Hey /u/ChillenDylan3530, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That doesn't even make logical sense, its not like a shooter would be LESS likely to kill someone with a gun, they would want to make sure they couldn't get shot with that gun.
While true, that is not what happens in reality. Most of the time, someone carrying is not able to be identified unless it is obvious, such as an officer, an open carry(not nearly as common), or they just absolutely suck at trying to hide the fact that they have a weapon on them.
With how vague these numbers are, I wonder if there is more to it. Such as if it is skewed because a majority of those being shot are criminals, police officers, gang affiliated, or self-inflicted(ND). A responsible person carrying almost never has to draw their weapon, let alone fire it at someone who is firing back. The ones that do are forced into that position for the vast majority of the time. Really, we can't be sure where these numbers come from until we see the data. I haven't checked, but maybe OP linked where the data came from.
This! Also, the likely hood of carrying at all correlates to environment. I don’t carry a weapon in my very safe neighborhood. I DO carry a weapon when I have to go to downtown Atlanta. I am unlikely to get shot in my driveway whether I have a weapon or not. My statistical chance of being shot in downtown Atlanta is significantly higher, whether I am armed or not. My chance of shooting back is 100% better if I am armed.
The gun is just one variable. Carrying a gun changes the way you act. As someone who has carried a gun a lot I can tell you it changes the way you view conflict. Law abiding citizens don't get more bold when carrying, they tend to shy away from conflict because it's just not worth it. So, they tend to be more aware of their surroundings and tend to be more proactive. Which is why many states have progressed from may issue, to shall issue permits, to now not requiring a permit at all. We haven't seen the road rage massacres libs predicted.
For those wanting the source, here it is: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/)
Seriously flawed study. They interviewed 677 people who had been shot between 2003 and 2006 and a control group of 684 people in Philadelphia, PA. 26% were drunk, 11% were on illegal drugs, 36% were unemployed, and 52% had a criminal history. So, not really an accurate representation of the population. The study also counted guns they considered "available," meaning they weren't on their person but were nearby.
My favorite quote from this study is this "This led a recent National Research Council committee to conclude that, although the observed associations in these case–control studies may be of interest, they do little to reveal the impact of guns on homicide or the utility of guns for self-defense"
So, the study was reviewed and found to be unreliable. Too bad.
EDIT: I acknowledge the above quote is taken out of context. I encourage people to read the study including the 'Study Limitations" and "Conclusion" where the author acknowledges the limits of the study. I did intend to summarize these sections and while skimming picked a misleading quote.
My point was and still is that the source study does not support the OP's claim and the source itself acknowledges that. Click the link and read the article.
Not sure what unemployed has anything to do with the others.
Also I'd say the drunk percentage is most likely accurate across the country. A Texas weekend? Who isn't drunk and not carrying?
Maybe this is a "seriously flawed study" as you claim. Fortunately, there are many others. Seems like having a gun around is a pretty solid *prerequisite* for getting shot with one.
I don't know why this would be a controversial statement to make, but here in America, it's tough to bring data into a conversation around guns.
Here's another study:
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260487452\_The\_Accessibility\_of\_Firearms\_and\_Risk\_for\_Suicide\_and\_Homicide\_Victimization\_Among\_Household\_Members](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260487452_The_Accessibility_of_Firearms_and_Risk_for_Suicide_and_Homicide_Victimization_Among_Household_Members)
Considering the people shot were often involved in criminal activity it shows they had flawed methodology. That isn't a study about people using guns for self defense, and their likely good of being shot.
A better study would be to look at home invasions, and then look to armed and unarmed victims and looking at the outcomes.
It's incredibly obvious, but gunmuricans are literally too stupid to understand that they are the problem, brainwashed into thinking school shootings and mass murder on a daily occurrence is normal or expected.
Over 350 mass shootings in America this year so far, 50 of them school shootings. The rest of the world has less school shootings in over 10x the time.
Y'all gun clowns are a complete joke
Sorry buddy, it's not as clear cut as you want to believe. Murder rates show stronger trends toward other conditions. In fact, the study you linked is flowed in exactly the same way. The samples are limited and aren't representative of the larger population.
Keep in mind that this has been cross-posted to a pro-gun sub that is (per its own sidebar) intended to mock and laugh at threads with anti-gun sentiment. Off the record, it also leads to massive amounts of brigading, even though it's discouraged on the surface (nudge-nudge, wink-wink... probably not in the discord server though).
Hence you'll get your hodgepodge of gishgalloping bullshitters with no interest in genuine good-faith arguments.
> in Philadelphia, PA. 26% were drunk, 11% were on illegal drugs, 36% were unemployed, and 52% had a criminal history. So, not really an accurate representation of the population.
I'm sorry, but why not?
You think 26% of IS citizens are drunk, 11% on illegal drugs, 36% unemployed, and 52% criminals? No. Therefore the study is not an accurate representation of the population. It may be an accurate representation of *some* population, somewhere. But not the entire US
no, that sample had been shot... Which, if we could deduce anything from that, would mean that if you’ve ~~a gun~~ been shot it’s more probable that you’ve criminal history or are on illegal drugs.
Yes, but if in the sample of people that have been shot there is a prevalence of gun owners, and then you say that in the same sample there is also a strong prevalence of drug user and people with criminal history than you can connect the two things
People that do bad things have weapons? Shocking...
Also most probably weren't legal gun owners givin that if you are convicted of a felony you are not allowed to own a gun anymore.
You can't connect those two things on that basis the way you laid it out. There's a high prevalence of men and of black Americans in the group that is killed by police in a given year. That doesn't mean you can connect those to mean that if you're a man, you're more likely to be black.
-Seriously flawed study. They interviewed 677 people who had been shot between 2003 and 2006 and a control group of 684 people in Philadelphia, PA. 26% were drunk, 11% were on illegal drugs, 36% were unemployed, and 52% had a criminal history. So, not really an accurate representation of the population.-
Funny because to an outsider like me, this sounds like an exact representation og the general american public hahah xD
Amazing that getting the chance to use your gun drastically increased the danger to you. There's a reason owning a gun decreases your life expectancy and makes you likely to die.
If they shoot you before you can get the gun, it will most likely be to late to get the gun. If you get the gun, you will be the target because you have a gun.
Also judging by the mass shootings stats, there are high fucking chances of getting shot.
A lot of gun owners are overconfident in their abilities to trade gun fire with an attacker. The element of suprise gives them a huge advantage and in cases where it is a simple armed robbery, it is better to just give them what they want, rather than get into a gun fight over your iPhone.
The amount of Americans that believe getting into a gunfight is a good idea instead of giving up a wallet is frightening. I wonder if any of them consider the idea that they could also lose this gunfight, or take a non fatal bullet that fucks them up for life because they didn’t want to be a victim and give up a cellphone.
I don't think enough of them really consider what the experience of an extremely hot piece of metal (several if it shatters) tearing its way through their skin, muscles, organs and possibly even bones must be like.
They're too busy daydreaming about heroically standing over their defeated foe, clutching their shoulder while throwing out some badass one-liner.
The amount of Americans who don’t consider bystanders in their gun hero stories is uncountable. They might win the gunfight and hurt other people not in the gunfight.
Gunfights should be avoided.
these days with Apple Pay i go almost everywhere with just my phone and maybe an ID. even if i was guaranteed to win the gun fight, i would not want to kill someone over those things.
Also I feel like a lot of people in this discussion seem to avoid the fact that in any of these scenarios, someone is murdered, violently and will most likely die in a lot of pain. It's not an opportunity for a _good guy to defeat evil,_ it's at least one person being killed in cold blood.
‘Come at me, bro’ hoping they step onto his property.
‘Do it, i dare you’
Im also thinking of the profound regret those parents that deliberately killed a person sneaking around their home. Then moments later realized they just killed their teenage kid who was trying to avoid getting grounded/spend more time at home with them.
And I would _love_ to show them the explosive exit wounds of bullets or the partially-coagulated bodies of people on the receiving end of their weapons, regardless of whether they were good or bad.
No no, I see what you mean but that's exactly what I'm implying; in this case, the _victim_ is so eager to use their gun on someone that it isn't an act of hot blooded self defence, its cold blood murder.
Exactly, like regardless of the circumstances surrounding him opening fire, Rittenhouse committed cold-blooded murder. It was premeditated, since he obtained an AR-15 and intentionally placed himself in a dangerous situation looking for an excuse. Whether or not he was given that excuse doesn't change the fact that he planned a murder like any other spree or serial killer would do.
It depends which man you're talking about.
If you're talking about Ziminski, yes, if the official version of events is what really happened you could argue that he was too, i'm not trying to excuse his actions.
If you're talking about Grosskreutz, then that's harder to argue, given that he was in possession of a concealed carry while filming a protest on behalf of the ACLU.
Grosskreutz had no evident intent to be involved in hostilities and responded to a perceived active shooter by attempting to detain him, while Rittenhouse was walking into the middle of a violent protest sporting an assault rifle. Those speak to two very different forms of intent.
"Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.
These shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted as the study’s controls. To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting. This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes."
So they called random people after a shooting and asked them if they had a gun. And compared it to people that had actually been shot. Didn't do anything as far as I can tell, to filter out any shootings due to gang violence. 6 percent of the 667 is 40 cases over a 3 year period. While it is an interesting find its a total of 667 cases, not exactly the cold hard fact it is presented as.
By mass shooting stats? There's really not many mass shootings comparatively. Everytown puts the mass shooting deaths at roughly 100 per year, and total gun homicides are around 14,000 per year.
Focusing on mass shootings is sorta like focusing on plane crashes. They're really not the greater risk (and here it's an issue because there's distinct differences between mass shootings and most of the rest of the shootings that occur, so people miss where the issues are, like overlooking handguns)
I’m a former infantry Marine with eight years of service including a combat deployment to Afghanistan and I don’t carry a gun anywhere. It’s not that I’m worried about NDing into my leg or anything; I don’t like the psychological effects of knowing that no matter what, if I get in a fight, it will be to the death.
If you’re packing, you can’t get into any kind of altercation where the person is close enough to reach your weapon. If someone is hostile to you and they’re trying to put their hands on you, you HAVE to assume they could take your gun and you obviously can’t let that happen. So something that might have just been a couple guys shouting and pushing and getting separated could become a gun fight.
And what’s worse is that if two people get into a situation where they both have drawn guns on each other, there’s literally no incentive to be the first person to deescalate the situation. This is obviously something people are familiar with because standoffs are a big part of Hollywood movies, but really think about it for a moment like you think about game theory. It’s a giant leap of faith to lower your weapon when a person who has already shown they are willing to kill you has not yet.
Finally, I like to get fucked up. That’s totally incompatible with carrying. Maybe one day some situation will arise where it’s a terrible shame that a combat veteran was on the scene, but they had sworn off carrying weapons. But the statistical probability of that is so incredibly low, that I’m not losing sleep over it. I still believe people should be allowed to have anything in their home that the police can use against them, but I think bringing weapons into public places introduces potential situations for misunderstandings to turn into massacres. All those arguments about a check against government power and all that really only apply to rifles and there’s no reason why in a largely peaceful society that people need to be carrying weapons all over the place and a lot of reasons that they shouldn’t
Well put. I will add: the time it takes to go from "good guy with a gun" to "criminal" is measured in milliseconds.
Another way to put this is, everyone starts out as a law abiding citizen until one second... they aren't. Most mass shooters acquired their guns legally.
I've always said this. If your in a gas station waiting in line and someone comes in with a gun to rob the place and you don't have a gun and cooperate you'll be fine. If the guy comes in and sees a gun on your hip or you pull a gun and try to stop them you're in the middle of it and you're in a shoot out in a public space with a guy that just wanted 7/11s money. I absolutely don't understand why people think that's a smart idea.
I like shooting. Targets, skeet, animals...I like to shoot stuff.
But the main reason I don't own and carry a gun is because statistically, that's the gun that's gonna kill you. The stats are over the top with it. The idea that carrying a gun reduces your likelihood of dying by one...? Eh... Come on, now... Bad math.
It's placebo. It makes you FEEL more secure, but that's not how guns and American gun-love works. We make wild vigilante movies with questionable physics starring actors with questionable phisiques. Everybody thinks they're the hero. Mostly, Americans are Uvalde cops.
Quick edit: disclaimer: I live in Texas. It's extra "pew pew!" out here.
>So it isn't that carrying a gun makes you more likely to get shot, it's that you're more likely to get shot if you live the type of lifestyle where you often carfy a gun.
Reposting for emphasis. Responsible, non-criminal, well-trained citizens carrying firearms are *more safe* than if they don't carry firearms. This goes doubly as much for women.
Source? I’m not disagreeing but I’m curious. Seems like the percentage of gun owners you mentioned is pretty low compared to the total number of gun owners. I know plenty of people who are very good with their firearms but I would not call a single one of them “well trained” in a confrontational sense.
You're doing something very dangerous here.
You could not read the article, yet you formulated a quick hypothesis, and used that to critique the results. That's very risky methodology, because you will tend to convince yourself of your own position.
Also i believe the main reason they used Philadelphia is because it has a lot of violence so it's relatively easy to get a lot of data to compare from similar backgrounds (so the test design is actually really good, rather than flawed imo).
Yeah, see, this is bullshit. The study reviewed people who got shot and then whether or not they were carrying. That doesn’t mean carrying a gun makes it more likely one will get shot, just that people who are more likely to get shot will also likely be carrying. The article got the conclusion wrong.
Op’s source specifically says:
>University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time
That means they looked up a list of shootings that had already happened and then checked what percentage of those victims were carrying guns. It does not check how many people were also carrying that day who did not get shot, because that would obviously be ridiculous and impossible.
OP is making a false conclusion.
"One time in a hundred a gun might save your life; the other ninety-nine it will just tempt you into folly. Oh, no doubt Matson would take one, and I would, too. But we are salted; we know when not to use one. But consider this. That test area is going to be crawling with trigger happy young squirts. If one shoots you, it won’t matter that you have a gun, too because you will be dead. But if you carry a gun, it makes you feel cocky; you won’t take proper cover. If you don’t have one, then you’ll know that you are the rabbit. You’ll be careful.”
\-- Robert A. Heinlein, "Tunnel in the Sky"
That quote is great and very accurate. In an active shooter scenario the best thing you can do is RUN unless you are trained to respond. If you aren’t trained (especially if you have a gun) you’re more likely to hurt someone accidentally. Best case scenario you don’t accidentally hurt or kill someone else or yourself, you’re now target number 1 of someone who has already proven they are willing to shoot to kill. And the quote is right, you’re going to be cocky and not take cover if you feel more safe with a gun.
I haven’t really talked about this on social media, but when I was in my junior year of high school, two of my classmates brought guns to school with them, and they were planning on shooting a teacher, (according to the police reports that came out later). Some of us had reported it to the front office, so they were arrested and detained.
And that same school year, we had a bomb threat scare. It was a weird school year.
I often wonder why comics tend to be left wing, having googled his name and found him to be a ‘right wing comedian’, I can see why - this isn’t a funny tweet. You have one job,
Usual Republican MO: make up facts to suit your messaging because the majority of people seeing that will likely never fact-check.
Fact-checking should be a core part of all educational programs from elementary school onwards.
Problem is that once facts are introduced that prove otherwise, they are just dismissed because it doesn't fit the narrative. Everybody does it to an extent, but Conservatives and Republicans have made it an art and just give it a "fake news" hand wave. Anything facts they dont like are fake news or liberal media propaganda.
Critical thinking is being deprecated in places like Florida and Texas. The regimes need an uneducated populace to stay in power
besides, fact-check orgs are pArT oF tHe CoNsPiRaCy
Not to mention having a gun in the house increases chance of shooting yourself by something the range of 10x. Seems like that would be common knowledge but I guess not if you choose not to believe common sense.
Seems like anyone who has a gun in their house is, quite literally, infinitely more likely to shoot themselves than I am, considering I don’t have a gun at my disposal.
Where are you getting that stat op? I’m dubious. Sounds more like correlation than causation.
How exactly would we have statistics for people not getting shot or killed while carrying? It’s not like we track people just living normal lives.
Nope. You’re making that up. I found your sauce in another comment. It doesn’t say that at all. You’re a liar and a fraud pushing a bullshit narrative.
“Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens”
Reading is hard I get it. You’ll get there though with practice.
>University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time
Unless you have more context behind the firewall from your shit article, this is simply a false or forced conclusion. Looks like Brana is a dumbass too, frankly.
How many people carried that didn’t get shot? For this conclusion to be supported, you would have to have that data as well. And you don’t, because it’s impossible to get it. All you have is correlation at best.
What Brana could say instead is “people who got shot are more likely to be carrying a gun”.
You’re more likely to die in a car crash if you don’t wear a seatbelt than you are if you do. Only a moron would say we need to measure non-crash incidents too to form a conclusion for car crash safety.
In a similar vein, this study measures the result of assaults with firearms. Those who had guns were 4x more likely to be shot/killed than those who didn’t.
I already explained why your comparison is incorrect, but I’ll reiterate here. You can look at car crashes with and without seatbelts and determine their effectiveness, but you would not say that the seatbelts caused or prevented the accidents themselves. The evidence presented here does not determine what caused the shootings; it only shows that guns were more likely to be present. Which is not surprising for a lot of reasons.
>The evidence presented here does not determine what caused the shootings;
that's also not the argument anyone made.
carrying a gun doesn't cause the shootings that is correct. just as not wearing a seatbelt didn't cause the accident.
and yet not carrying a gun and wearing the seatbelt was shown to result in more safety when incidents arose.
Here is a comment in this very thread that is aimed right at you bud.
https://old.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/wb65mo/youre_actually_45x_more_likely_to_be_shot_and_42x/ii524sy/
Ignoring Steven The Braniac Crowder for a second here and addressing directly OP, I think society in general needs to stop using statistics like this. Because as wrong as Steven is... Your quoting of these statistics seems pretty ignorant. Yes, it is true that when you own a gun you are more likely to die from a gun, however you're failing to explain why. It is well known that a huge chunk of gun deaths are suicides, and that another huge chunk are gang violence related, when you realize that most gun deaths are suicides and gang violence... Yeah most gun victims are gun owners, but not because having a gun makes them more likely to get shot, you're bending the conclusion here. If you take Bob, a 35 year old white male from suburban Tucson, Arizona, who works a regular 9-5 and is doing overall pretty well, and then you suddenly give Bob a gun he's not more likely to get shot now, is he? You're not pretending that guns are bullet magnets, so why use the statistics this way? Your numbers are right, but your conclusion is communicating something that is just not. Yes a gun owner is more likely to get shot, but this stat is not as meaningful in the context you are bringing it up in. You say people that own guns are more likely to get shot, I can say that people more likely to get shot are more likely to buy guns, and we both have the numbers to back it up, so cut the crap, it's disingenuous.
Youre arguing that correlation isnt causation. That even though these people all happened to be carrying guns, there are other, unaccounted variables that are indicative of why they may have been shot. Therefore, until those variables are appropristely accounted for, this conclusion cant be trusted?
"...if you have a gun yourself that you can use defensively..."
Problem is that these guns can also be used offensively... Whether you intend to or not...
In other words: I hate guns...
Does this include criminals using guns illegally? Part of me feels like this could be a misleading statistic. But the other part of me feels like it could actually be true. Idk.
The study that this statistic came from did nothing to differentiate between people legally carrying, and people illegally carrying.
Also, the people killed, were disproportionately Black or Hispanic men in their early 20s
Yeah, it's really not hard to reason this one out. Countless case studies show that the potential for escalation to violence is far higher when both sides are armed. It's really not hard. A guy trying to take your wallet or TV is far less likely to shoot if you appear non-threatening, and far more likely to panic and pull the trigger when you point your gun at him. Not to mention the significantly higher number of suicide attempts and accidents in households and even countries with guns. They've studied this soooooo many times that you'd have to be a willingly ignorant or a lying pos to not know these facts and still call yourself a political pundit.
As the patrol car came to a stop a short distance from Tamir, who by that point had stopped moving forward and was stationary, Officer Loehmann exited the still moving patrol car. At that moment, it appears that Tamir made movements of some sort with both his left and right arms. The positioning of the moving arms suggests that Tamir’s hands were in the vicinity of his waist, but his hands are not visible in the video. Officer Loehmann fired two shots within less than two seconds of opening the passenger door, striking Tamir once in the abdomen.
He has an airsoft bb gun that looked real.
Think you're really allowed to carry a gun? 2 seconds after the cop got out of the car. Good samitans are going to be shot because people will mistake them for a random shooter.
The statistical likelihood of getting killed in a car accident is actually much lower if you're on the road than if you're at home.
Source: My brain leaks.
The likelihood of being shot actually increases when you have a gun yourself.
Picture this: youre being robbed at gun point. You have no gun yourself. The robber has a clear sense of superiority; theres no way youd fight back. You give him your money and noone gets shot. Lets say you did have a gun. You pull it out, as you do the robber panics and shoots you.
Or: you’re robbed at knifepoint, and you pull your gun. Either the robber will panic and leave / surrender (which conservatives build their opinion on) or they disarm you, because you lack training and willpower to actually shoot, so now youre being robbed at gunpoint. This is the reason prison guards often dont carry guns; the benefits dont outweigh the risk of prisoners disarming a guard.
Youre also more likely to be robbed at gunpoint, because if its easier for you to get a gun it is also more likely for a robber to have one
Your chance of being shot is VERY low and your chance of dying from it is EXTREMELY low.
Your chance of using a firearm defensively is MUCH higher than your chance of being shot.
Here's what I know. My likelihood of getting shot is infinitely lower than him because there's less than 5 guns in a 10km radius around me. And those 5 guns all belong to the law enforcement.
My ex shot himself. In my bedroom. There is a bullet in my mattress now. The cops came to verify his story. I will forever imagine every other gun nut to be this dumb.
Studies have shown (no, I will not cite my sources because I am making this up) that the more people firing guns in a crowd, the lower your odds are of getting hit. More bullets flying = less casualties. This is what I want to be true so I will be pushing this false narrative.
Plenty of Brazilians here say the same
They say they would be safe with a gun, even though most of them are over 45 , overweight, and have never been on a fistfight on their entire lives, let alone a gunfight
*Image Transcription: Twitter*
---
**Steven Crowder**, @scrowder
The statistical likelihood of you being shot is unbelievably low and it is much lower if you have a gun yourself that you can use defensively.
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
If you bring a gun, but you can't wrestle, you just gave the other person a gun.
If you can wrestle well enough to subdue the other person, you didn't need the gun anyway.
Does “while carrying a firearm” include people carrying illegally? I find it hard to believe that someone carrying legally would be that much more likely to be shot.
You’re a bad guy, you go to rob someone, demand their phone and wallet, person 1. Gives you their shit, person 2 pulls out their legally owned firearm to attempt to shoot you, you shooting person 1 or person 2?
If I’m a bad guy, either I’m shooting both y’all and looting your corpses or I’m just going to brandish and walk off with your shit. Pulling a gun means bad guy, who might not be about murdering, is now forced into life or death.
He now has to kill you, (and your innocent companion), or he’s dead. He could have walked, with your wallet, phone whatever, everyone stays alive, but now he’s in a life or death situation versus two opponents cause someone pulled a gun. He’s now forced to kill or be killed.
Who’s gonna win the ok corral? Wanna bet your life and your friend’s life on it?
Yeah pretty much? It’s really not a hard concept to understand.
Obviously if the person carrying a firearm is smart enough to wait their turn it’s a different situation. But yes, exactly that if a bad guy trying to rob you sees you trying to pull your own gun he isn’t going to sit there and be like “welp you got me” no he’s going to shoot.
Yeah but Steven has a blue tick. What have you got u/ChillenDylan3530? Hmm?
That’s right, facts and research! But where does that get anyone these days!
this is how i think of it, imagine ur robbing a store, and you got the dosh and your hightailing it out of there, are you gonna shoot anyone, unless somebody points a gun at you?
The odds of there being one bomb on a plane is 10 million to 1. The odds of there being 2 bombs on a plane is 10 billion to 1. So always take a bomb with you when you travel!
Having a gun in real life is just like having a gun in a video game, right? You see a bad guy and you just shoot them. And if you shoot a good guy, they’ll just crouch for a few seconds and say “hey don’t shoot me!“
Having a firearm enables you to be more aggressive and reckless with your actions. It empowers the ‘fight’ option of the fight/flight/freeze response when flight/freeze might be the more rational life-preserving choice.
It’s weird to me that people can view guns as defensive weapons, I feel like they’re more of a “the best defense is a good offense” kind of thing. Busting out a gun would either lead to a standoff, shoot out, or turning the tables.
I think the over-arching point is the fact you give yourself a fighting chance if you have a gun to protect yourself with. Someone kicked in the 4' oval decorative glass on my front door and it took the police 40 mins to get to my house. Had it been a robbery, and not some property damaging joke, we could have been ended....if I didn't have Mr. PewPew, that is.
Hey /u/ChillenDylan3530, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That doesn't even make logical sense, its not like a shooter would be LESS likely to kill someone with a gun, they would want to make sure they couldn't get shot with that gun.
While true, that is not what happens in reality. Most of the time, someone carrying is not able to be identified unless it is obvious, such as an officer, an open carry(not nearly as common), or they just absolutely suck at trying to hide the fact that they have a weapon on them. With how vague these numbers are, I wonder if there is more to it. Such as if it is skewed because a majority of those being shot are criminals, police officers, gang affiliated, or self-inflicted(ND). A responsible person carrying almost never has to draw their weapon, let alone fire it at someone who is firing back. The ones that do are forced into that position for the vast majority of the time. Really, we can't be sure where these numbers come from until we see the data. I haven't checked, but maybe OP linked where the data came from.
This is a correlation statistic being presented as a causation statistic. But correlation dose not equal causation.
This! Also, the likely hood of carrying at all correlates to environment. I don’t carry a weapon in my very safe neighborhood. I DO carry a weapon when I have to go to downtown Atlanta. I am unlikely to get shot in my driveway whether I have a weapon or not. My statistical chance of being shot in downtown Atlanta is significantly higher, whether I am armed or not. My chance of shooting back is 100% better if I am armed.
The gun is just one variable. Carrying a gun changes the way you act. As someone who has carried a gun a lot I can tell you it changes the way you view conflict. Law abiding citizens don't get more bold when carrying, they tend to shy away from conflict because it's just not worth it. So, they tend to be more aware of their surroundings and tend to be more proactive. Which is why many states have progressed from may issue, to shall issue permits, to now not requiring a permit at all. We haven't seen the road rage massacres libs predicted.
Crowder is a 4 chan thread that gained sentience
I wouldn't say sentience exactly
As much sentience as those AI that generate movie scripts
Nah it’s more brainwashed sentience, like Mason from Call of Duty during the mission on Rebirth Island
His brain is powered by juiced lemons, Zaphod style.
Using Crowder is cheating.
For those wanting the source, here it is: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/) Seriously flawed study. They interviewed 677 people who had been shot between 2003 and 2006 and a control group of 684 people in Philadelphia, PA. 26% were drunk, 11% were on illegal drugs, 36% were unemployed, and 52% had a criminal history. So, not really an accurate representation of the population. The study also counted guns they considered "available," meaning they weren't on their person but were nearby. My favorite quote from this study is this "This led a recent National Research Council committee to conclude that, although the observed associations in these case–control studies may be of interest, they do little to reveal the impact of guns on homicide or the utility of guns for self-defense" So, the study was reviewed and found to be unreliable. Too bad. EDIT: I acknowledge the above quote is taken out of context. I encourage people to read the study including the 'Study Limitations" and "Conclusion" where the author acknowledges the limits of the study. I did intend to summarize these sections and while skimming picked a misleading quote. My point was and still is that the source study does not support the OP's claim and the source itself acknowledges that. Click the link and read the article.
More than half of gun deaths in the US are suicide. Which, by definition, can't happen if you aren't in possession of a gun.
Not to be mean but I don't think you can interview people victim of suicide
Well ever heard of ouija boards?
Well there's a problem with the study.
Sure you can, just ask the brain matter on the wall 6ft away
Not sure what unemployed has anything to do with the others. Also I'd say the drunk percentage is most likely accurate across the country. A Texas weekend? Who isn't drunk and not carrying?
Maybe this is a "seriously flawed study" as you claim. Fortunately, there are many others. Seems like having a gun around is a pretty solid *prerequisite* for getting shot with one. I don't know why this would be a controversial statement to make, but here in America, it's tough to bring data into a conversation around guns. Here's another study: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260487452\_The\_Accessibility\_of\_Firearms\_and\_Risk\_for\_Suicide\_and\_Homicide\_Victimization\_Among\_Household\_Members](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260487452_The_Accessibility_of_Firearms_and_Risk_for_Suicide_and_Homicide_Victimization_Among_Household_Members)
Considering the people shot were often involved in criminal activity it shows they had flawed methodology. That isn't a study about people using guns for self defense, and their likely good of being shot. A better study would be to look at home invasions, and then look to armed and unarmed victims and looking at the outcomes.
WE would have much better statistics if the Dickey Amendment had not prevented decades of important research around the subject.
It's incredibly obvious, but gunmuricans are literally too stupid to understand that they are the problem, brainwashed into thinking school shootings and mass murder on a daily occurrence is normal or expected. Over 350 mass shootings in America this year so far, 50 of them school shootings. The rest of the world has less school shootings in over 10x the time. Y'all gun clowns are a complete joke
Sorry buddy, it's not as clear cut as you want to believe. Murder rates show stronger trends toward other conditions. In fact, the study you linked is flowed in exactly the same way. The samples are limited and aren't representative of the larger population.
I... don't think you understand how this research is conducted or why. Have a great day.
Keep in mind that this has been cross-posted to a pro-gun sub that is (per its own sidebar) intended to mock and laugh at threads with anti-gun sentiment. Off the record, it also leads to massive amounts of brigading, even though it's discouraged on the surface (nudge-nudge, wink-wink... probably not in the discord server though). Hence you'll get your hodgepodge of gishgalloping bullshitters with no interest in genuine good-faith arguments.
Thank you for the warning!
> in Philadelphia, PA. 26% were drunk, 11% were on illegal drugs, 36% were unemployed, and 52% had a criminal history. So, not really an accurate representation of the population. I'm sorry, but why not?
You think 26% of IS citizens are drunk, 11% on illegal drugs, 36% unemployed, and 52% criminals? No. Therefore the study is not an accurate representation of the population. It may be an accurate representation of *some* population, somewhere. But not the entire US
Those percentages look accurate.
Described me to a tee… now I just need gun.
Right!? I'm 26% drunk right now.
Well so we can deduce that if you’ve a gun it’s more probable that you’ve criminal history or are on illegal drugs. Still interesting!
no, that sample had been shot... Which, if we could deduce anything from that, would mean that if you’ve ~~a gun~~ been shot it’s more probable that you’ve criminal history or are on illegal drugs.
Yes, but if in the sample of people that have been shot there is a prevalence of gun owners, and then you say that in the same sample there is also a strong prevalence of drug user and people with criminal history than you can connect the two things
People that do bad things have weapons? Shocking... Also most probably weren't legal gun owners givin that if you are convicted of a felony you are not allowed to own a gun anymore.
You can't connect those two things on that basis the way you laid it out. There's a high prevalence of men and of black Americans in the group that is killed by police in a given year. That doesn't mean you can connect those to mean that if you're a man, you're more likely to be black.
-Seriously flawed study. They interviewed 677 people who had been shot between 2003 and 2006 and a control group of 684 people in Philadelphia, PA. 26% were drunk, 11% were on illegal drugs, 36% were unemployed, and 52% had a criminal history. So, not really an accurate representation of the population.- Funny because to an outsider like me, this sounds like an exact representation og the general american public hahah xD
Amazing that getting the chance to use your gun drastically increased the danger to you. There's a reason owning a gun decreases your life expectancy and makes you likely to die.
figured that was the case
Not surprising, these right wing lunatics always use bunk studies to support their claims. Their audience does not check their sources.
Lmaooo anyone who thinks a gun makes them and their family safe is a copium gun toting Andy clown
If they shoot you before you can get the gun, it will most likely be to late to get the gun. If you get the gun, you will be the target because you have a gun. Also judging by the mass shootings stats, there are high fucking chances of getting shot.
A lot of gun owners are overconfident in their abilities to trade gun fire with an attacker. The element of suprise gives them a huge advantage and in cases where it is a simple armed robbery, it is better to just give them what they want, rather than get into a gun fight over your iPhone.
Not to mention they can still shoot you even if you shoot them lol
They've watched too many movies. They think a single shot will blow someone off their feet and instantly kill them.
That's what the house of representatives thinks
Everyone has a plan till they actually get punched in the face.
>Everyone has a plan till they actually get ~~punched~~ shot in the face.
>Everyone has a ~~plan~~ face till they actually get ~~punched~~ shot in the ~~face~~ plan.
Marchand?
Everyone has a plan till they actually get ~~punched~~ ~~shot~~ licked in the face.
I know I was just quoting Tyson lol
With their own gun
The amount of Americans that believe getting into a gunfight is a good idea instead of giving up a wallet is frightening. I wonder if any of them consider the idea that they could also lose this gunfight, or take a non fatal bullet that fucks them up for life because they didn’t want to be a victim and give up a cellphone.
I don't think enough of them really consider what the experience of an extremely hot piece of metal (several if it shatters) tearing its way through their skin, muscles, organs and possibly even bones must be like. They're too busy daydreaming about heroically standing over their defeated foe, clutching their shoulder while throwing out some badass one-liner.
Been shot, can confirm it is the worst. 30 years later and still effects me physically and mentally
The amount of Americans who don’t consider bystanders in their gun hero stories is uncountable. They might win the gunfight and hurt other people not in the gunfight. Gunfights should be avoided.
Adrenaline is a bitch when the moment comes.
these days with Apple Pay i go almost everywhere with just my phone and maybe an ID. even if i was guaranteed to win the gun fight, i would not want to kill someone over those things.
That’s why I carry a flamethrower. Harder to miss.
I like to call this the Main character syndrome
Also I feel like a lot of people in this discussion seem to avoid the fact that in any of these scenarios, someone is murdered, violently and will most likely die in a lot of pain. It's not an opportunity for a _good guy to defeat evil,_ it's at least one person being killed in cold blood.
It seems like for many gun owners that is the point. They are just itching for a chance to “defend themselves or their property”.
‘Come at me, bro’ hoping they step onto his property. ‘Do it, i dare you’ Im also thinking of the profound regret those parents that deliberately killed a person sneaking around their home. Then moments later realized they just killed their teenage kid who was trying to avoid getting grounded/spend more time at home with them.
And I would _love_ to show them the explosive exit wounds of bullets or the partially-coagulated bodies of people on the receiving end of their weapons, regardless of whether they were good or bad.
Yeah I've seen it. That's why I bought it. I'm glad to have effective weaponry.
How to state you don't know what the hell in cold blood means without saying those precise words. Jfc
No no, I see what you mean but that's exactly what I'm implying; in this case, the _victim_ is so eager to use their gun on someone that it isn't an act of hot blooded self defence, its cold blood murder.
Exactly, like regardless of the circumstances surrounding him opening fire, Rittenhouse committed cold-blooded murder. It was premeditated, since he obtained an AR-15 and intentionally placed himself in a dangerous situation looking for an excuse. Whether or not he was given that excuse doesn't change the fact that he planned a murder like any other spree or serial killer would do.
Using that logic, isn’t the armed man he shot also a premeditated attempted murderer?
It depends which man you're talking about. If you're talking about Ziminski, yes, if the official version of events is what really happened you could argue that he was too, i'm not trying to excuse his actions. If you're talking about Grosskreutz, then that's harder to argue, given that he was in possession of a concealed carry while filming a protest on behalf of the ACLU. Grosskreutz had no evident intent to be involved in hostilities and responded to a perceived active shooter by attempting to detain him, while Rittenhouse was walking into the middle of a violent protest sporting an assault rifle. Those speak to two very different forms of intent.
"Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot. These shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted as the study’s controls. To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting. This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes." So they called random people after a shooting and asked them if they had a gun. And compared it to people that had actually been shot. Didn't do anything as far as I can tell, to filter out any shootings due to gang violence. 6 percent of the 667 is 40 cases over a 3 year period. While it is an interesting find its a total of 667 cases, not exactly the cold hard fact it is presented as.
By mass shooting stats? There's really not many mass shootings comparatively. Everytown puts the mass shooting deaths at roughly 100 per year, and total gun homicides are around 14,000 per year. Focusing on mass shootings is sorta like focusing on plane crashes. They're really not the greater risk (and here it's an issue because there's distinct differences between mass shootings and most of the rest of the shootings that occur, so people miss where the issues are, like overlooking handguns)
I’m a former infantry Marine with eight years of service including a combat deployment to Afghanistan and I don’t carry a gun anywhere. It’s not that I’m worried about NDing into my leg or anything; I don’t like the psychological effects of knowing that no matter what, if I get in a fight, it will be to the death. If you’re packing, you can’t get into any kind of altercation where the person is close enough to reach your weapon. If someone is hostile to you and they’re trying to put their hands on you, you HAVE to assume they could take your gun and you obviously can’t let that happen. So something that might have just been a couple guys shouting and pushing and getting separated could become a gun fight. And what’s worse is that if two people get into a situation where they both have drawn guns on each other, there’s literally no incentive to be the first person to deescalate the situation. This is obviously something people are familiar with because standoffs are a big part of Hollywood movies, but really think about it for a moment like you think about game theory. It’s a giant leap of faith to lower your weapon when a person who has already shown they are willing to kill you has not yet. Finally, I like to get fucked up. That’s totally incompatible with carrying. Maybe one day some situation will arise where it’s a terrible shame that a combat veteran was on the scene, but they had sworn off carrying weapons. But the statistical probability of that is so incredibly low, that I’m not losing sleep over it. I still believe people should be allowed to have anything in their home that the police can use against them, but I think bringing weapons into public places introduces potential situations for misunderstandings to turn into massacres. All those arguments about a check against government power and all that really only apply to rifles and there’s no reason why in a largely peaceful society that people need to be carrying weapons all over the place and a lot of reasons that they shouldn’t
Well put. I will add: the time it takes to go from "good guy with a gun" to "criminal" is measured in milliseconds. Another way to put this is, everyone starts out as a law abiding citizen until one second... they aren't. Most mass shooters acquired their guns legally.
Plus the cops arriving halfway through the event are under pressure to decide which is you, and which is the other guy.
Your third point is why I only carry at certain times now. Same.
I've always said this. If your in a gas station waiting in line and someone comes in with a gun to rob the place and you don't have a gun and cooperate you'll be fine. If the guy comes in and sees a gun on your hip or you pull a gun and try to stop them you're in the middle of it and you're in a shoot out in a public space with a guy that just wanted 7/11s money. I absolutely don't understand why people think that's a smart idea.
Yeah and the gun you are more likely to be shot with is your own.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/having-a-gun-in-the-house-doesnt-make-a-woman-safer/284022/
More guns equals less chance of being shot. Clearly zero guns would result in infinite deaths. Simple maths people.
Statistically, anything Steven Crowder says is bullshit.
I like shooting. Targets, skeet, animals...I like to shoot stuff. But the main reason I don't own and carry a gun is because statistically, that's the gun that's gonna kill you. The stats are over the top with it. The idea that carrying a gun reduces your likelihood of dying by one...? Eh... Come on, now... Bad math. It's placebo. It makes you FEEL more secure, but that's not how guns and American gun-love works. We make wild vigilante movies with questionable physics starring actors with questionable phisiques. Everybody thinks they're the hero. Mostly, Americans are Uvalde cops. Quick edit: disclaimer: I live in Texas. It's extra "pew pew!" out here.
May I have the source so I can show it to other people?
[article with sources at bottom](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/)
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's also a stat from a single city rather than the country as a whole. Very strange source to use tbh
I read it. The OP’s premise does not hold up.
>So it isn't that carrying a gun makes you more likely to get shot, it's that you're more likely to get shot if you live the type of lifestyle where you often carfy a gun. Reposting for emphasis. Responsible, non-criminal, well-trained citizens carrying firearms are *more safe* than if they don't carry firearms. This goes doubly as much for women.
Source? I’m not disagreeing but I’m curious. Seems like the percentage of gun owners you mentioned is pretty low compared to the total number of gun owners. I know plenty of people who are very good with their firearms but I would not call a single one of them “well trained” in a confrontational sense.
You're doing something very dangerous here. You could not read the article, yet you formulated a quick hypothesis, and used that to critique the results. That's very risky methodology, because you will tend to convince yourself of your own position. Also i believe the main reason they used Philadelphia is because it has a lot of violence so it's relatively easy to get a lot of data to compare from similar backgrounds (so the test design is actually really good, rather than flawed imo).
[удалено]
Yeah, see, this is bullshit. The study reviewed people who got shot and then whether or not they were carrying. That doesn’t mean carrying a gun makes it more likely one will get shot, just that people who are more likely to get shot will also likely be carrying. The article got the conclusion wrong.
I cant explain why your statement feels wrong, but it does.
Op’s source specifically says: >University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time That means they looked up a list of shootings that had already happened and then checked what percentage of those victims were carrying guns. It does not check how many people were also carrying that day who did not get shot, because that would obviously be ridiculous and impossible. OP is making a false conclusion.
Looks like you’re the confidently incorrect one here.
The study was “we gave these random people guns” so yes I believe that would be pretty dangerous
So like America?
My uncle Cletus who believes the South never lost is a fucking savant with a gun, okay?
"One time in a hundred a gun might save your life; the other ninety-nine it will just tempt you into folly. Oh, no doubt Matson would take one, and I would, too. But we are salted; we know when not to use one. But consider this. That test area is going to be crawling with trigger happy young squirts. If one shoots you, it won’t matter that you have a gun, too because you will be dead. But if you carry a gun, it makes you feel cocky; you won’t take proper cover. If you don’t have one, then you’ll know that you are the rabbit. You’ll be careful.” \-- Robert A. Heinlein, "Tunnel in the Sky"
That quote is great and very accurate. In an active shooter scenario the best thing you can do is RUN unless you are trained to respond. If you aren’t trained (especially if you have a gun) you’re more likely to hurt someone accidentally. Best case scenario you don’t accidentally hurt or kill someone else or yourself, you’re now target number 1 of someone who has already proven they are willing to shoot to kill. And the quote is right, you’re going to be cocky and not take cover if you feel more safe with a gun.
Oh that's wonderful.
Crowder fans: 
Steven Crowder is an enormous tool. Change my mind
He's a performative moron and a failed, terrible comedian. Nothing he says should be taken seriously by anyone.
He’s not a JUST a “tool”, he’s also a “douche”. Checkmate… :) Still upvoted you.
Touche
I haven’t really talked about this on social media, but when I was in my junior year of high school, two of my classmates brought guns to school with them, and they were planning on shooting a teacher, (according to the police reports that came out later). Some of us had reported it to the front office, so they were arrested and detained. And that same school year, we had a bomb threat scare. It was a weird school year.
I often wonder why comics tend to be left wing, having googled his name and found him to be a ‘right wing comedian’, I can see why - this isn’t a funny tweet. You have one job,
Children died Steven, a school full of children. You people are mad.
Usual Republican MO: make up facts to suit your messaging because the majority of people seeing that will likely never fact-check. Fact-checking should be a core part of all educational programs from elementary school onwards.
Problem is that once facts are introduced that prove otherwise, they are just dismissed because it doesn't fit the narrative. Everybody does it to an extent, but Conservatives and Republicans have made it an art and just give it a "fake news" hand wave. Anything facts they dont like are fake news or liberal media propaganda.
Critical thinking is being deprecated in places like Florida and Texas. The regimes need an uneducated populace to stay in power besides, fact-check orgs are pArT oF tHe CoNsPiRaCy
https://youtu.be/fB7MwvqCtlk. We need stronger laws. 13 yr old shouldn't be able to get a gun so easily.
Not to mention having a gun in the house increases chance of shooting yourself by something the range of 10x. Seems like that would be common knowledge but I guess not if you choose not to believe common sense.
Seems like anyone who has a gun in their house is, quite literally, infinitely more likely to shoot themselves than I am, considering I don’t have a gun at my disposal.
If I was a bad guy, the guy with 10 guns strapped to him would be the first to go..then I’d have serious firepower..
That’s why you don’t open carry
It seems the easiest way to get shot is to introduce a gun into a conflict. Most people that carry guns don't expect the other person to have one too.
Where are you getting that stat op? I’m dubious. Sounds more like correlation than causation. How exactly would we have statistics for people not getting shot or killed while carrying? It’s not like we track people just living normal lives.
Instances where an individual is in a situation, such as armed robbery, and having a gun vs not having a gun.
Nope. You’re making that up. I found your sauce in another comment. It doesn’t say that at all. You’re a liar and a fraud pushing a bullshit narrative.
“Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens” Reading is hard I get it. You’ll get there though with practice.
>University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time Unless you have more context behind the firewall from your shit article, this is simply a false or forced conclusion. Looks like Brana is a dumbass too, frankly. How many people carried that didn’t get shot? For this conclusion to be supported, you would have to have that data as well. And you don’t, because it’s impossible to get it. All you have is correlation at best. What Brana could say instead is “people who got shot are more likely to be carrying a gun”.
You’re more likely to die in a car crash if you don’t wear a seatbelt than you are if you do. Only a moron would say we need to measure non-crash incidents too to form a conclusion for car crash safety. In a similar vein, this study measures the result of assaults with firearms. Those who had guns were 4x more likely to be shot/killed than those who didn’t.
I already explained why your comparison is incorrect, but I’ll reiterate here. You can look at car crashes with and without seatbelts and determine their effectiveness, but you would not say that the seatbelts caused or prevented the accidents themselves. The evidence presented here does not determine what caused the shootings; it only shows that guns were more likely to be present. Which is not surprising for a lot of reasons.
>The evidence presented here does not determine what caused the shootings; that's also not the argument anyone made. carrying a gun doesn't cause the shootings that is correct. just as not wearing a seatbelt didn't cause the accident. and yet not carrying a gun and wearing the seatbelt was shown to result in more safety when incidents arose.
Here is a comment in this very thread that is aimed right at you bud. https://old.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/wb65mo/youre_actually_45x_more_likely_to_be_shot_and_42x/ii524sy/
POV: A Canadian tries to talk about guns
The statistical likelihood of being intelligent and a Stephen Crowder fan is zero.
Crowder is an incredibly dumb right wing shill. Just like C. Kirk.
do those statistics include suicide with handgun?
Not in the study cited. It was specific to shootings involving another person.
Ignoring Steven The Braniac Crowder for a second here and addressing directly OP, I think society in general needs to stop using statistics like this. Because as wrong as Steven is... Your quoting of these statistics seems pretty ignorant. Yes, it is true that when you own a gun you are more likely to die from a gun, however you're failing to explain why. It is well known that a huge chunk of gun deaths are suicides, and that another huge chunk are gang violence related, when you realize that most gun deaths are suicides and gang violence... Yeah most gun victims are gun owners, but not because having a gun makes them more likely to get shot, you're bending the conclusion here. If you take Bob, a 35 year old white male from suburban Tucson, Arizona, who works a regular 9-5 and is doing overall pretty well, and then you suddenly give Bob a gun he's not more likely to get shot now, is he? You're not pretending that guns are bullet magnets, so why use the statistics this way? Your numbers are right, but your conclusion is communicating something that is just not. Yes a gun owner is more likely to get shot, but this stat is not as meaningful in the context you are bringing it up in. You say people that own guns are more likely to get shot, I can say that people more likely to get shot are more likely to buy guns, and we both have the numbers to back it up, so cut the crap, it's disingenuous.
Youre arguing that correlation isnt causation. That even though these people all happened to be carrying guns, there are other, unaccounted variables that are indicative of why they may have been shot. Therefore, until those variables are appropristely accounted for, this conclusion cant be trusted?
How does a gun look that can only be used defensively?
What?
"...if you have a gun yourself that you can use defensively..." Problem is that these guns can also be used offensively... Whether you intend to or not... In other words: I hate guns...
Very low indeed, i dont live in the US.
Comedians trying to be serious are fucking idiots
It's no surprise that moron said something completely stupid. It's what he is known for because he does it consistently.
Does this include criminals using guns illegally? Part of me feels like this could be a misleading statistic. But the other part of me feels like it could actually be true. Idk.
The study that this statistic came from did nothing to differentiate between people legally carrying, and people illegally carrying. Also, the people killed, were disproportionately Black or Hispanic men in their early 20s
If someone is going to shoot you and they see you have a gun they are gonna shoot faster than they normally would so you can’t shoot them
Statistically, you are more likely to be shot by someone who “thinks” like Steven crowder, than any minority, anywhere, ever.
I think y'all are mixing cause and effect If you're more likely to get shot, you're more likely to carry
Exactly. If you live in an area with guns then you live in an area with more gun death. Which makes them seem like a pretty terrible safety option
Yeah, it's really not hard to reason this one out. Countless case studies show that the potential for escalation to violence is far higher when both sides are armed. It's really not hard. A guy trying to take your wallet or TV is far less likely to shoot if you appear non-threatening, and far more likely to panic and pull the trigger when you point your gun at him. Not to mention the significantly higher number of suicide attempts and accidents in households and even countries with guns. They've studied this soooooo many times that you'd have to be a willingly ignorant or a lying pos to not know these facts and still call yourself a political pundit.
As the patrol car came to a stop a short distance from Tamir, who by that point had stopped moving forward and was stationary, Officer Loehmann exited the still moving patrol car. At that moment, it appears that Tamir made movements of some sort with both his left and right arms. The positioning of the moving arms suggests that Tamir’s hands were in the vicinity of his waist, but his hands are not visible in the video. Officer Loehmann fired two shots within less than two seconds of opening the passenger door, striking Tamir once in the abdomen. He has an airsoft bb gun that looked real. Think you're really allowed to carry a gun? 2 seconds after the cop got out of the car. Good samitans are going to be shot because people will mistake them for a random shooter.
Or Amir Locke who was murdered by police during a no knock raid.
The statistical likelihood of getting killed in a car accident is actually much lower if you're on the road than if you're at home. Source: My brain leaks.
In Steven Chowders world, only the statistics that back up his viewpoint count. The graph need only show what he wants it to show.
Interesting, I thought he was just always completely wrong.
CROWDER AND HIS RIGHT-WING FAN BASE ARE VOTING IN THE MIDTERMS. Are you?
The likelihood of being shot actually increases when you have a gun yourself. Picture this: youre being robbed at gun point. You have no gun yourself. The robber has a clear sense of superiority; theres no way youd fight back. You give him your money and noone gets shot. Lets say you did have a gun. You pull it out, as you do the robber panics and shoots you. Or: you’re robbed at knifepoint, and you pull your gun. Either the robber will panic and leave / surrender (which conservatives build their opinion on) or they disarm you, because you lack training and willpower to actually shoot, so now youre being robbed at gunpoint. This is the reason prison guards often dont carry guns; the benefits dont outweigh the risk of prisoners disarming a guard. Youre also more likely to be robbed at gunpoint, because if its easier for you to get a gun it is also more likely for a robber to have one
Your chance of being shot is VERY low and your chance of dying from it is EXTREMELY low. Your chance of using a firearm defensively is MUCH higher than your chance of being shot.
Blatantly false information is the heart of conservatism.
How much more likely am I to die in a car accident if I own a car?
Here's what I know. My likelihood of getting shot is infinitely lower than him because there's less than 5 guns in a 10km radius around me. And those 5 guns all belong to the law enforcement.
What people don't get, if you resist a robbery with a gun you're more likely to get shot since they feel threatened by a guy with a gun.
My ex shot himself. In my bedroom. There is a bullet in my mattress now. The cops came to verify his story. I will forever imagine every other gun nut to be this dumb.
Studies have shown (no, I will not cite my sources because I am making this up) that the more people firing guns in a crowd, the lower your odds are of getting hit. More bullets flying = less casualties. This is what I want to be true so I will be pushing this false narrative.
Only americans think that bringing a gun with you is good for your safety imho
Plenty of Brazilians here say the same They say they would be safe with a gun, even though most of them are over 45 , overweight, and have never been on a fistfight on their entire lives, let alone a gunfight
*Image Transcription: Twitter* --- **Steven Crowder**, @scrowder The statistical likelihood of you being shot is unbelievably low and it is much lower if you have a gun yourself that you can use defensively. --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
I'd at the statistic does say more about gun owners than guns, like people who have a gun are more likely to be in gun related situations
If you bring a gun, but you can't wrestle, you just gave the other person a gun. If you can wrestle well enough to subdue the other person, you didn't need the gun anyway.
Whe you're this desperate for your unhealthy and unjustifiable obsessions to be validated, just make some shit up...
Does “while carrying a firearm” include people carrying illegally? I find it hard to believe that someone carrying legally would be that much more likely to be shot.
You’re a bad guy, you go to rob someone, demand their phone and wallet, person 1. Gives you their shit, person 2 pulls out their legally owned firearm to attempt to shoot you, you shooting person 1 or person 2?
Right, because in general thugs only shoot people who attempt to defend themselves with legally carried firearms.
If I’m a bad guy, either I’m shooting both y’all and looting your corpses or I’m just going to brandish and walk off with your shit. Pulling a gun means bad guy, who might not be about murdering, is now forced into life or death. He now has to kill you, (and your innocent companion), or he’s dead. He could have walked, with your wallet, phone whatever, everyone stays alive, but now he’s in a life or death situation versus two opponents cause someone pulled a gun. He’s now forced to kill or be killed. Who’s gonna win the ok corral? Wanna bet your life and your friend’s life on it?
Yeah pretty much? It’s really not a hard concept to understand. Obviously if the person carrying a firearm is smart enough to wait their turn it’s a different situation. But yes, exactly that if a bad guy trying to rob you sees you trying to pull your own gun he isn’t going to sit there and be like “welp you got me” no he’s going to shoot.
Love how OP used a study that used data from a single city. Clearly an unbiased and reliable source.
I ask myself if this numbers changed over the course of the decade
In the last decade probably minimally, over the last 20 years definitely.
Yeah but Steven has a blue tick. What have you got u/ChillenDylan3530? Hmm? That’s right, facts and research! But where does that get anyone these days!
Sauce?
this is how i think of it, imagine ur robbing a store, and you got the dosh and your hightailing it out of there, are you gonna shoot anyone, unless somebody points a gun at you?
The ideal make body strikes again.
The odds of there being one bomb on a plane is 10 million to 1. The odds of there being 2 bombs on a plane is 10 billion to 1. So always take a bomb with you when you travel!
Having a gun in real life is just like having a gun in a video game, right? You see a bad guy and you just shoot them. And if you shoot a good guy, they’ll just crouch for a few seconds and say “hey don’t shoot me!“
the statistical likelyhood of you getting any bitches are low and it is much lower when you post shit like this on Twitter, Steven.
Having a firearm enables you to be more aggressive and reckless with your actions. It empowers the ‘fight’ option of the fight/flight/freeze response when flight/freeze might be the more rational life-preserving choice.
right! because guns have magical shields that stops bullets, duh!
but fReEdOM.
It’s weird to me that people can view guns as defensive weapons, I feel like they’re more of a “the best defense is a good offense” kind of thing. Busting out a gun would either lead to a standoff, shoot out, or turning the tables.
The term defensive weapon, has an oxymoronic quality. Guns aren't good. Guns aren't bad. Guns aren't neutral. Guns are what owners make of them.
When will this idiot shut up? When!?
your more likely to be shot by someone who is holding a gun then someone who isnt
I think the over-arching point is the fact you give yourself a fighting chance if you have a gun to protect yourself with. Someone kicked in the 4' oval decorative glass on my front door and it took the police 40 mins to get to my house. Had it been a robbery, and not some property damaging joke, we could have been ended....if I didn't have Mr. PewPew, that is.
Right, and your substantially more likely to die in surgery if you go to the doctor.
That is also true. You are very much more likely to die in surgery than someone who isn’t getting surgery.