Quote of the Day
Perhaps most striking of the poll’s findings is the incorrect belief, held by many Americans, that guns make them safer. Sixty percent of Americans believe it’s true that armed school police guards have been proved to prevent school shootings. Eighteen percent of respondents thought the claim was “definitely” true and 42% believed it “probably” true.
In fact, as KFF noted, no studies have shown this, and researchers in 2021 found that in an examination of 133 cases of school shootings and attempted school shootings from 1980 to 2019, “armed guards were not associated with significant reduction in rates of injuries.”
Matt Shuham
August 22, 2023
Many Americans Still Wrongly Think Guns Make Us Safer
Perhaps most striking is that if this were true Mr. Shuham would be willing to bet, he is no more at risk in an arena with a hungry polar bear without a rifle as he is with one. And that he should be able to convince the protective details for politicians do not benefit from the possession of firearms. And that even soldiers are just as safe without guns as with.
It is amazing the lies such people think they can get away with.
Hard time studying something you ain’t looking for, Matt?
But I actually agree. Guards help, but not to the degree needed. The only thing that works against the element of surprise, is the element of surprise. If you know where the guns are in a given place (guards), then you can target them first. But if you don’t know where the defense will come from? Or how many will be coming? That’s what works, and mass-murderers have admitted such by not targeting places with known, but uncertain defensive measures.
The only answer is CCW. period, end of story, full stop.
Anyone not understanding that is either too ignorant to be at the grown-up table, Or a communist. and not someone you can have a discussion with anyway.
Let’s understand no one on the left wants to get rid of guns. None. They just don’t want you to have the ability to fight back. Against them. At all.
That’s the true problem. And the cause of most school/mass shootings. They want you to see how bad guns are by using them to kill people.
But like grandpa said; “If their telling you, you can’t carry a gun there. That probably where your going to need one most.”
CCW anyway. BFYTW.
Okay, let’s presume it’s true. It’s also missing the point of having a gun.
My having a gun is to better enable me to stop threats to me and those I care about. So it makes the would-be home invader, carjacker, rapist, murderer, etc. much less safe when they try to commit their crime.
Very odd study.
> This study examined a total of 133 cases of school shootings and attempted school shootings .. perpetrators … 148 (98%) were male.
Last I checked, 148 of 133 isn’t 98%. It does say twelve events involved more than one shooter… But dang, that must include one crazy gang war to get to this sum.
It also says its unable to calculate a deterrence effect, then immediately claims to have done so.
> It is limited by … inability to measure deterred shootings (nonevents). However, the data suggest no association between having an armed officer and deterrence of violence in these cases.
It also claims these findings are supportive of a “weapons effect” of escalation that other studies have looked for… But doesn’t mention that the better structured studies looking for this supposed effect instead only contain lamentations by the authors that they didn’t actually find evidence to support such an claimed effect!
It also says its unable to calculate a deterrence effect, then immediately claims to have done so.
How does one calculate a deterrence effect? How do you measure shootings that didn’t happen?
And among shootings that did happen, how do you measure “injuries” that didn’t?
I cannot think of any legitimate way to objectively measure those things, so I suspect they are taking the “We couldn’t disprove it, so it must be true” angle, and counting on nobody calling it out.
Published in the Huffington Post, well known for it’s balanced view on self defense and right to keep and bear arms
/sarc
You can’t make this mendacity up
One of the things such statements as these ignore is that “having a gun” is, first, a binary condition: you have one or you do not have one.
Not having one shortens the decision tree quite drastically; the options are reduced to “become a victim,” or “run away” (there is also a “do nothing” option which often becomes the predicate step to “become a victim”).
Having a gun includes the short decision tree above and increases it to “fight back,” which develops into potentially a complex decision tree all by itself as a wide range of different options become available, “protect others,” which has an equally large decision tree as “fight back.”
Anti-gunners ignore the fact that having a gun does not automatically mean “use the gun.” It just increases the available options, all of which are available at the discretion of the gun carrier.
Anti-gunners ignore the fact that having a gun does not automatically mean “use the gun.”
I remember reading once, a pro-gun person asked an anti-gun person (paraphrasing), “What would you do if you found an abandoned gun lying on the ground?”
The anti-gun person answered (paraphrasing), “I’d pick it up and look for someone to shoot.”
The pro-gun person responded (paraphrasing again), “See, that’s the difference between your side and mine. I’d make sure it was pointed in a safe direction and call the police, and I’d only pick it up if there were children nearby who might pick it up first, and then only to keep it pointed in a safe direction.”
It shows that mentality, though — that having a gun automatically means using the gun. Any CCW person can tell you that’s not the case at all, but the mentality persists.
I’d be like, “How do you go around carrying pepper spray all the time and not hose everybody down with it everywhere you go?”
(Or, more explicitly, depending on the person’s perceived gender, “How do you go around with a [penis/vagina] all the time and not [rape everyone/engage in prostitution] everywhere you go?”)
The idea that having anything automatically means using it is ridiculous on its face, and that needs to be continually pointed out.
Now I’m wondering what else Leftists may possess, psychologically or materially, they cannot not use; the mindset seems to be “X is here to be used so I’ll use it.”
The lawfare vendetta against Trump (who is merely a proxy for “many Americans”) comes first to mind, but I suspect there’s a long list.
Who cares if the study allegedly shows that people are incorrect in their “feelz” regarding guns and perceived safety? The liberal mindset is rife with examples of how “feelz” trumps hard scientifically-derived (not bought-and-paid-for studies) fact. Anthropogenic climate crises, Covid shutdowns, Evil Trump conspiracies – the lefties invent all sorts of crap. So if gun enthusiasts prefer to feel safer if packing, so what? Why do the liberal sudden embrace of supposed studies matter in such a case? Are they suddenly embracing factual data, ’cause if so, we have tons of studies to show them….
They embrace factual data if-and-only-if it supports their desires. In all other cases, the “feelz” reigns supreme no matter how many factual studies you present.
In a logical world, it wouldn’t matter; fact and verifiable truth would trump “feelz” every time.
But we don’t always live in a logical world — or more correctly, the Left doesn’t live in a logical world — and people running on “feelz” write just as many laws as people running on facts and truth, and those laws are equally enforceable.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but that’s why I care.
What glares out at me is the utterly unscientific nature of this “study”.
You cannot look at a selected population of school shootings and conclude that armed guards did not help — because you neglected to count the number of times they did help, thus preventing the school shootings!
I mean, isn’t that a “duh”?
Agreed.