3 ms·
> This is posing the question wrong. If some area has half as many fatalities per gunshot, they're clearly doing something right. Not necessarily, I'd imagine
by hugh4 10y ago
> This is posing the question wrong. If some area has half as many fatalities per gunshot, they're clearly doing something right.
Not necessarily, I'd imagine easy availability of fully-automatic weapons would lower your fatalities-per-gunshot ratio but not be a good thing.
- MichaelGG 10y agoWhat is bad about a firing mode that decreases accuracy and depletes ammo quicker?
- AnthonyMouse 10y agoThis is kind of the point. The fatalities-per-gunshot ratio is quite irrelevant. What matters is the number of injuries or fatalities. If hypothetically giving out automatic weapons caused there to be more gunshots because every time there was a gun battle many more shots were fired, but it reduced the total number of shooting victims because now dealers are much more wary about starting a gun battle, then you could make the argument for giving out automatic weapons. Because what matters is the actual harm. But if all it did was increase the number of gunshots by a lot and the number of injuries by a little then it's clearly a bad thing. Because what matters is still the actual harm.