Why is it that America’s legacy media refuse to report on the proven benefits of firearm ownership? Is it because doing so would reflect poorly upon the (mostly) Democrats who would like to legislate away our God-given right to keep and bear arms?
Here’s another story the New York Times has failed to mention: everyday armed Americans stopped not one, not two, but six active shooters in 2021 alone – nearly 10% of active shooter incidents reported across America in 2021.
That’s right, the FBI reported the day before the Uvalde massacre that armed good guys and gals stopped six of sixty-one active shooters intent on creating their own Uvalde-type atrocities last year.
Good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns.
From the Daily Signal:
Citizens stopped six active shooters, whom the FBI defines as “one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area,” in 2021, killing four of them, according to the report “Active Shooter Incidents In The United States In 2021.” There were 61 active shooter incidents in 2021, 12 of which met the FBI’s criteria for a “mass killing,” up from 40 the previous year.
“The active aspect of the definition inherently implies the ongoing nature of an incident, and thus the potential for the response to affect the outcome, whereas a mass killing is defined as three or more killings in a single incident,” the FBI said in a Monday release.
Not all of those incidents ended well for the heroes who stopped the carnage.
Arvada police and residents call John Hurley, the Good Samaritan killed in the Olde Town Square shooting, a “true hero.” They say his actions may have helped save lives.
One witness says Hurley urged people to get to safety and ran toward the gunman. https://t.co/c2ioC4fIjq pic.twitter.com/nFVdOZwByK
— Denver7 News (@DenverChannel) June 23, 2021
These incidents of good guys with guns stopping crazed killers happened both in urban areas like Denver and in rural areas like Superior, Nebraska. We wrote about the Agrex incident in Nebraska where an angry former employee stormed a business intent on killing everyone inside. One staff member grabbed a shotgun and stopped him with a load of buckshot.
…An employee grabbed a shotgun from the office and confronted an active shooter Thursday afternoon. The killer, Max Hoskinson, 61, had been fired earlier in the day. He had returned with a gun and started shooting. Hoskinson managed to kill one and wound two more before the good guy with a shotgun ended the rampage with a load of buckshot.
The incident proves once again that the only thing that stops a bad guy with evil in his heart is a good guy with a gun.
As for the disgruntled active shooter, Hoskinson was transported to the hospital, but he won’t be celebrating his 62nd birthday.
The FBI also gave details about the outcomes for the killers. Newsflash: mass murder is not conducive to a long and prosperous life. From the FBI report:
The 61 incidents in 2021 were carried out by 61 shooters. Sixty shooters were male, and one was female. Individual shooters carried out all the incidents. The age range of the shooters was 12 years old to 67 years old. Two shooters wore body armor. Thirty shooters were apprehended by law enforcement, 14 shooters were killed by law enforcement, four shooters were killed by armed citizens, one shooter was killed in a vehicle accident during a law enforcement pursuit, 11 shooters committed suicide, and one shooter remains at large.
Once again: the only thing that stops bad guys intent on committing mass murder is a good guy with a gun. You can have a gun on your hip to deal with one of these lunatics, or help can be parked a few minutes away at the local donut shop. The choice is yours to make.
Too bad they won’t be covered anywhere, eh?
100% of the time Firearms have a way of making perverts like sid tuck tail and run like crazy or it’s boom and they fall down…Ain’t dat right sid?
Whatever you say. I bet you have a pink .25 in your bedazzled holster. Jeezus… You people don’t do yourselves any favors in the public eye with your stereotyping. Do you feel better about yourself by calling me a pervert? How am I a pervert? I’d really like to know.
“you people don’t do yourselves any favors in the public eye by stereotyping”
Wow, that’s some next-level lack of self-awareness, right there. Sid, do you own a mirror??
I’ve been posting this once in a while for years.
There is a reason so many mass shootings happen at schools — they are gun-free zones. Take that away, allow armed teachers, and mass school shootings will vanish within weeks or months as news reports show how suicidal and ineffective they have become.
Read or skim this article. Shooters stopped by civilians killed far fewer victims, because the stoppers were on the scene, whereas police had to be called, dispatched, arrive, coordinate, assess, and finally act cautiously. One begins to suspect there’s a reason Mother Jones and the police ignore shootings with fewer than 4 victims.
https://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/
I compiled and analyzed 100 shootings, noting my methodology, and I am now prepared to present my findings, complete with links to the data.
The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29
The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33
The way to stop school shootings is simple:
Get rid of gun-free zones.
Let staff and teachers carry on the job. Open, concealed, doesn’t matter.
Making carry mandatory isn’t necessary, as shown by the statistics above, and it offends my sense of liberty, reduces the employment pool, and many people are not very good with guns.
Another bit of related research: https://crimeresearch.org/2019/05/major-new-research-on-school-safety-schools-that-allow-teachers-to-carry-guns-havent-seen-school-shootings-during-school-hours/
“Get rid of gun-free zones.”
Statistics are fun.
Every hour of everyday that a mass shooting does not occur in a GFZ proves they work. there are 8766 hours in a year. Multiply that by the number of schools existing. That’s a whole lotta hours where no shootings are happening. Since the schools are not protected by armed security during every one of those hours, it can only be that the GFZ signs are preventing more school shootings. The model is valid, even if you only include school hours: shootings not occurring during school hours prove GFZs are wildly effective.
(BTW, thanx for doing the stats you presented.)
No no no, those are not my stats! That is someone else from 10 years ago (dailyanarchis).
ROFLMAOBT “Gun Free Zones” work? why, they surely do…for the bad guys. You see they don’t pay any attention to that “Gun Free Zone” nonsense. The model is not at all valid. How many “gun free zones” were hit by gunmen/women this year? Too many. How about the school in TX?? Schools by Federal law are “gun free zones”. Of course, it’s a law that is not enforced.
Actually, it says that in one case two citizens were able to subdue and armed person. It doesn’t say anything about them being armed. And the other is a teacher. It just says she was able to deescalate the situation and get the girl to hand over her gun until police arrived. Again, nothing about the teacher being armed.
@WEB III
You’ve been on this site for a long time, yet you still don’t understand Sam I Am. How sad.
Sam- good job. 😂👏👍🏻
“Sam- good job. 😂👏👍🏻”
Careful!
The moderators will be watching you closely, now. You could get shadow banged.
You didn’t even put your response in the right spot. SAD!
10%. You’re talking about 10% like it’s a success.
Instead of incidents, try counting casualties. Because lest we forget, 90% of incidental murders is a helluva lot more than 10% dick wagging.
All this justification is WEAK SAUCE.
10% is a success in demonstrating that you don’t have to be a cop or a circus trick shooter to stop a bad guy.
Here, have another plate of sour grapes.
Tell that to the people alive because of them.
What we need are more people actively carrying.
Justification? You mean the home intrusions that the bad guy gets shot? The Air Jordon’s in Dayton a guy bought and he had to shoot an 18 yr old guy with a gun who wanted those, the Sneaker buyer was a CCW holder and both were black.
The estimated more than a million crimes that are stopped because someone is armed. The 22 people just in Chicago shot the same time Buffalo was happening. The 21 or so at that time in Minneapolis.
There are more than half a BILLION guns in the hands of 130 or so million Americans. They are never going away. Bad guys need bullets, or prison.
Cope harder Sid.
Most people find it easier to just complain stead of actually carrying a side arm. Since there are so few people that carry, these numbers are not impressive. Many will leave it at home. A large number of people would but for various legal restrictions (30.06).
The people people that carry legally and responsibly who actually care what happens around them the better.
@Sid
Yet you cheerfully redeem your 10% off coupon at Bed, Bath and Beyond or REI…don’t you?
When we’re talking millions of assaults a year that 10% you denigrate represents a substantial number of people whose lives were better off through the intervention of a firearm.
10%…You know the saying, “If it saves just one life.” Of course democrats don’t really mean that.
On average, something like 5% of the population has a carry permit, where applicable, and fewer than that routinely carry? Then considering that 90%+ of mass shootings take place in “gun-free zones” (which are “gun-free” right until they’re emphatically not), and 10% is a great number.
Beat me to it I would have figured closer to 2.5-5% would be stopped by armed citizens with a much higher suicide to police shooting ratio for the major causes.
vicious sid…I hate to pee on your parade of stupidity but defenseless unarmed people are what criminals refer to as soft targets. Of course in your case it would be, placid target.
Casualty count is misinformation. I posted another comment (https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/fbi-reveals-six-active-shooter-incidents-stopped-by-armed-americans-in-2021/#comment-5914731) with a link to some guy’s research from ten years ago, showing that there are far fewer casualties when civilians stop mass shooters than when cops do; what’s more relevant is that the civilian casualty count is below the FBI and Mother Jones cutoff of 4 victims. The Baptists and bootleggers have the same vested interest in not letting on that the best defense against mass shooters is armed civilians.
The vast majority of mass shootings are done in “gun free zones”. Shooters pick those because that way no one will be shooting back at them.
That’s why the percentage is so low.
@Sid
“10%. You’re talking about 10% like it’s a success.
Instead of incidents, try counting casualties. Because lest we forget, 90% of incidental murders is a helluva lot more than 10% dick wagging.
All this justification is WEAK SAUCE.”
10% is success, its 10% more than the police saved by showing up AFTER the shooting starts.
10% is success, its 10% more than school lock down saved when the shooter became active. The majority of school shooting victims are shot within 30 feet of a lock down area they are trying to get to, that is locked and those inside will not open the door. School shooters inside the school specifically hunt supposed ‘lock down safe areas’ like libraries and cafeterias and other areas because they know when the lock down order is given its likely that not all can get to an area faster than the doors can be locked, thus victims trapped out in the open. In active shooter school shootings, school staff routinely stop students from feeling the school and make them travel back through the school to supposed lock down areas thus sending students attempting to flee back into the hunting zones of the school shooter – over 40% of school shooting victims tried to flee the school but were sent back into the school by staff where they encountered the shooter while trying to get into a lack down area. over 60% of school shooting victims and shot within 30 feet of a school lock down area. Our schools are basically training the kids to go back into the kill zones instead of trying to get away if they can not get to a lock down safe area, and all the while the police are outside trying to figure out which thumb to stick up their asses, school staff is busy sending kinds back into the kill zones and locking doors, and no one inside is able to stop the threat because they are not armed even though over 80% of school shooters inside the school are seen or encountered by school staff before the shooter starts shooting, ’cause ‘procedure’ and the magical fairy tale of ‘gun free zone’.
10% is success, its 10% more than a ‘gun free zone’ sign saved. Police success rate in stopping a mass shooting before it happens is zero, that’s right, zero. Armed civilian legal gun carriers success rate is 10%. If its placed in context with the whole, armed civilian legal gun carriers were 100% effective at stopping the mass shootings they encountered and the police and ‘gun free zone’ areas and laws and politicians and restrictions and bans were 0% effective at stopping those same mass shootings.
Remember, the FBI info is not talking specifically about ‘politically charged rhetoric’ areas with this like schools for example. They are talking nationwide. The fact that legal gun owners, the majority, obey the nonsense ‘gun free zone’ laws and don’t carry into the fantasy land of the ‘gun free zone’ does not mean that its not a play ground for criminals who don’t care what the sign says. The ‘gun free zone’ stop rate by good guy armed civilians is so low because good guy armed civilians, the majority, obey the law and don’t take their guns into ‘gun free zones’ thus can’t try to stop the active shooter.
This is just 10% based upon an arbitrary number limit like shooting three or four or more. There are thousands of potential mass shooter incidents even year that would have met that “arbitrary number limit’ requirement if they had not been stopped by a good guy with a gun before they could get started. Some of these “arbitrary number limit’ requirement shootings are never known to the public and disguised as something else, for example, a bad guy shoots three or more people in a home invasion its still called a home invasion and not a mass shooting but if its stopped by a good guy with a gun before the bad guy starts shooting its maybe sometimes mentioned in the news less than .05% of the time.
Defensive gun use happens daily in the U.S. where a legitimate legal gun carrier/owner stops either a mass shooting (based upon the “arbitrary number limit’ requirement definition) or a smaller number of shootings and violence every day in the the U.S. to the tune of 7,000 times, and more (varies) daily. Less than .05% ever make it into the news and its diluted into the pool of thousands of police reports as other things like ‘attempted’ this or that, or routine things like a convenience store robbery – things which the public at large has become so used to hearing about that they are numb to it any more and don’t pay attention.
10% is a lot when its placed in context.
Yes, a 10% success rate of legal armed civilians stopping mass shootings is a lot. Its a lot more than any gun-control advocate or law or police or ban or restriction or ‘gun free zone’ sign has ever stopped.
“If its placed in context with the whole, armed civilian legal gun carriers were 100% effective at stopping the mass shootings they encountered and the police and ‘gun free zone’ areas and laws and politicians and restrictions and bans were 0% effective at stopping those same mass shootings. ”
Clarification – police arrive after the shooting starts and victims go down. Police forces are reactive not proactive when it comes to active shooters. While police responding may have eventually stopped the shooter, they did not stop the incident from beginning or progressing before they arrived. Stopping it from beginning or progressing was the armed civilian legal gun carrier, in that 10% of the incidents they encountered and were able to engage the threat because they were armed.
Thus…
If its placed in context with the whole, armed civilian legal gun carriers were 100% effective at stopping the mass shootings they encountered and the police and ‘gun free zone’ areas and laws and politicians and restrictions and bans were 0% effective at stopping those same mass shootings.
Correction…
“…school staff routinely stop students from feeling the school…”
should have been…”…school staff routinely stop students from FLEEING the school… ” and not “feeling”
“If its placed in context with the whole, armed civilian legal gun carriers were 100% effective at stopping the mass shootings they encountered…”
An apropos observation…..and this is why it is so much fun to play with statistics.
Good info. Get this message out to the swing voters!
To the heroes, well done good sirs/misses.
Latest News. Gov. Butt Abbott lied between his teeth when he said the State needed to increase money for mental health services because the lying Republican bastard actually cut 211 million for mental health services in April.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/abbott-calls-texas-school-shooting-mental-health-issue-cut-state-spend-rcna30557
Unlike you, Gov. Abbott knows who his parents were…so who’s the bastard here?
But Democrats insist that it isn’t a mental health issue, so they aren’t concerned about budget cuts to unnecessary mental health services, just as they aren’t concerned about spending money on protecting schoolchildren.
“Spare me the bullshit about mental illness. We don’t have any more mental illness than any other country in the world. You cannot explain this through a prism of mental illness, because we don’t — we’re not an outlier on mental illness.”
— Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.
Nice quote out of context. The original statement was not about decreasing funds for mental health care at all, only the Republicans like Butt Abbott did that in April. The main point of the statement was that we have mass murders not because we have more mental illness than other countries, who have the same amount or more but because we have easy access to deadly weapons of mass destruction which other people in civilized countries do not.
Sorry Klingon only the ignorant are fooled by your distortions of reality.
Murphy is a liar. So are you.
You oppose protecting vulnerable students in gun-free-zone schools.
Their blood is on your hands.
Lying liar lies again.
dacian the stupid, is it even POSSIBLE for you to tell the truth??
Read it and weep, lying s***sack:
https://www.gvpedia.org/gun-myths/americans-do-not-have/
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-us-leads-the-world-in-mass-shootings/
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3289010
Go back to your circle jerk, @$$clown, you bore me.
So says dacian, the 74 year old who ” likes toying with people’s minds. “
He does more than that possum.
Lil’d….AKA: Uncle Bud………
https://youtu.be/CMGYdOwWTPg
darcydodo…hop on your tricycle and pedal to Austin and tell it to the Governor’s face otherwise go pound sand you beto lint licker.
Oh BUT!! Someone something something somewhere! And, someone got hurt! And someone died! And, we can’t have this, leave your guns in the safe where they belong!!
We kicked the Brits out years ago. Have you turned in all you dangerous kitchen knives to your gov?
It’s pointless to worry about people getting hurt or dead while simultaneously ignoring the hurt and death created by lunatics and criminals.
just this past week a woman with a ccw stopped a mass shooting in charleston Wv, the kanawha county sheriff praised her, but doubt it made national news
Most national news — at least Fox has a story about it on their site:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/west-virginia-woman-shoots-kills-man-fired-party
Let me ask you this – if police have trouble taking down active shooters, how do you think untrained civilians could possibly do it? The solution is not ‘more guns’. It’s taking the guns away from the mentally ill and lonely turned terrorist single men and boys. More can definitely be done to catch and stop these men before they even have a chance to get their hands on a gun. If local and federal police deem you to be unstable and too dangerous to buy a gun, you will be red flagged in the background check system and banned for life. This is why universal background checks are so vital. We need to know who is buying and selling guns to unstable young men.
What makes you think those that you call “civilians” are “untrained”?
‘What makes you think those that you call “civilians” are “untrained”?’
Excellent point.
I’ve see well trained civilians outshoot ‘professionals’ on a regular basis. That includes multiple target ‘stress’ drills, where morons like lil’d claim ‘bUt Da PuRfEsSiNAls’ is awesome. 🤪
I’ve put over 4.5k of 124gr/1200 fps 9mm Para thru just one of my handguns (P99AS) in the last six months. Gotten to the point where I can put a full mag (16rd) on an 8″ steel plate (7 yards) in under five seconds. This is from a ‘low ready’ position.
Please lil’pedotard, name an LE agency that has their officers shooting that much. No reply is a expected, because you CAN’T.
MP premoblization training with a rediculous over abundance of 9mm (1500 per person over 2 weeks) is the most I ever did/heard of in service. Or you know what some here may go through on a weekend.
Why does it matter if they’re “trained” to some specification or not?
This is a red herring argument meant to send you down a rabbithole and the entire argument advanced by the OP is a non sequitur.
Guns make it super easy for bad guys to kill obscene numbers of people but good people require a ton of training because cops are some sort of example that doesn’t have anything to do with this but is being trotted out because reasons… wut?
So, at root, the question is: Are guns easy to use or hard to use? It can’t be both. Unless…
Does the OP wish to have his cake and eat it too by advancing the argument that somehow guns are easy for bad people to use but much more difficult for good people to use?
If the latter, then the OP must produce a testable hypothesis that explains the underlying mechanism by which bad guys find firearms many times easier to use than does everyone else.
Finally, if cops are trained and have trouble but bad guys are untrained and find this easy, it must be shown that training similar to that LEOs receive is not the culprit causing this disparity. Which is to say, it must be shown that LEO training isn’t counterproductive.
“This is a red herring argument…”
Not at all, Nine. It is a statement that police are not trained to a level of proficiency necessary to overcome the overriding human response of preserving their safety. It is unnatural to fling one’s body at a deadly threat. Yes, the average person with a gun can effectively use the firearm when no other options exist, but “running to the guns” is not a natural response when not directly threatened.
Bad guys find it easy to shoot people because they are devoid of certain ability to relate to people as other than useless trash. Bad guys with guns have no compunction to killing; good people with guns must deal with what is an alien thought action: kill another human. Bad guys make that decision long before encountering the victim; something not a normal mental condition for “good guys”.
And a random group of untrained, unorganized, unprepared cops with guns, running to who knows what is not something to be encouraged.
If cops arriving at the scene of a mass shooting don’t want to take on the perp, fine; get them out of the way of the “willing and able”. Same for the cops who are willing, but lack ability, and will endanger bystanders.
At the bottom, no one has a moral obligation to act in defense of others; it is a choice based on whatever motivates someone to intervene, or not. Guns are easy to use, but committing to combat is not so simple.
If we intend to outsource our safety to a group of people unknown to us, we are morally obligated to provide that group with a skill set adequate to the task.
Excellent points SIA.
Nobody has more skin in the game than the person face to face with evil. These are the TRUE first responders. Those parents being held back had much more skin in the game then the LE holding them back. I would bet a dozen or so parents would have broken the door down and rushed the POS shooter WITHOUT having firearms.
“It is a statement that police are not trained to a level of proficiency necessary to overcome the overriding human response of preserving their safety.”
Such training having the desired result is impossible unless the group undergoing it is previously self-selected to a “higher calling” that includes self-sacrifice. Police are not such a group. The question is how not how you make such people, it’s how you recruit them. It’s not about money. Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children find such people with great regularity.
“… good people with guns must deal with what is an alien thought action: kill another human.”
This is a non-sequitur and poorly supported by history. If there’s a point to be made here it’s that a mass shooter has the luxury of being indiscriminate where the responder feels that they do not which may produce hesitation and analysis paralysis in the responder for fear of acting improperly.
“And a random group of untrained, unorganized, unprepared cops with guns…”
Well, if we’re honest, that’s what we’ve got now and we seem to encourage the Hell out of it.
“…no one has a moral obligation to act in defense of others…”
Then you don’t really have a society, do you?
Why are Conservatives so gung-ho about making abortion-on-demand illegal? If there’s no moral obligation for them to defend the unborn then why the impetus to outsource the defense of the unborn to TPTB? In fact, if this is the case, why do we have laws at all? Are they not an attempt at the defense of those who could be or are wronged?
IRL, if no one has a moral obligation to anyone else then none of the BoR was worth writing, was it?
From a purely utilitarian perspective, if one has zero obligation to help others then one who takes such an attitude and still engages in society is, effectively, a parasite because were everyone to take such a stance then society would cease to exist and most of the people holding such a position would die quickly. A society made wholly of narcissists and sociopaths is no society at all, it’s straight back to Hobbes’ state of nature.
It strikes me that the entire concept of a society or a country or any group is an attempt to balance the moral obligation(s) to others against the issue of free-ridership. Any system that strays too far in any direction will inevitably create an excess of free-riders which the system cannot withstand. Morals aside, this is a simple fact of reality and those who like breathing would be well advised to consider it.
The question is the best way to accomplish it.
There are WAY too many unknowns to the average LE officer.
Train for the worst, than dial it back. A more competent LE force would require FAR FEWER officers. But the unions wouldn’t like that much, would they. 🤔
Start with Red man and black hood drills at a minimum, for ALL LEO prospects. There’s an education in EVERY punch in the face.
This should be done BEFORE the possibility of getting hired. Those who just want a check should ring the bell, and NEVER wear a badge.
Having a serious LE force would also cut down on the frequency of armed shooters, riots, civil unrest……..
Really pathetic to see all the ‘stand down’ orders coming from above in the last few decades.
These are partially due to LEO unable to comprehend and/or handle the situations unfolding.
Teach different manual of arm weapons then what is standard issue for the LEOs too.
Hell, both of my sons know how to use a vast array of manual of arms weapons. 1900 DWM Lugers, modern steel and poly, AUGs, ARs, AKs……….DA, DA/SA, SA, striker, Heel release, paddle release, button release…….
What weapon may need to be operated is a TOTAL unknown.
If LE wants to wave the ‘we’re the first responders’ banner (and collect the paychecks/pensions) they SURE as hell better better bring some serious skills with their lethargic response times. When seconds count…….🤔
Better a worrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.
Nobody can argue there wasn’t a lot of ‘gardener’ LEOs at the Texas school shooting.
Explain, please. Show your work. I want to see steps and outcomes. Looks like most of these “unstable young men” passed their background checks. What good is it if I pass a check then unlawfully transfer a firearm to somebody who couldn’t pass a check? It may come back to me and then what? It was stolen. I don’t know how he got it. I may have even gone so far as to report it stolen after selling it. Regardless it doesn’t make the victims any less dead.
‘This is why universal background checks are so vital. We need to know who is buying and selling guns to unstable young men.’
On this point.
How was the 4473 NICS background check approved when the shooter lived under the same roof as his convicted felon grandfather?
I was under the impression that NICS verifies there aren’t any felons living at the applicants residence.
Have they stopped this aspect of the NICS checks?
they don’t do that cross check and never did, no way to track that info in anyway unless you want CCOP USSR levels of spying on your everyday life…as to who lives where and when!
Thanks bobo.
I always thought this was a tracked item.
Lol
You just ASSUME you already know all there is to know about everyone around you. You have no clue who knows what. It could be anyone from a retired general to the owner/proprietor of a company that trained the cops. You know NOTHING about me anymore than you do about the woman ahead of you at the supermarket checkout. Where she’s been and what she’s done in life to make it there in the first place.
It’s this kind of arrogant presumption that gets most people in trouble.
Well said David Hogg
You must realize that the far right racist paranoid nut cases on this forum do not represent the majority of gun owners who all agree with you on Universal Background Checks. MSNBC news reported this week that the latest surveys show 87% of Americans including gun owners and even conservatives realize the necessity of Universal Background Checks which would only be an extension of the already existing Brady Bill. The bill the lying Far Right claimed would confiscate all guns if it were passed. Twenty plus years later that never happened and could not happen because the Brady Bill and Universal Background checks do not have the authority to confiscate anyone’s guns. But you cannot reason with the demented paranoid nut cases of the Far Right.
As if you know anything about those around you either.
So says dacian, the 74 year old who ” likes toying with people’s minds. “
Shameless astroturfing.
You speak for yourself. No one else.
Lol, you speak in an echo chamber and to no one else. Goes both ways, pal.
87%?? I don’t know a single gun owner who agree, and I know a lot of gun owners. maybe democrats who lied about being gun owners. the only way to stop evil people with a gun is for a good person with a gun to be there
herr dacian spouts lies constantly. If half of his phony stats were true we’d all have been disarmed long ago.
Ok, so what happened on those background checks? Both the Buffalo shooter, and the Texas shooter passed their BG check.
Do you for a minute believe the criminals and thugs doing the majority of violence in the country are going to bother to have a BGC run before they buy their stolen or black market firearm?
BGC requirements do nothing to stop criminals, prevent anyone from shooting up a school store or theater and waste time and resources of the agencies running them. Exactly the same reasons the states dropping permit requirements are doing so.
So, 10% of potential victims should have also been lost to further your political agenda. I think I’ll take my chances with the 10%. Thanks anyway.
Yes, Democrats want a 100% casualty rate for every shooting.
In fact, Democrats want more school shootings, and they want the death toll to be as high as possible for each and every one.
“On Thursday, mere days after the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, the California State Senate voted to repeal a law requiring that law enforcement be notified when a student threatens violence against school officials. …
“The bill that repeals it is supported by the ACLU.
“Why would they do such a thing? How many times have we heard that mass shooters showed warning signs before their offenses, including threats of violence? Why would such a commonsense requirement like reporting a threat of violence to law enforcement be repealed?”
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2022/05/28/california-democrats-apparently-want-more-school-shootings-n1601612
Democrats core value system is predicated entirely on humans being bad (unless you own a private jet) so it is no stretch whatsoever to assume the policies they push would and are designed to bring about loss of life.
‘Democrats core value system is predicated entirely on humans being bad (unless you own a private jet) so it is no stretch whatsoever to assume the policies they push would and are designed to bring about loss of life.’
👏
how do you think untrained civilians could possibly do it?”
Well little boi…most CCW people I personally know have more trigger time than most cops I have met!
Including me
I train for shooting events at LEAST every other week and before a large even weekly or more!
Most cops at best go to the range every 90 days for qualifications and shoot at 80% to pass and that is a BS ‘pass’ at best!
Thursday in Charleston West Virginia, a woman, licensed to carry, took down a shooter firing into a crowd of graduation celebrators. And that’s just one of the many times a good guy (in this case a good gal) stops a bad guy. You have to wonder why it rarely makes the big news.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-woman-killed-man-fired-rifle-party-crowd-85002437
Because, you pathetic, ignorant moron, they do it ALL THE TIME. Your beloved Leftist/fascist press simply denies it, and won’t report it. Just like mass shootings by deranged “people of color” or devoted Leftist/fascists like the Baseball Shooter get memory holed. But you just keep beating your gums and your d*** and wishcasting – your “utopia” of a gun-free America is further out of reach than Senile Joe’s re-election.
“..or help can be parked a few minutes away at the local donut shop.”
or
The local LEO’s can stand around for an hour circle-jerking whilst waiting for rolling armor shields to be brought up while one B.P. Agent takes the initiative and stops the (blanking) shooter as quickly as possible.
We discussed one of this year’s “good girl with a gun” incidents that just happened Wednesday:
West Virginia Police Say Woman With CCW Stopped a Mass Shooting, Saved Lives
Having a truck gun is a very good idea. An AR-7 or an SU-16c works just fine. Based on my experience.
Chris T,
Back when you could find ’em for cheap, an SKS made a hell of a good truck gun. A Mossberg Maverick ain’t shabby. Not a fan of the quality control of KelTec, but if you’re willing to pay the shekels and do the work, a Sub2000 with the full MCARBO upgrade is actually a pretty good gun (my current truck gun). I remember the days when, in farming/ranching/rural areas, EVERY truck had one of those 3 gun racks in the back window. Standard load out was a lever action .30-30, a 12 ga., and a .22.
Wouldn’t an off duty Federal Leo who drove 40 miles on his day off to fix a problem with a school shooter that the Lawman in charge couldn’t/wouldn’t deal with, be a good guy with a gun?
Sure, he was law enforcement, but he was not called out by his superiors to come and fix the problem. Why those LEOs keeping the parents from storming the school were not shot by the parents, is beyond me.
The guy stopped by his local barbershop, grabbed his barber’s shotgun, THEN drove the 40 miles to confont the evil POS!
None of that taxpayer funded hardware was used to put down the shooter.
We may need more shotguns in barbershops. 🤔
This is the problem with statistics; unpersuasive.
As a rabid, left-wing, card carrying member of the anti-gun mob, I would pose that 10% success is statistically insignificant, not worth the risk to the public by having millions of gun owners walking around, with little or no proficiency in active shooter response, carrying all manner of guns. Going back to 1982, there have been approximately 123 mass shootings (re: Mother Jones 24may22 report). This means only 12 of the mass shootings could have possibly been ended by a private citizen armed with a gun. In what field of endeavor is being successful 10% of the time considered a laudable accomplishment?
And the media will reinforce the failure, long and loud.
I wish you would have shown these true colors years ago here instead of trying to hide like the coward you are. What happened to “if it saves one life”? Is there truly any solution that will protect vulnerable and innocent targets from any crime?
“I wish you would have shown these true colors years ago here instead of trying to hide like the coward you are.”
What “true colors”?
Again, an explanation is not validation, or endorsement. If I were “a rabid, left-wing, card carrying member of the anti-gun mob”, the explanation illustrates how I would proceed.
My issue with statistics remains as it always was:
– statistics can be manipulated to “prove” anything
– statistics can be presented in ways never intended
– in an emotional argument, statistics are useless
And I described an example.
Cool your jets, amigo.
In what field of endeavor is being successful 10% of the time considered a laudable accomplishment?
In any field in which the average success rate for professionals is less than or equal to 10%. Duh.
Out of those 123 shootings what was the response-after-being-called success rate at stopping a continued shooting?
Obviously, I don’t know for certain in terms of a calculation without looking up the details of every single one of the shootings which Mother Jones is citing here but when you look at the “major” mass shootings which garner the lion’s share of media attention the success rate of the cops is near 0%, making the 10% success rate of rando people with guns nearly infinitely better.
Further, most “mass shootings” that are not classed as “public mass shootings” are over and the perps have left before the cops ever respond. The exception being gunfights where the aggressors ended up getting tagged by another criminal or one of their buddies.
Therefore, as a moderately educated guess, I’d hazard that it would be very hard to argue that cops have a 10% success rate with the rest either, particularly since for quite some time it was the habit of shooters to kill themselves when the felt they were done. Often before hitting any sort of resistance.
If I gave a shit I could look this all up but… I don’t.
Look up the relevant source material and, dollars to doughnuts, my hypothesis is correct from numerous angles that you might wish to attack. So, Mother Jones should be fairly easy to shut down on that front simply by saying “Well that’s better than the [insert cops success rate here] that the “pros” have on this front”.
Now, where’s at emo argument you were suggesting? You know, the one about those heart strings I’ve been discussing for years and years…?
Nine, keep in mind the challenge was a product of a simulated response by a rabid anti-gun activist.
Keeping in that vein, 10% percent success still leaves 90% failure. That might be better than police, but not enough to justify every random citizen carrying a deadly firearm, without government awareness and supervision.
In a gun fight, police and perp are a bit easier to sort out than two persons dressed casually. The probability that the armed citizen is completely unable to control their shooting outweighs any advantage.
In a gunfight with similarly dressed individuals, police are more likely to consider both to be perps, and shoot to neutralize the threat by eliminating all potential perps.
Having only a 10% improvement over police is simply a deadly version of, “Hey, we’re not as bad at the cops.” Precious little comfort or confidence there. When gun owners can sport a 90% rate of successful outcome, armed citizens might be considered an overall good thing. Until then, armed citizens are simply wannabe Rambos, looking for any excuse to make their guns go bang.
Having only a 10% improvement over police is simply a deadly version of, “Hey, we’re not as bad at the cops.”
Yes, which is the entire point.
***
1. “Armed citizens have about a 10% success rate and that’s unacceptable when it comes to the lives of children.”.
2. “Well, that’s better than the [insert cops success rate here] that the “pros” have on this front. We should work to do better on all fronts but what people really should be asking is why you are arguing for a non-solution that you’ve already admitted will get more children killed?”
3. “That’s not what I said”.
4. “But it’s what you meant in the real world whether you knew it or not. With all your data you can spout you never bothered to do a comparison? Seems like a pretty obvious thing you missed there. The audience might well wonder what else you’re missing.
Now, are we having an adult conversation about an uncomfortable topic based on facts or are you just reciting worn talking points while children die in schools and on the streets?”.
***
Now they’re either going to blow their top (likely) and you’ve won because you’re more likable than the guy/gal screaming (even though you’re kinda being a dick) or they’re going to have to actually engage in a real argument in which case, again, you’ve won. [Note that what I’ve done here is used the anti’s stock playbook in reverse, something no one ever does.]
Now insert rational potential policy choices that are multilayered and do so in an appealing way.
20 year old idiots can sell people a car they don’t really want and can barely afford. We can’t sell people their own rights, which are free, because we don’t try. It’s time to try harder.
They don’t care. “If it saves one life” doesn’t actually mean anything to them. They have been pushing to make every single gun owner a “domestic terrorist” for decades and they are getting closer thanks to the propaganda machine.
Zackly.
Ten percent looks like a good number to me and that is all they know about. I bet a lot more were stopped and not reported with someone just displaying a gun to a POS trouble maker to make him go away.
There is also a huge deterrent factor in that there is a probablility that a potential mass shooter could run into an armed citizen which is why that prefer “gun free safe zone” almost 100 percent of the time, which are the real cause of so many of these mass shootings where a paper sign taped on a door is pretty much all that is used to secure an area. Of course if an armed citizen shoots and stops a potential mass murdered before they can kill anyone, the incident is probably not recorded as stopping a mass shooting.
“There is also a huge deterrent factor in that there is a probablility that a potential mass shooter could run into an armed citizen…”
There are a coupla problems with “deterrence” based on the likelihood a determined person will encounter an armed defender:
– First, the existence of a deterrent must be widely known
– – where will a determined criminal find information about the likelihood they will encounter an armed defender?
– – depending on a criminal or determined shooter to be literate is a bad bet, so broadcast media would be the only possible means of learning of the deterrent
– Second, a deterrence must be believable
– – the number of people walking about legally armed must represent a number significant enough that a determined criminal/shooter believes they face a serious possibility they will encounter an armed defender
– Third, a deterrence must be seen as likely to be applied
– – if 30 million armed defenders have no track record of preventing a crime, the deterrence influence of 30 million armed defenders is rendered insignificant.
– – again, where will the determined criminal/shooter learn of the effectiveness of armed defenders?
– Fourth, we have actually no way to know if a deterrence actually works.
– – is the rarity of armed attack strictly attributable to the deterrence?
– – the nuclear deterrence of MAD can be alleged to have resulted in zero nuclear exchanges between the US and USSR
– – – could it be the Russians had zero confidence their nuclear arsenals could be employed?
In the end, determined criminals ignore the deterrent represented by laws, enforcement of laws, and judicial punishment. Why should the notion that the criminal might encounter an armed defender act as a more effective prevention?
“In the end, determined criminals ignore the deterrent represented by laws, enforcement of laws, and judicial punishment. Why should the notion that the criminal might encounter an armed defender act as a more effective prevention?”
Not all criminals ignore deterrents, but no one knows what percent that could be but it could be significant. Armed citizens when directly confronted with what they perceive as inevitable life threatening violence towards them don’t try to talk down or arrest the perp, they very likely just shoot at them.
“Not all criminals ignore deterrents…”
Not sure you actually intended this intro. By their very nature, criminals must ignore one deterrent, even one the criminal knows exists. The criminal does not believe the deterrent will be activated, swiftly applied, reliably punish the criminal.
Armed citizens may well shoot rather than talk, but that outcome is also dismissed by the armed criminal/shooter, for the reasons above.
In the end, determined criminals ignore the deterrent represented by laws, enforcement of laws, and judicial punishment. Why should the notion that the criminal might encounter an armed defender act as a more effective prevention?
I don’t think that counting people who commit a public mass shooting of this nature as “criminals” is particularly useful.
Certainly they are but they’re a special class. I’d wager they’re similar to terrorists in mindset (since neither seems to mind dying in the action and mostly the shooters make little, if any attempt, to escape).
Insofar as this seems to be true and because we seem bound and determined not to identify such individuals beforehand (or even figure out if there’s a Constitutional way to go about doing so) it seems to me that “deterrence” is a secondary consideration. The two things that make sense are making the attacks difficult for the attacker and easier for the defender, and, ending them as quickly as possible.
Where the former is done and done well it may deter attacks on that location but probably will not deter someone seriously Hellbent on killing a bunch of folks. This fact being one of the reasons cities have installed bollards (often disguised as raised garden/tree beds) all over the place in areas where foot traffic is traditionally heavy.
“I don’t think that counting people who commit a public mass shooting of this nature as “criminals” is particularly useful.”
The original comment made a claim that a person bent on a mass shooting would be deterred by knowledge that armed people might be present. My response was that to be a deterrent, certain conditions must be met (and that they generally aren’t). You are enlarging (rationally) the type of deterrent actions that could be employed, and likely more effective; fair enough.
I understand both of your points.
I’m suggesting that the argument isn’t particularly useful because deterrence isn’t a realistically achievable goal. At best you push the shooter somewhere else.
They’re still going somewhere else to do something terrible, which from a purely utilitarian perspective, we’re still going to have to deal with the political fallout from. From a more humanist perspective, they’re still going to go harm a bunch of innocent people. From any perspective (except possibly that of the potential attacker) this is suboptimal.
“The criminal does not believe the deterrent will be activated, swiftly applied, reliably punish the criminal.”
Yet when faced with an armed citizen they are threatening the above is ingnored and the deterrent can indeed be activated very swifty and result in death or grave injury as the thugs that tried to take down Kyle R learned. I bet his actions were plenty of a deterrent to the many others around him who had reconsidered trying to do him harm.
“Yet when faced with an armed citizen they are threatening the above is ingnored and the deterrent can indeed be activated very swifty and result in death or grave injury…”
True, indeed. However….
The attacker ignored the possibility that the threat exists, it will be applied swiftly, and if applied would actually result in harm to the attacker. Once the actual deterrent mechanism is applied, deterrence itself has failed; deterrence has transmogrified into response.
Yet the shooter in the Colorado movie theater reportably went out of his way to find a theater that banned non leo people from having a weapon with them. I believe other mass shooters have said the same, supposedly the NY grocery murderer too.
I believe armed citizens clearly are a deterrent, just unknown to what degree though I believe it is more significant that you do.
Democrats don’t care about dead children. They want to disarm the populace. What does a government do when the populace is disarmed??
Anything it wants.
BIG 10-4 , CREDIT DUE , FOR GOOD ARMED PEOPLE , SHOULD BE IN THE NEWS .
@strych9
“20 year old idiots can sell people a car they don’t really want and can barely afford. We can’t sell people their own rights, which are free,…”
Indeed. There’s the rub.
@”At best you push the shooter somewhere else.”
Depending on your location at the moment of the push, that outcome can be a blessing.
“Deterrence” is a useful term, if used properly. One of the common misuses is the mantra that the death penalty deters the dead guy from committing future crimes. The execution is a direct acknowledgement that whatever deterrence was intended, it failed.
“Deterrence” is a useful term, if used properly.
Then we should stop using it in this regard unless we have a wholistic solution. Otherwise what we’re doing is simply shoving the problem somewhere else and we have no more deterrence to mass killers than The Club has to car thieves. If you were really deterring car theft you’d have less of it, not a concentration of it in areas that it’s easier to achieve.
“Deterrence” on this front, I think, doesn’t look like what most people think. It involves massively changing the incentive structures of the hopeless to give them hope in something that they can achieve something other than some sort of notoriety through self-immolation.
” “Deterrence” on this front, I think, doesn’t look like what most people think. ”
Couldn’t agree more. “Deterrence” is prevention, not response. Once a response is initiated, “deterrence” has failed.
Would you be so kind as to tell me the name of ONE executed criminal who came back to do it again? The reason that the Death Penalty is not as much a deterrent as it might be is because it takes so damn long to carry it out.
@strych9
“If there’s a point to be made here it’s that a mass shooter has the luxury of being indiscriminate where the responder feels that they do not which may produce hesitation and analysis paralysis in the responder for fear of acting improperly”
– That is the point. Police are regular people, people who are a random collection (here is where we the people fail, because we don’t demand a change in the system of policing, via our votes and interactions with the politicians we put in place).
“Then you don’t really have a society, do you?”
– My moral obligation is to be present to care for and defend my family. Caring for, and defending your family is not my moral obligation. Sorta like, “You stay outta my way, and I stay out of yours society.” Already fulfilled any obligation to defend the nation.
“Why are Conservatives so gung-ho about making abortion-on-demand illegal…?”
– No one is expecting/demanding that people opposing abortion run headlong into a facility, and snatch a child off the table, stop the abortion, or reverse the procedure; abortion opponents are not trained, organized or prepared to perform such actions, nor is it the mission of the anti- abortion groups. No one is proposing anti-abortion groups do that which they are incompetent to perform.
We can go on, but the issue is the unjustifiable demand that police do that which they are not prepared to do, while providing no means for them to become prepared. As you have pointed out, “the system” does not produce the needed resource. “The system” is the one “society” created/creates. It is we the people who are responsible for how “the system” operates. The difference in position here is perhaps that I don’t misjudge people who cannot perform that for which they are incapable.
And a frenzied mob of gun owners rushing a barricaded shooter is not a plan likely to produce good results.
THe SIX is unimportant the SIXTY is. And no mention is made of what kind of shooting incident was stopped. IN the greater schem of things the number 60 when there are up to 20,000 gun crime victims a year is immaterial and irrelevant to say the least.
What is important is tha so far this year there have been TWENTY SEVEN mass shooting [I believe the definition of mass shootings is where there wre four or more victims involved in the USA.-Your statistics not mine! The total number od shooting incidents is in well i9nto mthe 100,000 and more and probably even more when you consider that most of them do not result in Death of Injury and the factv bthat they will not be mentioned in the National Media and probably given page 5 importance in the locals . Here in the UK, and I doubt that the UK is anything but the European norm, a single firearms incident’ can make the National Headlines even if it only involves a threat from a REPLICA. And by the way even the ‘threat’ froma Replica can get you a rather hefty prison sentence or get you killed by the Emrd Police.
“THe SIX is unimportant the SIXTY is.”
Gee, Albert the Subject, I didn’t know you were such a humanitarian. Saving (at minimum) 10% of potential victims in unimportant to a “superior, civilized” piece of Eurotrash. Nice to know . . . but, then, we’ve known since 1776 that subjects were useless.
Don’t bother saying ‘thanks’ for WW1 or WW2. You’re welcome, you ungrateful sh**weasel. Don’t call us, and we won’t call you. Tell your queen to get off her ancient duff and spend a little of that money she devotes to keeping the subjects pacified to paying for your own defense, parasite.
Oh, Albert the Subject,
Your 20,000 number?? Complete codswallop. 75 – 80% of that number are suicides. While regrettable and sad, a suicide, with or without a gun, is NOT a crime (no matter what statutes say).
Comments are closed.