LogFAQs > #896784957

vhiran posted...

Yawn... you picked the low hanging fruit. How stunning and brave of you. Seriously low effort. Now go look up the hundreds of incidents that were finished before they started because someone besides the perp had a gun.

You'll have to look at local news though because that stuff rarely goes national. I'd do it for you but frankly you should want to be less ignorant.

Google and all the knowledge of the world at your fingertips, you should have a better idea of what goes on in the world.

Unless your ignorance is willful. Which it looks like it is, because you'll probably shoot back with some BS instead of doing research. Keep regurgitating if it's all you can do.

Big words from someone who apparently hasn't done as much research as they think they have (and can't even post a source to back up their claims). I could look up the "hundreds" of incidents where a gun prevented a crime... but I'd have to get through the thousands of incidents where one is used by a criminal instead. Here's some factoids from you, since you're all about expanding your startlingly-limited worldview:

-Guns are six times as likely to be used to commit a crime than for preventing one
-Guns are used in defence during a crime approximately 0.9% of the time, a strikingly low number considering how many people are armed in the US.
-The odds of someone getting injured if they are the victim of a crime and take no hostile action is 11.0%. When they defend themselves with a gun the odds drop all the way to... 10.9%.
-If you defend yourself with a gun during a burglary, there's a 39% chance you'll still lose property (vs. 85% if you do nothing). Sounds pretty good... but you may want to use a different weapon instead. People who fought back with non-firearm weapons only lost property 35% of the time.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001188
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!