Over 60 percent of active shooters stopped by good guy with a gun

According to just-released data from the Crime Prevention Research Center, 41% of active shooting incidents were stopped by armed civilians.

Outside of so-called gun-free zones, which bar the legal carrying of firearms, over 63% of active shooting cases were ended by an armed civilian, according to the center.

The new data from John R. Lott Jr., the former Justice Department senior adviser for research and statistics, are his latest to challenge undercounting and bias in government reports on shootings and back up efforts by Second Amendment and police groups to encourage people to carry firearms.

Link

Evidence compiled by the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that the sources the media relied on undercounted the number of instances in which armed citizens have thwarted such attacks by an order of more than ten, saving untold numbers of lives. Of course, law-abiding citizens stopping these attacks are not rare. What is rare is national news coverage of those incidents. Although those many news stories about the Greenwood shooting also suggested that the defensive use of guns might endanger others, there is no evidence that these acts have harmed innocent victims.

Massive errors in FBI's reporting....

Don't be mad at me. Be mad at the media and government goons who lie to you. Be mad at those that would restrict your God given rights to protect yourself and your property.

Question: Under what premise does a government wish to disarm the populace? Especially the legally armed populace?

a reply to: JinMI

Pretty self explanatory.

It appears there is no other way to deal with the mass shooter problems because disarming citizens will, it seems, never be on the table. Let's hope everyone can do one good head shot because these shooters seem to put on bullet proof armor. Not sure why if they are planning to kill themselves afterwards or die by police.

The catch and release of criminals in blue political cities; they actually prefer shootings as that furthers their gun restriction and confiscation plans along. Does not matter how many bystanders are killed as long as they reach their goal of disarming America.

originally posted by: quintessentone
It appears there is no other way to deal with the mass shooter problems because disarming citizens will, it seems, never be on the table. Let's hope everyone can do one good head shot because these shooters seem to put on bullet proof armor. Not sure why if they are planning to kill themselves afterwards or die by police.

If you've a plan to disarm criminals without disarming law abiding citizens, I'm all ears.


Sorry the data displeases you....

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone
It appears there is no other way to deal with the mass shooter problems because disarming citizens will, it seems, never be on the table. Let's hope everyone can do one good head shot because these shooters seem to put on bullet proof armor. Not sure why if they are planning to kill themselves afterwards or die by police.

If you've a plan to disarm criminals without disarming law abiding citizens, I'm all ears.


Sorry the data displeases you....

The data does not displease me nor pleases me, I was just making an observation from how gun restrictions are always deemed something that is taking something away from citizens when with all the rampant gun violence, not just with mass shooters it might be on the road from road rage, I don't see any other solution but the way of the wild west.

a reply to: quintessentone

Why do mass shooters tend to choose gun free zones?

a reply to: JinMI

Especially the legally armed populace?

Control! You can control an unarmed populace absolutely.
When you absolutely can not control an armed populace.

But it does nothing to sleep with a gun if you're not awake to use it.

a reply to: Saloon

ETA:

Woops, wrong thread.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Why do mass shooters tend to choose gun free zones?

Good question and it appears the answer is not a simple one.

Gun-free zones are intended to reduce violent crime, suicides, unintentional firearm injuries and deaths, and mass shootings in specific locations. In theory, the gun-free zone reduces or eliminates the presence of guns in these areas, thereby eliminating the risk of unintentional firearm injuries due to recklessness, escalatory conflicts, or criminal activity. Gun-free zones establish the legal foundation for imposing screening measures, such as bag checks at stadiums or magnetometer screening at some schools or public buildings, that can be used to ensure that fewer or no guns are present in the location.

Alternatively, if the presence or potential presence of armed civilians deters violence, gun-free zones could serve as more-attractive targets to violent criminals or mass shooters because perpetrators will be less likely to encounter armed resistance in these areas. There is debate over the extent to which perpetrators target gun-free zones. One analysis of 133 mass shooting events between 2009 and 2016 found that 10 percent of incidents occurred in designated gun-free zones (Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, 2017b). However, another analysis focused on mass public shootings between 1998 and 2018 and reported that 97.8 percent of incidents took place in gun-free zones (Crime Prevention Research Center, 2018a). While the discrepancy in these estimates is partially due to differences in how mass shootings are defined—the latter study restricts analysis to mass public shootings—there also appears to be some disagreement about how gun-free zones are classified.

To evaluate the effects of gun-free zones, the ideal data would have fine-enough geographic detail to examine changes in outcomes specifically in areas in which gun-free zones were implemented or removed. However, a nationwide database on gun-free zones does not exist, and different decisions about how to classify these areas can lead to widely differing conclusions. Determining whether a given shooting incident occurred in a gun-free zone requires collecting information on local firearm policies; determining whether the place an incident occurred had a policy of allowing or disallowing firearms, which may necessitate fine-grained detail on the location of the incident; and determining whether the location had a means of enforcing that policy, such as bag checks or magnetometer screening.

www.rand.org...#:~:text=Two%20federal%20laws%20restrict%20guns,with%20state%20licenses%20(18%20U .S.C.

If you read the entire article it looks like state implementation of gun-free zones has varying caveats.

But with everyone being armed, road rage gun deaths will continue to soar and other gun-related violence.

www.supremecourt.gov...

a reply to: quintessentone

I think the answer is very simple.

A non armed, target rich environment......

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

I think the answer is very simple.

A non armed, target rich environment......

Nothing is ever that simple. With more people being armed, other types of gun violence increase.

To evaluate the effects of gun-free zones, the ideal data would have fine-enough geographic detail to examine changes in outcomes specifically in areas in which gun-free zones were implemented or removed. However, a nationwide database on gun-free zones does not exist, and different decisions about how to classify these areas can lead to widely differing conclusions. Determining whether a given shooting incident occurred in a gun-free zone requires collecting information on local firearm policies; determining whether the place an incident occurred had a policy of allowing or disallowing firearms, which may necessitate fine-grained detail on the location of the incident; and determining whether the location had a means of enforcing that policy, such as bag checks or magnetometer screening.

a reply to: quintessentone

Do you think all men should cut off their penises to stop rape by a few?

a reply to: quintessentone

How about this statistic.

Gun free zones inherently provide no guns in response to someone with a gun.

...until someone with a gun shows up....

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

How about this statistic.

Gun free zones inherently provide no guns in response to someone with a gun.

...until someone with a gun shows up....

That may be one of the debunked myths from the article below, that I am still reading. Give it a once over.

www.americanprogress.org...

BTW a mass shooter is not the same as an active shooter, so the statistics will differ.

a reply to: 727Sky

Does not matter how many bystanders are killed as long as they reach their goal of disarming America.

Of course it doesn't matter how many die on the trail of disarming those they want dead.

Armies surrender their weapons at the end of a war when defeated. Why not try
to disarm the enemy at the beginning of the war? Before the enemy knows there
even is a war?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

How about this statistic.

Gun free zones inherently provide no guns in response to someone with a gun.

...until someone with a gun shows up....

That may be one of the debunked myths from the article below, that I am still reading. Give it a once over.

www.americanprogress.org...

So youre saying that in gun free zones where someone with ill intent enters with a gun, that they arent waiting on a good guy with a gun?


How many articles/videos/first person testimony would you like to the contrary?

Also, given the abovr stastics...

See, I understand trying to debunk, yet do you understand the level of irony involved when trying to use debunked information to do so?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Saloon

ETA:

Woops, wrong thread.

Lmao

I almost tried to retort in the wrong thread.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

How about this statistic.

Gun free zones inherently provide no guns in response to someone with a gun.

...until someone with a gun shows up....

That may be one of the debunked myths from the article below, that I am still reading. Give it a once over.

www.americanprogress.org...

So youre saying that in gun free zones where someone with ill intent enters with a gun, that they arent waiting on a good guy with a gun?


How many articles/videos/first person testimony would you like to the contrary?

Also, given the abovr stastics...

See, I understand trying to debunk, yet do you understand the level of irony involved when trying to use debunked information to do so?

I presume you didn't read the article which shows actual mass shooter statistics.

a reply to: quintessentone

An FBI report covering.....

Do you understand what this thread is about?