>>2133383I have heard this argument and the only evidence I have seen supporting it was one extremely flawed study with a mock workplace shooting. The shooter was a formally trained individual who knew that one of the people were going to be armed ahead of time, and it was in a complete set-piece scenario. It could not have been more biased.
Meanwhile there are plenty of actual real life examples of people defending themselves against attackers and mass shooters. Even if there wasn't real case-studies, I can't even wrap my head around the assertion that a lethal tool will give you zero edge over an attacker than if you didn't have one. Does that statement seem completely illogical to you?
This is just some euro cope.
