'Gun-loving' GOP governor reportedly seen 'running scared for his life' from mass shooting

some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org to News@lemmy.world – 897 points –
'Gun-loving' GOP governor reportedly seen 'running scared for his life' from mass shooting
rawstory.com

Run, you fucking piece of shit. Go go go gogogogogogog!

My niece told her grandmother about her fear of getting murdered at school. Feel that fear, asshole.

271

You are viewing a single comment

Last I looked, they had a lower success rate than unarmed people.

I'm a firm support of much strong gun control laws, and so this claim is something I would really love to be true ..which is exactly why I'm pausing here and asking to see the evidence. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.

So what is this based on?

It was a while back, so i can't remember the caveats (if any). It may have been for that year or something. A quick dig looks like it holds up though.

This media investigation, aided by Texas State University shows the stats.

According to the data, citizens stopped shooters 50 times in the 316 attacks. But in only 10 out of those 50 incidents did citizens actually stop the shooter by using a gun. The other 40 times, it was with their hands or another weapon.

It also briefly touches on the trauma when an actual good person kills someone.

“I don’t feel like I killed a human,” says Wilson. “I killed an evil and that’s how I’m coping with the situation.”

“The individual did not make any attempt to get up because of his head wound. He didn’t make any… it was just quivering and that was it.”

He is actively forcing himself to not see the shooter as a person and it's clear the image of the person he killed twitching on the ground will haunt him forever.

The pro-gun crowd didn't save that man, they sold him and everybody else in that church out. They armed the mass shooter then used Wilson as propaganda, claiming his trauma is actually the gold standard for dealing with gun violence and that teachers and targeted minorities should be enthusiastically following suit.

I'm sure the fact that it would preserve or increase the profits of a lobby group that gives $16 million a year to Republicans is purely coincidence.

After all, if an industry was causing massive social harm, they'd immediately cease operation for the public good, not suppress research and statistics about how many people they'd killled while astroturfing and hiring politicians as shills.

But in only 10 out of those 50 incidents did citizens actually stop the shooter by using a gun.

And this begs the question. . .what percentage of people actually carry a gun? If it's less than 20% then that means gun owners were more effective at stopping it (well, it would actually be more complicated, but I'm just trying to demonstrate my point).

Not only is it more complicated, it doesn't even matter.

Around 80% of mass shooters bought the guns legally. Of the 20% remaining, the majority are teenagers who used their parent's legally owned firearm.

Criminals in America have better access to firearms than they do in anywhere else in the world, with many of the guns in South America being originally purchased from a store in the United States.

This has resulted in a homicide rate that is far higher than it should be. Sort this list by homicide rate and take note of just how far before and after "United States" you have to scroll before finding a country you would consider "wealthy and stable".

As compensation for that, we're told things like "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". But the "good guys" have been given all the guns they want and they stop exactly fuck all. It's not even close to the number of shootings they enable.

So who gives a fuck how "effective" they are on paper? In the real world, police and unarmed civilians stop more mass shooters and it doesn't require arming the mass shooters in the first place.

So who gives a fuck how “effective” they are on paper?

If it doesn't matter, why did you bring it up?

Because you posted apologism using exactly that phrasing. You've also misinterpreted "You shouldn't give a fuck" as meaning "I don't give a fuck".

Because you posted apologism using exactly that phrasing.

So, wait. . .it's my fault you made a BS claim you can't back up, despite the fact that you made the comment before I ever even posted in the thread? And I was posting "apologism" despite explicitly saying I want it to be true. Wow, I'm quite amazing! lol

You’ve also misinterpreted “You shouldn’t give a fuck” as meaning “I don’t give a fuck”.

At no point did you use the phrase "you shouldn't give a fuck." Another amazing thing by me misinterpreting something you didn't even say. Man, I'm even outdoing myself today.

So, wait. . .it's my fault you made a BS claim you can't back up, despite the fact that you made the comment before I ever even posted in the thread?

You mean the one I immediately backed up, that you could have fact checked yourself in seconds? Because "citizens with guns have stopped fewer mass shootings than unarmed civilians" is objectively true.

And I was posting "apologism" despite explicitly saying I want it to be true.

So? It's the internet. People lie about who they are and what they think all the time, especially among the far-right. I'm not obligated to politely believe you.

And to put it bluntly, I don't.

Your "do you have the stats" sounded like sealioning and when I gave you the benefit of the doubt and answered, your entire comment focused on trying to claw back a win for gun owners.

Now suddenly it's a "BS fact", despite still being objectively true. Are you sure you haven't let your true feelings get involved?

At no point did you use the phrase "you shouldn't give a fuck." Another amazing thing by me misinterpreting something you didn't even say. Man, I'm even outdoing myself today.

I also didn't use the phrase "I don't give a fuck", but that didn't stop you.

You mean the one I immediately backed up

And to which I immediately pointed out why it doesn't actually support your claim that they had a "lower success rate" but only that it happened more often one way. It's like arguing that the crime rate is higher in some place because there is 5x the amount of crime there, but ignoring the fact that the population is 20x as great.

Your “do you have the stats” sounded like sealioning

I explained why I was doing it: confirmation bias is a hell of a drug. If be cognizant of my own biases is suspicious to you, that says a lot more about you than it does about me.

your entire comment focused on trying to claw back a win for gun owners.

This is the ultimate problem here. I'm trying to get to the truth, you're trying to be right. So the fact that I'm not just blinding agreeing with you, and pointing out the faults in your argument. . .well, that must mean I'm arguing the other side. You're thinking is too black and white, which is probably why simply pointing out the fault in your position has sent you into a partisan fit.

I also didn’t use the phrase “I don’t give a fuck”, but that didn’t stop you.

Stop me from what? I never said "I don't give a fuck" or even that "you don't give a fuck." I asked, after you questioned why anyone would give a fuck about the claim you made, why you brought it up in the first place. You've been sent into such a tizzy by someone simply trying to help you refine your argument, instead of just blindly saying "you're right," that you can't even follow the posts from one to the next.

You'd be far better served to stop trying to be right, and start trying to figure out what's right.

And to which I immediately pointed out why it doesn't actually support your claim that they had a "lower success rate" but only that it happened more often one way

Sounds like you're going to have to prove that for each of these shootings, it wasn't the case that every single person there had a gun on them, otherwise it would be completely unfair on unarmed civilians.

At the very best, you've immediately latched on to semantics to twist "which groups more often stop a mass shooter" into "is someone more likely to stop a mass shooting if they have a gun".

" I asked, after you questioned why anyone would give a fuck about the claim you made, why you brought it up in the first place.

Thanks for clarifying that you absolutely did misinterpret exactly the part you were insisting you didn't misinterpret. I was asking who gives a fuck about which group "more effective".

At the very best, you’ve immediately latched on to semantics to twist “which groups more often stop a mass shooter” into “is someone more likely to stop a mass shooting if they have a gun”.

I twisted nothing, it's what you said. You're just now regretting what you said, so instead of just admitting fault - because remember the goal here for you isn't to get to the truth, but to be right - it has to be some fault of mine. Sorry, but the only one twisting here is you.

I was asking who gives a fuck about which group “more effective”.

Clearly you do because you said:

Last I looked, they had a lower success rate than unarmed people.

So you brought it up, and if no one gives a fuck about it, why did you bring it up? Why is this so hard for you to remember what you said? Why is it so hard for you to admit what you said?

Sure, we can do yet another lap.

ChatGPT, trained on every piece of written content it could scrape and notorious for giving the most generic answers to every question doesn't seem to have any issue with my phrasing, nor does it demand I turn it into some bizarre "effectiveness per capita" thing.

Of course, you did. I explained that "effectiveness" didn't matter, because we'd be trading "3% of mass shooting were slightly less bad" for "there are half as many mass shootings", so "who gives a fuck [which group is more effective] ".

And fuck me sideways, it looks like if you phrase it more politely, that usage is common enough to turn up as the second definition.

So I'm done going in circles. You're either autistic and struggling with language and continuing is functionally just bullying someone for being neurodivergent or you're a liar, grasping at straws.

Oh, we're using AI now to try and win the argument? lol

Of course, because we've already established that you are not trying to figure out what's right, but trying to win, you didn't ask the follow up question I did to see what it said. Here's what happens when you do that

Wow, imagine that! It reveals the assumption that it made and how the answer actually tells an incomplete story. I guess considering you are hanging your hat on AI, you kind of have to admit that I'm right now. (lol. jk We both know that won't happen).

I feel kind of naive right now. I should have realized right at the start when you said people are disingenuous on the internet and lie about shit all the time, you were actually just warning me that you are disingenuous and lie on the internet. I'm a little ashamed of myself, it was so obvious. Thanks for teaching me something.

And fuck me sideways, it looks like if you phrase it more politely, that usage is common enough to turn up as the second definition.

Yes, and, again, that "immediately preceding statement" is what you said, not me. I was asking you that if it isn't "important" (the thing you were diminishing with the statement) why bring it up at all?

The only struggling going on here is you with your inability to admit that you were just wrong. Hell, this was such an easy time for you to do it too, because we are generally in agreement, but your ego is so fragile that you just can't even do it then. It's like how I imagine dealing with Trump.

7 more...
7 more...
7 more...
7 more...
7 more...
7 more...
7 more...
7 more...
7 more...
7 more...
7 more...
7 more...
7 more...