Comment by tourmalinetaco
3 hours ago
> Its 40% more.
Good job; you can do math. Care to interface with the rest of my argument that you ignored, discussing what that disparity actually means?
> It wouldn't be a factor in the rate of disputes
That was my central point. There is nuance to the way gun legalization could take place in Europe that can help offset fatalities like this, rather than a blanket ban.
> They are also extremely convenient and instant.
Hence the “more fatal means to do so” that you quoted.
> I don't think people are making that argument.
That’s quite literally the entire discussion. “Good-faith” arguments for banning firearms. If you need a refresher of the context, I suggest starting here: > Cars are only practical for killing more than a few people when there are large, condensed crowds with road access into them. They are practical for killing whoever is in front of them, physics permitting. They are far more practical than firearms for killing tightly packed groups, but little stops a massive block of metal from killing say a lone cyclist. Everything is situational; it doesn’t make it any less of a threat. > "But armed bystanders shooting attackers was not common in the data — 22 cases out of 433. In 10 of those, the “good guy” was a security guard or an off-duty police officer." Firstly, defensive gun use is defensive gun use regardless of owning a badge. Secondly, this is not accounting for gun-free zones (bars, school campuses) where most mass shooters will target because of that power disparity. “…while 36% of active shooting attacks have occurred in places where guns are allowed, almost half (42.3%) of those were stopped by people who legally carry concealed handguns.”