Let's say every story you shared happened this year, just for the sake of simplicity. That is 10 scenarios. Again, not accurate, since you shared stories ranging in different years. But again, we are just doing some back of the napkin math.

That means, there's about a 1.77% chance that "a good guy with a gun" does solve things.

So less than 2% chance. 2%.

The success rate of a mass shooter gunning multiple people down is 98% and you are actively going, "Well actually armed citizens does work..." And simple math is showing that it works LESS THAN 2% this year, even when I fudged the numbers to assume all of those stories happened this year.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

The biggest flaw in your math is that you think because I stopped listing articles that's the only times it's ever happened. On a similar note related to statistics, covid was killing 2% of people that got infected. Even after all the safety precautions and vaccines. Yet we still had to save as many of that 2% as possible, and rightfully so. But now that your math comes out to 2% of shooting situations being stopped, it's no big deal? I'm having trouble understanding that logic.

Sure, we can ban all guns under the assumption that no one will have guns, but do you not think that crime organizations will aquire them elsewhere? Drugs are illegal yet there's no shortage there. I'm still having trouble seeing the logic.

I get the sentiment of saving as many lives as possible. I just think the methodology in gun control is flawed. Help me join your side, what am I seeing wrong?