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

reply to post by Jake321


We're here and since you won't disarm the only solution is for everyone to arm up but in a shopping centre someone starts shooting and then everyone pulls and starts shooting you could end up with a lot of injuries/fatalities

Better mental healthcare and weapons training while at school would be a start but since that costs money it's cheaper just to mop up the odd few dead people and carry on

Perhaps a mandatory carry act where you must be armed or face jail time would be a good idea with everyone 16-65 having to pack a weapon at all times in public

Hmmmm...

They show mass shootings that already occured with CC weapons nearby...But what of all of the non-shootings that didn't occur, because of a CCW? How would they possibly know how many of these exist?
They can't. Because the gun, kept them from becoming a reality. There used to be several stories a year on my local news, about a weapon being "brandished" that thwarted further action from a would-be attacker. The media was obviously trying to slant public opinion against gun owners, but they also reinforced it, with those who already own them...Idiots...

reply to post by butcherguy


Well according to the example given I see at least 3.

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

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

A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.(was an off duty officer)

Maybe you were referring to on duty officers only?

Plus who knows how many others are stopped prior to mass casualties that never make it to the news.

reply to post by Jake321

I guess I was thinking of how many lives they saved in the theater in Aurora, CO.
Or how many children they saved in Sandy Hook.
That would be zero.
Point is, you are responsible for protecting yourself. The cops can't do it. You can't expect them to.

Even if guns were totally illegal, cops would have them cleaned off the streets just like they do coc aine, methamphetamine and heroin.

reply to post by Maxatoria


Not being here you would be surprised how many good citizens carry responsibly everyday. I have yet to hear of one of these situations that is always referred to where everyone pulls out guns and shoots wildly. That must be something that is fed to you guys. 99% of the population is responsible and I would feel much safer if more responsible Americans choose to carry.

In order to carry concealed legally you have to pass a training class.

reply to post by Jake321

Maybe you were referring to on duty officers only?

Thinking about it a bit, why should an officer need to be armed when he isn't on duty? If the gun-grabbers want the civilians disarmed, why should an off duty cop be allowed to carry a gun?

Originally posted by Jake321
reply to post by Maxatoria

 

Not being here you would be surprised how many good citizens carry responsibly everyday. I have yet to hear of one of these situations that is always referred to where everyone pulls out guns and shoots wildly. That must be something that is fed to you guys. 99% of the population is responsible and I would feel much safer if more responsible Americans choose carried.

In order to carry concealed legally you have to pass a training class.

Agreed.
I think that some folks need to see what 80,000,000 privately owned firearms being fired indiscriminately in parking lots all over the US would be like.

They would shortly figure out that most gun owners don't do that sort of thing.

They might figure out that they are 9,000 times more likely to be accidentally killed by their DOCTOR than to be killed by a gun.

Originally posted by SpaDe_
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!

edit on 12/27/2012 by SpaDe_ because: info

www.google.com... s.com%2Fgunclock%2Fstats.html&ei=dWncUPO8Gs6v0AHGxoDADA&usg=AFQjCNGQtq0xvdOYG3u0gwstGbq1z9en_w&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ

If link does not work use: The Defensive Gun Use Statistics

[QUOTE] According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.) [QUOTE]

just a few incidences that have happened these last few days


thearmedcitizen.com... www.nraila.org... ps=

thearmedcitizen.com... www.nraila.org...

thearmedcitizen.com...

thearmedcitizen.com...

Many people's emotional response to anything is not based on facts.... or the facts they put forth are based on made up statistics with an agenda instead of researched incidents/facts/happenings. People like to pick and choose incidences when trying to make arguments for their heart felt yearnings.

the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

I personally believe these figures have gone down due in part to all the concealed carry permits issued since the study...Florida has over 1 million people who have permits. In just about every state where permits have been issued crime rates have gone down. In every city that is highly restrictive the crime has gone up according to what I have read.

FBI Releases 2011 Crime Statistics

According to the figures released today by the FBI, the estimated number of violent crimes in 2011 declined for the fifth consecutive year. Property crimes also decreased, marking the ninth straight year that the collective estimates for these offenses declined.

reply to post by NavyDoc

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.

For the record, that ones not true. The shooter had already left the scene in a car (and crashed it into a pole) by the time the principal got there.

reply to post by butcherguy


So the other examples don't count because they don't support your argument?


I'm all for arming and protecting yourself, and you make a good point police can't be everywhere all the time. Most of the time they have to be called, then dispatched, and then deal with traffic. If your suggesting the police didn't try their damnest to get to those shootings asap you need to wake up.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

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.

For the record, that ones not true. The shooter had already left the scene in a car (and crashed it into a pole) by the time the principal got there.

That is incorrect. The principle confronted him and then he attempted to flee:

Woodham turned and headed back outside while Myrick, 36, a commander in the Army reserves, sprinted to his own truck and retrieved the .45 automatic he kept there. Spotting Woodham near the parking lot, he shouted for him to stop. Instead, Woodham got into his car and tried to drive away, but he lost control and came to a stop as Myrick raced up to him. "I could see him sitting there, holding on to the steering wheel, his knuckles white, those glasses on him," recalls Myrick. Putting the muzzle of his handgun to Woodham's neck, he ordered him out and held him until police arrived

Originally posted by Jake321
reply to post by butcherguy

 

So the other examples don't count because they don't support your argument?


I'm all for arming and protecting yourself, and you make a good point police can't be everywhere all the time. Most of the time they have to be called, then dispatched, and then deal with traffic. If your suggesting the police didn't try their damnest to get to those shootings asap you need to wake up.

Why does it matter if they tried their damnest? This is the real world, where death is a real (and final) result. There is no partial credit given for "trying your damnest". It is zero sum....when someone dies they die.

I have a right to life. Because of my right to life, I (by proxy) have a right to protect that life. I don't have a right to have it protected by a third party. Once that is your viewpoint, your a subject and not a free person.

reply to post by Jake321

If your suggesting the police didn't try their damnest to get to those shootings asap you need to wake up.

Hey, I woke up, back when Columbine happened.

I watched news footage of 'brave' policemen, lying on their bellies, breaking glass out of the front doors to the school.... with sticks, afraid to actually go in and mix it up with the bad guys.

Time for the cops to wake up, and either find a new line of work, or do what they are paid to do. They are all gung-ho when they have someone cuffed, or squirming on the end of a taser.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I agree (read my sentence before it), and therefore do protect myself. Most people choose not to. I think most of us are arguing the same side just different angles of it.

• 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 Ogden, 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. Why haven't most of you heard of these? The answer is simple: Mainstream media and radicals like Bloomberg don't dare make heroes of armed citizens because it CRUSHES every weak, pathetic argument they raise.

Nope they never stop them

reply to post by Maxatoria


www.wnd.com...

Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: “When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.” Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta. Read more at www.wnd.com...

reply to post by butcherguy


We're getting a little off subject here but Denver Police Swat alone fired over 130 rounds in exchange with the shooters inside the school (it didn't even happen in their county). The shooters were engaged and exchanged fire over three time with police. The first exchange was around 11:22am shooting began at 11:19.

I'm glad you go off what you saw from news camera instead of getting facts. Also after Columbine new protocol was adopted throughout Colorado and the Nation on how to better deal with these types of situations.

Since we're getting off topic if you'de like to continue this conversation simply PM me! I would love to "open your eyes" to exactly what happened there or at Aurora, Deercreek or Evergreen for that matter.

en.wikipedia.org...

Loaded question! If a citizen stops a would-be mass murderer before they kill anybody did they really prevent a mass shooting? It may have had the potential to be a mass shooting but will never be reported as such because it was stopped. Just one bad guy dead. Unfortunately we cannot see the future and use hypothetical statistics that don’t exist. Yet it happens all the time.

What is the point of, as you say, viewing the opposing side, when the facts and evidence will not change your mind due to your prevailing superstitions and taboos, which are often proven to be incorrect?

That's like saying, It's been proven that 3 + 3 = 6 but I'm going to keep believing it's 8 because that is my "side of things".

reply to post by Cosmic911


Fine. Armed civilians still stop would be criminals more often than they would if no civilians were armed....what a stupid article.