• SubScion@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It seems their point is that the percentages are similar to success, so although the subject is different, the comparison still stands.

    I’m sure people have been “the good guy with a gun” a number of times, but the chance of success and the risk of shooting an innocent factor into the continued use of that as an argument point against gun control.

    (Edited: they’re to their)

    • SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So what’s the threshold of success rate that everyone winaccurate. 10%? 50%? Everybody talks about gun control “because if we can save just one life…” I’m not saying everyone should go out and buy a gun. I know plenty of people I would trust with a pencil. The point to my comment was that to make the claim that not one instance has been stopped by a good guy with a gun is both completely outrageous and inaccurate. Also, I know plenty of civilians that have had far more training than most police officers and military. When I was enlisted we had to qualify once a year. The requirement? Hit a target 23 out of 40 times. That’s pretty low considering the lethality of the other 17 rounds that missed their mark. I would assume police requirements are similar although I honestly have no idea.

      • SubScion@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        People will believe what they want to believe when it comes to gun control. I think the article itself does a pretty good job with parody alone to make it’s point. The “red wire” comment was also a decent comedic analogy of what the argument for a “good guy with a gun” is.

        If you don’t see their intended point already, then I don’t think I can explain it in any way that will help.