• BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    The other problem with the “good guy with a gun” is how many people does an attacker need to kill before you are the good guy killing the bad guy? One? And what if you didn’t witness it? The “good guy” with the gun attacking another guy with a gun without knowing what’s going on, are they still the “good guy” in that scenario? It’s a mess.

    The whole thing stems from fallacious logic. Arming everyone doesn’t stop bad guys murdering people, at best it might curtail the length of some attacks and at worst it causes innocents to die as so-called “good guys” try to save the day and make it worse.

    Prevention is the way forward, as then 0 people die. And the best way to do that is no one has guns (not even most police; just a small subset of specialist police). That is an anathema or sacrilegious to Americans, but it’s the approach taken in many democratic and free countries in the world.

    If the chart is trying to make a point, it’s making the wrong one anyway.

    • at_an_angle@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      How many people does the attacker need to kill? Ideally, none. If an attacker is attempting to kill someone and that person is killed instead of the potential victim, good.

      If I’m out and someone tries to attack me, I’m pulling out my pistol and ending it right there. I’m not trying to be a “good guy with a gun,” I’m just carrying to protect myself.

      and zero people die Are you dense? Murder will still happen because people have been killing people before guns. You’re also gonna take guns away from law-abiding people like me who love going out on the weekends to shoot with their buddies or hunt and leave nothing but criminals with guns? Dumb.