol to protect me from muggers and car-jackers, not to protect the public.
Having the general public feeling that they need to carry a gun for self defense just sounds crazy to me.
Stabbings have risen here in the UK but generally it’s either a rare occasion where some nutter is on the run or it’s gang related. In general I would never feel the need to carry my own knife around for self defense. I don’t know anyone who carries a knife around with them for self defense.
Would anyone you know tell you if they carried a knife for self-defense, given that it’s generally a crime to do so in the UK?
Close friends sure and yes you need to have a good reason as to why you’re walking around with a knife in public.
It’s similar in a lot of states in the US. You aren’t legally allowed to carry a knife for self defense, or as a weapon, but recently in my state, the laws were changed so that you can carry any size blade without a reason. So if you say “I carry a knife for defense” you’ll get fined/arrested and your knife would be confiscated, but if you say “it’s for cutting stuff” or nothing at all, thats legal.
IANAL. Read your local knife laws.
Imo only an idiot would carry a knife for self-defence, especially if untrained. If someone (probably women especially) feels unsafe, carrying CS-spray would be more reasonable imo.
Its weird you got downvotes. A knife is a terrible weapon for self-defense, the odds of you getting fucked up by your own knife are extremely high. Pepper spray is far superior to a knife for any realistic self-defense situation.
I knew a paramedic who said that the winner of a knife fight was the one who died in the ambulance instead of on the scene.
Tell that to all the young idiots in gangs
Doubt they carry knifes for self-defence. But then, gang-members are probably not the people with the best education.
Almost all of our gun violence is the same, gang/drug related. The media here acts like it’s random killings all over the place, its not. You have a better chance of drowning in a pool than getting killed by an ar15 here, yet people, even in this thread, think it’s something that happens like every 3 seconds.
You conveniently left out school shootings. between 2018-2023 more than 1200 school shooting incidents occured. You literally can not kill a dozen of people with knives but u can easily do it with a gun.
No I did not. And no there was not 1200 school shootings, those numbers are created by the GVA and used as a propaganda piece for anti-2a rhetoric.
Even NPR did a piece on it:
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/08/27/640323347/the-school-shootings-that-werent
It wouldn’t be wrong if someone wanted a knife for self defense though
I’d feel fine with someone carrying a weapon if it’s based on a reasonable fear, and they make an effort to stay trained/safe with the weapon. For instance, they exited an abusive relationship with a significant other who feels they “belong” to them.
But there’s a lot of people who stretch the statement of “I don’t feel safe” to far more cases than make sense.
The really sad thing about this graph is the fact that 433 active shootings barely covers half a year
> died by suicide
Sometimes even bad guys with a gun stop themselves.
If they didn’t have guns, how could they kill the shooter? That’s why thy shouldn’t ban guns! /s
Unless thay weren’t actually ‘bad’ people, rather they found themselves having to use a gun as the only option left to them. One notable bit of info missing is why these people had a gun and why were they using it?
This chart is taking into account situations where a person shot or attempted to shoot multiple unrelated people in a public setting. The stereotypical mass shooting. I really don’t care what someone is going through, my sympathy for the poor and disenfranchised does not extend to indiscriminate murder
Thanks for clarifying. My point was not to ilicit sympathy, any such violence is ahorant and the perpetrator must take responsibility, ultimately, but rather to illicit empathy. To understand how and why people end up in such a place then creates the starting point to find solutions, or at least, minimise how frequently they may occur within a population in the future.
As such, I’m inclined to think that in at least some of the cases where the individual commits suicide once the police turn up, they have reached a total breaking point, so to speak, and the last option they can see has gone so suicide is sll that’s left.
This to me doesn’t suggest a ‘bad’ person, more so someone who has found themselves in a terrible place, particularly in cases where that’s no fault of their own, and are wndingvup doing something bad. Being ‘bad’ to me is closer to gansta/mobster mentality - e.g. killing people is fine, so long as its not us, and i cant imagine any mass shooter being someone like that. There are a myriad of variables of course, and this may only apply to some of the people painted as ‘bad’ in this infografic.
