No, genius, it’s statistics. Math. You know, the class you slept through in high school? I’ll make it simple for you.
Out of 433 shooters:
12 were shot by randos (2.7%)
42 were subdued by randos (9.7%)
38+72= 110 killed themselves (25.4%)
If you want to be purely statistical about it, the murders were 10x more useful at stopping themselves than randos with guns. Which means that according to y’all’s logic, the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to wait for him to stop himself.
No, genius, it’s statistics. Math. You know, the class you slept through in high school? I’ll make it simple for you.
Out of 433 shooters:
If you want to be purely statistical about it, the murders were 10x more useful at stopping themselves than randos with guns. Which means that according to y’all’s logic, the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to wait for him to stop himself.
Thanks genius.
Keep me make it simpler back to you.
Maybe if you think real hard you can do more than just read the data.
If more defenders carried defensive weapons the results could be very different.
Don’t read into it to hard… I’m not pro gun. Is simply fact that if a defensive firearm were more available then the numbers would be different.
The fact that I have to explain this… Jeez… I dunno.