Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.(article claims)

Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.

I found this article on the web on motherjones.com. Although the website swings quite left, I still thought it was an interesting read. The topic is obviously popular right now during these times so I thought the subject matter was relevant. I wholly support the 2nd amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. While I do not necessarily believe that every man, woman, and child should be armed, I do support the idea that our schools should have professional police officers available to them during school hours, whether it is an officer, a trooper, or a deputy. Many school districts have already been doing this successfully for years now, however, during times of financial crisis, these programs are often the first to be cut. They are sometimes referred to as Resource Officers, or Liason Officers.

I'll spare you all the left mumbo-jumbo from the introduction and skip to the cases...

Appalachian School of Law shooting in Grundy, Virginia
Gun rights die-hards frequently credit the end of a rampage at the law school in 2002 to armed "students" who intervened. They conveniently ignore that those students also happened to be current and former law enforcement officers, and that the killer, according to police investigators, was out of ammunition by the time they got to him.

There are five cases like this in the web article...


And what about cases in which citizens try to use their guns and things go wrong?

Shopping mall shooting in Tacoma, Washington
As a rampage unfolded in 2005, a civilian with a concealed-carry permit named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with his handgun. The shooter pumped several bullets into McKown, wounding six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.

As anyone who is familar with basic statistics, and how to arrive at them, I don't believe this article accurately depicts the whole of the situation. Similar to statistics, the variables arrive at the conclusion at the behest of the author. These are just snap-shot cases, of course, and only number in the single digits. I'll continue to carry my Glock everywhere I go, hoping and praying to never ever feel the need to utilize it against another human being. But should the time ever arrive when I need to take arms against another person in defense of myself, my family, or my friends, I'm confident it will be a life-altering event. So, while I do not support the claims or findings of this article, I do think it's important to view things from the opposing side from time to time, but then quickly run back to your side of things as fast as you can!

Do Armed Civilians...

Motherjones.com?!? Might as well put up a Sorcha Faal hit piece.

And as far as armed people not working they do a great job of debunking their own claims with the one from 2002.

ETA: Then there is this gem. When the story doesn't fit your agenda, just make things up to make it look like it does.

Middle school dance shooting in Edinboro, Pennsylvania
An ambiguous case from 1998, in which the shooter may well have already been done shooting: After killing a teacher and wounding three others, the 14-year-old perpetrator left the dance venue. The owner of the venue followed him outside with a shotgun, confronting and subduing him in a nearby field until police arrived.

(emphasis mine)
"May have already been done shooting" IE: "We are clueless, but to fit our agenda this wording works for us"

What a joke!

reply to post by Cosmic911


The problem with the article is that it really ends up with an opinion piece. Take Virgina where they dismiss one of the responders as a "former" LEO. Guess what a former LEO is? Yep, a private citizen.

A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school’s vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.

A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.

A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.

A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.

A 2007 mall shooting in Salt Lake City, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.

A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.

A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.

At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.

Excellent piece on the subject by John Lott
Armed Citizen in Texas stops shooting spree and saves Cop

Armed citizen stops mall shooter
List of massacres stopped by armed citizens

Simple logic. Police cannot be everywhere all of the time. Thus it is inherent on good people to retain and utilize the means of self defense.

reply to post by Cosmic911


I'm pro gun for home defense.
And while armed citizens haven't stopped mass shooters.
I can give examples where guns have saved home owners from intruders.

www.foxnews.com...

www.youtube.com...

"Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."

Lesson 1 when I was learning how to apply statistics in a business environment.

Motherjones has cherry picked a few examples to underscore a pet point. It is a case of knowing the truth, but still being so scared by the world around you that you ignore the truth for a chance to feel safer.

reply to post by SpaDe_

Motherjones.com?!?

I know...I know...I did put a disclaimer in the thread!
I thought it might be interesting to view things from "the other side." I thought wrong!

reply to post by NavyDoc

Simple logic. Police cannot be everywhere all of the time. Thus it is inherent on good people to retain and utilize the means of self defense.

With proper training and education, yes, you can reasonable expect a high degree of professionalism and competency, but only if you're willing to make a committment. I think its possible, doc.

reply to post by grey580


Thanks for sharing this video, grey.

Originally posted by Cosmic911
reply to post by SpaDe_

 

Motherjones.com?!?

I know...I know...I did put a disclaimer in the thread!

I thought it might be interesting to view things from "the other side." I thought wrong!

It wouldn't have been so bad if they would have remained centered around facts, but they ran far away from that.

Originally posted by Cosmic911

Shopping mall shooting in Tacoma, Washington
As a rampage unfolded in 2005, a civilian with a concealed-carry permit named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with his handgun. The shooter pumped several bullets into McKown, wounding six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.

As a person with a CHL, carrying is not something taken lightly. It's actually a burden, and my gun lies heavy on my hip. It is the same for most CHL holders. The above story shows how not pulling the trigger gets people killed.

The shooter in the story had already begun shooting when McKown drew down on him. He made the mistake of not firing. Peaceful resolution to a conflict is always preferable, but in this case, he failed to act rationally as a person carrying a concealed weapon.

/TOA

No for the most part armed civilians or even cops do and can not stop mass shooters. Their is the off chance the right person with the right training could be in th right spot at the right time. But generaly the more people shooting just mean more people getting shot. We see this in police shoot outs where civlians and other cops are hit in gun fights. It even happens in the military. The problem is the chaos that goes on in such a situation. Cops and anybody esle with a gun will be shooting at anybody with a gun and thus each other. Or anybody who even looks like they have a gun. These sorts of things are hard enough for professionals to handle much less your average american gun owner who has no idea what to do in such situations. Even someone with my back ground at a mass shooting would be hard pressed to find and put down the shooter and avoid popping random freak out people running around or getting shot by a cop or another armed civilian.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
"Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."

Motherjones has cherry picked a few examples to underscore a pet point. It is a case of knowing the truth, but still being so scared by the world around you that you ignore the truth for a chance to feel safer.

I like that quote! It's true whenever you look at studies or data. Sample populations and study/research tools are important when trying to validate any conclusion or study.

Mass shootings are a rare event and there simply are not enough Conceal Carry Citizens to be in the "(wrong) place at the right time" ...but there have been countless instances of armed citizens stopping crimes against them and others (in public as well as at home). While we dont want shoot outs on the street it is acceptable to have a trained armed citizen be able to respond to a mass shooting if he or she is in position to stop the shooter.

reply to post by The Old American

As a person with a CHL, carrying is not something taken lightly. It's actually a burden, and my gun lies heavy on my hip. It is the same for most CHL holders. The above story shows how not pulling the trigger gets people killed.

Yes, you are correct. Only someone who carries a lethal weapon would understand this. My whole life has changed since I obtained my CCW. You re-evaluate everything in your life the minute you decide to carry that weapon. Indeed, you must already decide you are going to be able to take another life when you begin carrying that weapon.

.

Motherjones .. LOL !

Oh yeah thats a great unbiased source .. no global socialist agenda happening there .

Look you want a peaceful society ?

Arm everyone ..

Require that they are trained and certified competent .

Now it may not be so peaceful at first due to idiots but attrition will take care of that .

A year or two down the line you will have never seen such a respectful bunch of citizens .

.

Its odd becaise i've been reading a lot about innocent bystanders who stopped a mass shooting lately.

Originally posted by MrSpad
No for the most part armed civilians or even cops do and can not stop mass shooters. Their is the off chance the right person with the right training could be in th right spot at the right time. But generaly the more people shooting just mean more people getting shot. We see this in police shoot outs where civlians and other cops are hit in gun fights. It even happens in the military. The problem is the chaos that goes on in such a situation. Cops and anybody esle with a gun will be shooting at anybody with a gun and thus each other. Or anybody who even looks like they have a gun. These sorts of things are hard enough for professionals to handle much less your average american gun owner who has no idea what to do in such situations. Even someone with my back ground at a mass shooting would be hard pressed to find and put down the shooter and avoid popping random freak out people running around or getting shot by a cop or another armed civilian.

I've been in more than one firefight, albeit overseas. I think that the history is not as bleak as you make it out to be.

Wow All the Brits and Aussies must be sleeping can't believe they're not here yet telling US how crazy we are for wanting an armed populace.

Good to know that if I stop a shooting I'll just be an off duty law enforcement officer and that I won't be counted as an armed citizen. Like that makes it less of an accomplishment.

reply to post by R0CR13


Is it somehow more credible if it comes from Fox or a right-wing source?

That's not the point here.

The point is, not every citizen is trained to confront an assailant in such a situation. They can actually make the rampages worse and/or probably end up dead regardless.

People have got to learn to get past this gung-ho attitude about gun rights and THINK.

How often do COPS, the people supposedly entrusted with stopping these shooters, actually stop a mass shooting? They show up after it is finished in most cases.

Google search this: 'cop shoots unarmed man'.
Then google search this: 'cop shoots family pet'.

Yep, better take away our guns. Don't take them away from a group that are known to have a higher suicide rate than the general population though (cops).