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

Given the fact that every mass shooting in the US in the past 20 years except 1 occurred in a "gun free zone" the entire assertion of the "article" is false.

This is a prime example of manipulation of data to fit a desired outcome, nothing more or less.

Originally posted by NavyDoc
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.

just re-posting this

Originally posted by butcherguy
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).

GoogleFight

Officer shoots family dog VS Officer apprehends suspect
www.googlefight.com...

officer shoots family dog
22 200 000 results
officer apprehends suspect
725 000 results


hmm

mass shootings are not very common, and the media has neglected to report most stories of heroic citizen heroes saving the day with concealed weapons.

here is a counter article to this one, backed up with research and case studies. i'll post some of the numbers to make it clear how effective an armed society is at stopping crime.
www.akdart.com...

Guns [are] used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year — or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

As a matter of fact, as of 2008, armed citizens killed more violent bad guys than the police (1,527 vs. 606).

In separate incidents less than 12 hours apart, crime victims fought back by shooting robbers Sunday [12/9/2012] and early Monday, killing one suspect and injuring three. In both cases, the crime victims were not hurt.

A South Florida fruit vendor is speaking out with words of gratitude for a customer who stepped in after someone tried to mug him. Blood stains and crime scene tape remain on the sidewalk marking the spot of the near-fatal confrontation that occurred Tuesday afternoon [11/27/2012]

There are several documented cases where armed citizens have stopped mass attacks by gunmen. Let me list a few: The Pearl, Mississippi school shooting was stopped by the vice principal Joel Myrick with a Colt .45, The Appalachian School shooting was stopped by two students with handguns. Both of the above incidents were stopped by the armed citizens threatening the shooter without firing.

and here we have two mass shootings stopped at schools by students/teachers with guns. by the way, the shooter in the second case wasn't "out of ammo" in the sense that he had no more bullets, he was going to reload. but i guess that doesn't count

for the record, sandy hill was a proclaimed "gun free" zone. the school made it public knowledge that guns were banned from the premises. their silly rule prevented honest, caring people from protecting kids and let lanza know that he wouldn't meet any armed resistance. the kindest way that can be used to describe those who would disarm law abiding citizens and make concealed carry illegal is foolish and negligent, if not downright malicious.

to take a number of shooting in gun free zones and claim Armed Civilians do nothing to stop Mass Shooters is a joke.

Mass shooters like gun free zones and you have few mass shooting in areas where you have concealed carry and a high number of CCWs.

And it is the Armed Civilians that do stop mass shooting just by being a threat to the mass shooter and he will go to a safer shooting site like a gun free zone.

Originally posted by ecoparity
Given the fact that every mass shooting in the US in the past 20 years except 1 occurred in a "gun free zone" the entire assertion of the "article" is false.

This is a prime example of manipulation of data to fit a desired outcome, nothing more or less.

Thank You for pointing out The TRUTH.

But unarmed civilians they stop bullets

It's impossible to quantify the mass shootings that did not occur because the hypothetical shooter decided not to walk into an area where people were armed to defend themselves.

It's like saying brushing your teeth doesn't prevent tooth decay because everybody with a cavity also brushed their teeth.

But I guess Mother Jones knows their audience well enough to understand they don't think beyond the liberal dogma.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant

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?

It's always beneficial to study the tactics of your enemy. That is the point. Sun Tzu said, "If you know the enemy and know yourself you need fear the result of a hundred battles." What I know of gun legislation is not superstitions or taboos. For a fact, we know that most gun legislation is ineffective in preventing violent crimes (obviously). I thought it might be interesting to view things from the other side; I guess I was wrong.

Originally posted by mademyself1984
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.

Agreed. I thought it would be interesting to view the gun legislation from the opposing side. This is a terrible article. I was wrong in my ascertion.

reply to post by Cosmic911

Sun Tzu also stressed that "all warfare is based on deception." In addition he said "to strike where an enemy is weak and avoid him where he is strong." Interpretation: politicians who seek to strip citizens of their right to keep and bear arms" will deceive the public as to their intentions (to lessen the opportunity to mount political resistance). Also the second point addresses the rationale for the gun control advocates for avoiding the NRA and other pro gun groups and only seeking to attack full force when they have proved the emotional attachment of the voting public to the shooting of innocent children.

To all those people out there who believe that arming everyone is a solution to stopping shootouts : you are morons.

A shootout is an extremely confusing event during which eveyone involved is pumped full of adrenaline. That's why it's so hard to put things together after shootings based on witness testimony (Sandy Hook anyone ?).

Let's run a little scenario here. You are armed, at the mall, and you hear shooting. You pull your gun and arrive on scene. One person has reacted faster than you, and has engaged the shooter. How the hell do you know who is who ? Why should the armed citizen who is firing at the shooter not open fire on you when he sees another person with a gun has just come round the corner ? Both citizens involved have an equal chance of shooting the wrong person, and I'm not even going to count collateral due to all these bullets flying eveywhere.

Now add more people to that scenario. You'll multiply the death toll by one hundred.

All the while, the shooter himself just doesn't care, because he's there to die anyway. Most of these shooters commit suicide, or attempt it. You think that citizens with guns are going to deter these kind of people ? They allready have a death wish. They allready want to die. You arm everyone, and I guarantee that your shooter will probably die fast, but the gunfight won't die with him.

Originally posted by Ismail
To all those people out there who believe that arming everyone is a solution to stopping shootouts : you are morons.

A shootout is an extremely confusing event during which eveyone involved is pumped full of adrenaline. That's why it's so hard to put things together after shootings based on witness testimony (Sandy Hook anyone ?).

Let's run a little scenario here. You are armed, at the mall, and you hear shooting. You pull your gun and arrive on scene. One person has reacted faster than you, and has engaged the shooter. How the hell do you know who is who ? Why should the armed citizen who is firing at the shooter not open fire on you when he sees another person with a gun has just come round the corner ? Both citizens involved have an equal chance of shooting the wrong person, and I'm not even going to count collateral due to all these bullets flying eveywhere.

Now add more people to that scenario. You'll multiply the death toll by one hundred.

All the while, the shooter himself just doesn't care, because he's there to die anyway. Most of these shooters commit suicide, or attempt it. You think that citizens with guns are going to deter these kind of people ? They allready have a death wish. They allready want to die. You arm everyone, and I guarantee that your shooter will probably die fast, but the gunfight won't die with him.

And yet you neglect to recognize the fact that the vast majority of these shooting sprees do not end up in a shootout. As soon as an armed person arrives and confronts them, they usually surrender or kill themselves.

Originally posted by Ismail
To all those people out there who believe that arming everyone is a solution to stopping shootouts : you are morons.

A shootout is an extremely confusing event during which eveyone involved is pumped full of adrenaline. That's why it's so hard to put things together after shootings based on witness testimony (Sandy Hook anyone ?).

Let's run a little scenario here. You are armed, at the mall, and you hear shooting. You pull your gun and arrive on scene. One person has reacted faster than you, and has engaged the shooter. How the hell do you know who is who ? Why should the armed citizen who is firing at the shooter not open fire on you when he sees another person with a gun has just come round the corner ? Both citizens involved have an equal chance of shooting the wrong person, and I'm not even going to count collateral due to all these bullets flying eveywhere.

Now add more people to that scenario. You'll multiply the death toll by one hundred.

All the while, the shooter himself just doesn't care, because he's there to die anyway. Most of these shooters commit suicide, or attempt it. You think that citizens with guns are going to deter these kind of people ? They allready have a death wish. They allready want to die. You arm everyone, and I guarantee that your shooter will probably die fast, but the gunfight won't die with him.

it seems you don't think before you type. someone going on a mass shooting most likely ISN'T going to be using a handgun, and (like at sandy hill) HAVE A FRICKIN MASK ON! along with a tactical vest, multiple clips of ammo, etc. so no, it isn't hard to tell at all. hell, civilians are much less likely to end up shooting an innocent in a situation than the police.

I think he forgot about the whole concealed carry permit course where among other things they talk about when and how to respond with a firearm.

Also that an armed populace isnt the solution to the problem its the preventative measure for it.

reply to post by Cosmic911


Actually, yes:

Florida elderly man stops armed robbery

Media blackout: Oregon mall shooter was stopped by an armed citizen

To be honest, I didn't even read your original post. I don't need to. The above links speak for themselves not to mention the fact that the school shooter turned the gun on himself only after armed police showed up. Responsible gun owners prevent and stop crime.

Originally posted by Ismail
To all those people out there who believe that arming everyone is a solution to stopping shootouts : you are morons.

A shootout is an extremely confusing event during which eveyone involved is pumped full of adrenaline. That's why it's so hard to put things together after shootings based on witness testimony (Sandy Hook anyone ?).

Let's run a little scenario here. You are armed, at the mall, and you hear shooting. You pull your gun and arrive on scene. One person has reacted faster than you, and has engaged the shooter. How the hell do you know who is who ? Why should the armed citizen who is firing at the shooter not open fire on you when he sees another person with a gun has just come round the corner ? Both citizens involved have an equal chance of shooting the wrong person, and I'm not even going to count collateral due to all these bullets flying eveywhere.

Now add more people to that scenario. You'll multiply the death toll by one hundred.

All the while, the shooter himself just doesn't care, because he's there to die anyway. Most of these shooters commit suicide, or attempt it. You think that citizens with guns are going to deter these kind of people ? They allready have a death wish. They allready want to die. You arm everyone, and I guarantee that your shooter will probably die fast, but the gunfight won't die with him.

ENOUGH OF THE ANTI-GUN TALKING POINT.

Ok CCW is available in 49 of 50 states.

Some states like texas and South dakota have had CCW for well over 25 YEARS. FACT.

Florida has had it for over 20 years.

The rest somewhere from there to 5 years (estimate).

In all that time NO ONE FROM THE BRADY GROUP (or ANY OTHER ANTI-GUN GROUP) has given ANY EXAMPLE of a "wild west shootout" where innocents have been killed by people LEGALLY carrying a legal firearm.

If one or more incidents had happened we would see it plastered all over the ads for more gun laws.

So ismail if you have the PROOF GIVE IT.

Other than that I can safely call you a liberal anti gun idealogicaly bias (at best) or (IMO) an outright lier.

So I issue a DIRECT CHALLENGE to anyone against CCW give the proof to the above quote.

If not you loose all credibility.