Has a citizen with a gun ever stopped a mass shooting?

[chickasaw_hunter]

There was an incident in a church in Colorado Springs. A man entered with a gun. An off duty female police officer, and member of the church, intercepted him and shot him if I remember the incident correctly.

Here's a link to the story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings

 

[Librarian]

I find the emphasis on 'police officer responder' misplaced. (Reserve, off-duty, out of jurisdiction, whatever).

Seems it should be 'armed citizen before organized law enforcement response'.

 

[leadcounsel]

Shooting or stabbing - irrelevant. Someone with a knife or gun or whatever weapon is murdering several innocent people.

Permit holder, off duty cop, etc. irrelevant. It all amounts to a good guy who just happens to be there carrying or in immediate possession of a gun to intervene in the attack (versus a responding law enforcement officer). The fact that some of these resulted in less than 4 dead is testimony that the intervention was successful. We know it typically takes LEO many critical minutes to respond, whereas an on-the-spot gun owner is an immediate response.

The key question is whether the killer using whatever weapons would have stopped on his own, or the intervention saved lives.

When we look at the biggest attacks, here and world wide, we see TWO common elements.

First - They are almost unanimously in 'gun free' areas or areas where people would not be expected to have a gun (schools, workplaces, etc.). Heck, even military bases have been attacked because - while INSANE policies - service members are disarmed on base. The predictable result is mass shootings. While small attacks of a few dead do occur in other areas, they are often stopped by a good guy carrying a gun. Also note that some of these attacks, like in Luby Texas, occurred before carry was common and as I recall this attack was a catalyst for getting carry rights pushed through IIRC.

Second - Most are stopped ONLY by someone with a gun. Because they are 'gun free' zones, that was generally a cop, but often suicide when PRESENTED with ARMED resistance and death and/or injured from gunfire. But if a civilian were there to intervene it should be obvious that lives would have been saved, given the history of intervention in areas where civilians are allowed to carry.

Notice where these folks don't go to commit mass murder. They don't go to the police station (although I did see one occur and it ended pretty quickly against him). They don't go to a gun show. They don't go to a gun shop. They don't occur on gun ranges. Why? Because of the predictable armed responses.

So the other side of the coin is what happens when NO good guy with a gun (off duty cop or civilian gun owner) is there for an instant response. Here's a list of biggest single day mass shootings compiled by CNN in 2013.

Edited to add: Note this article clearly has an anti-gun slant to it, and omits some civilian carry intervention and omits police response causing the shooters to end their rampages and/or commit suicide when faced with capture.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/

32 killed - April 16, 2007 - Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia. A gunman, 23-year-old student Seung-Hui Cho, goes on a shooting spree killing 32 people in two locations and wounds an undetermined number of others on campus. The shooter, Seung-Hui Cho then committed suicide.

27 killed - December 14, 2012 - Sandy Hook Elementary School - Newtown, Connecticut. Adam Lanza, 20, guns down 20 children, ages 6 and 7, and six adults, school staff and faculty, before turning the gun on himself. Investigating police later find Nancy Lanza, Adam's mother, dead from a gunshot wound. The final count is 28 dead, including the shooter.

23 killed - October 16, 1991 - In Killeen, Texas, 35-year-old George Hennard crashes his pickup truck through the wall of a Lubys Cafeteria. After exiting the truck, Hennard shoots and kills 23 people. He then commits suicide.

21 killed - July 18, 1984 - In San Ysidro, California, 41-year-old James Huberty, armed with a long-barreled Uzi, a pump-action shotgun and a handgun shoots and kills 21 adults and children at a local McDonalds. A police sharpshooter kills Huberty one hour after the rampage begins.

18 killed - August 1, 1966 - In Austin, Texas, Charles Joseph Whitman, a former U.S. Marine, kills 16 and wounds at least 30 while shooting from a University of Texas tower. Police officers Ramiro Martinez and Houston McCoy shot and killed Whitman in the tower. Whitman had also killed his mother and wife earlier in the day.

14 killed - August 20, 1986 - Edmond, Oklahoma part-time mail carrier, Patrick Henry Sherrill, armed with three handguns kills 14 postal workers in ten minutes and then takes his own life with a bullet to the head.

13 killed - November 5, 2009 - Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan kills 13 people and injures 32 at Fort Hood, Texas, during a shooting rampage. He is convicted and sentenced to death.

13 killed - April 3, 2009 - In Binghamton, New York, Jiverly Wong kills 13 people and injures four during a shooting at an immigrant community center. He then kills himself.

13 killed - April 20, 1999 - Columbine High School - Littleton, Colorado. 18-year-old Eric Harris and 17-year-old Dylan Klebold kill 12 fellow students and one teacher before committing suicide in the school library.

13 killed - September 25, 1982 - In Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, 40-year-old George Banks, a prison guard, kills 13 people including five of his own children. In September 2011, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturns his death sentence stating that Banks is mentally incompetent.

13 killed - September 5, 1949 - In Camden, New Jersey, 28-year-old Howard Unruh, a veteran of World War II, shoots and kills 13 people as he walks down Camden's 32nd Street. His weapon of choice is a German-crafted Luger pistol. He is found insane and is committed to a state mental institution. He dies at the age of 88.

12 killed - September 16, 2013 - Shots are fired inside the Washington Navy Yard killing 12. The shooter, identified as Aaron Alexis, 34, is also killed.

12 killed - July 20, 2012 - Twelve people are killed and 58 are wounded in a shooting at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater screening of the new Batman film. James E. Holmes, 24, is taken into custody outside of the movie theater. The gunman is dressed head-to-toe in protective tactical gear, set off two devices of some kind before spraying the theater with bullets from an AR-15 rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and at least one of two .40-caliber handguns police recovered at the scene.

12 killed - July 29, 1999 - In Atlanta, 44-year-old Mark Barton kills his wife and two children at his home. He then opens fire in two different brokerage houses killing nine people and wounding 12. He later kills himself.

10 killed - March 10, 2009 - In Alabama, Michael McLendon of Kinston, kills 10 and himself. The dead include his mother, grandparents, aunt and uncle.

9 killed - March 21, 2005 - Red Lake High School, Red Lake, Minnesota. 16-year-old Jeff Weise kills his grandfather and another adult, five students, a teacher and a security officer. He then kills himself.

9 killed - June 18, 1990 - In Jacksonville, Florida, 42-year-old James Pough, angry about his car being repossessed, opens fire at at a General Motors Acceptance Corp. office, killing nine people. Pough takes his own life.

8 killed - October 12, 2011 - Eight people are killed during a shooting at the Salon Meritage in Seal Beach, California. The suspect, Scott Evans Dekraai, 41, of Huntington Beach, is arrested without incident as he is trying to leave the scene. The eight dead include Dekraai's ex-wife, Michelle Fournier, 48. He was armed with three guns -- a 9 mm Springfield, a Smith & Wesson .44 Magnum, and a Heckler & Koch .45 -- and was wearing body armor during the shooting rampage.

8 killed - August 3, 2010 - Manchester, Connecticut - Omar Thornton kills eight co-workers at Hartford Distributors before turning the gun on himself. Thornton had been asked to resign for stealing and selling alcoholic beverages.

8 killed - January 19, 2010 - Christopher Speight, 39, kills eight people at a house in Appomattox, Virginia. He surrenders to police at the scene the next morning, and is charged with one count of murder with additional charges pending.

8 killed - March 29, 2009 - In Carthage, North Carolina, 45-year-old Robert Stewart kills a nurse and seven elderly patients at a nursing home. In May, the Moore County district attorney announces she will seek the death penalty. On September 3, 2011, a jury finds Stewart guilty of second-degree murder. Stewart is sentenced to 141 to 179 years in prison.

8 killed - December 5, 2007 - In Omaha, Nebraska, 19-year-old Robert Hawkins goes to an area mall and kills eight shoppers before killing himself.

8 killed - July 1, 1993 - In San Francisco, 55-year-old Gian Luigi Ferri kills eight people in a law office and then kills himself.

8 killed - September 14, 1989 - In Louisville, Kentucky, 47-year-old Joseph Wesbecker armed with a AK-47 semiautomatic assault rifle, two MAC-11 semiautomatic pistols, a .38 caliber handgun, a 9-millimeter semiautomatic pistol and a bayonet kills eight co-workers at Standard Gravure Corporation and then kills himself. He had been placed on disability leave from his job due to mental problems.

8 killed - August 20, 1982 - In Miami, 51-year-old history teacher Carl Robert Brown, angry about a repair bill and armed with a shotgun, kills eight people at a machine shop. He flees by bicycle, but is shot in the back by a witness who pursued him. He was on leave from school for psychological treatment.

This Wiki article discusses mass killings by civilians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers
It's noteworthy that the bulk of these are in locations where civilians cannot own or carry guns.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

Wallmart earlier this year in Las Vegas area. CCW was sadly killed by the wingman.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Shooting or stabbing - irrelevant. Someone with a knife or gun or whatever weapon is murdering several innocent people.

Sure it is. The OP asked about citizens stopping mass shootings.

Permit holder, off duty cop, etc. irrelevant. It all amounts to a good guy who just happens to be there carrying or in immediate possession of a gun to intervene in the attack (versus a responding law enforcement officer).

LOL, the off duty cop becomes a responding officer once he responds.

Notice where these folks don't go to commit mass murder. They don't go to the police station (although I did see one occur and it ended pretty quickly against him). They don't go to a gun show. They don't go to a gun shop. They don't occur on gun ranges. Why? Because of the predictable armed responses.

Okay, you are confusing terminology. The discussion was about mass shootings. Mass murder is nothing but a more successful mass shooting, but is different because of the number of people killed.

People certainly try.
Detroit, MI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc0UGhPXmD0
Chantilly, VA police station attack in 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/08/AR2006050800968.html
New Jersey http://www.myfoxphilly.com/story/20438718/shots-fired-inside-gloucester-township-police-station
New Jersey (domestic event) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/16/nyregion/16jersey.html?_r=0
McKinney, TX http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/08/17/texas-gunman-launches-assault-on-police-station/
Moscow, ID http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18766089/#.VLFul3urFN0

There are some others, but the links no longer work from a previous THR thread. So getting at your issue of 'mass murder' at police stations, the police also have the benefit of wearing body armor which increases their chances for survival. So even if there were successful mass shootings at police stations, there would still be much less chance for mass murder because of the benefit of body armor.

None at gun ranges. Sure, that may be true, no mass shootings. Then again there aren't that many gun ranges and gun ranges are often located in more remote areas. There are several individual shootings, murder-suicide, and way too many suicides, but no mass shooting/murders that I can find. I highly doubt it is because people are fearful of the response. Most of us would have to go well out of our way to find gun ranges to shoot, LOL.

It is a bit of a myth that people conduct mass shootings where they don't expect to encounter armed resistence. Generally, there are two types of PUBLIC mass shootings. There are those where the shooting returns to a location where there has been a problem (often their workplace, school, or place where they have had bad experiences) or somewhat random/unrelated locations. At work place and school shootings where there is known armed resistance, the shooter sometimes starts by trying to go after the armed resistence.

For workplaces, it doesn't matter if the workplace has a policy or not against guns, that is where the problem is and where the shooter expects to take revenge. As it turns out, a tremendous number of businesses have no-guns policies, but the shooter doesn't pick the business location for the shooting because of the policy, but because it is the location where everyone s/he dislikes is located together. The latter seems to be a matter more of convenience and doesn't seem to correlate one way or another with expected resistance.

So when you have a guy that gets fired from the post office, does he drive to a gun unfriendly state and go onto a college campus and start shooting people because he chances for killing more area greater in a gun unfriendly state and at a gun free location with a lot of people? By and large, no, this is not what is done. Pissed off people tend to go back to get retribution from those that have made their lives less than wonderful. For most of these shooters, their goal isn't to kill a lot of people as much as it is to kill a lot of people that caused their problems. This seems more of the norm. It is especially true for the more domestic mass shootings.

There are exceptions, of course. Charlie Whitman killed strangers, but also family first. Silvia Seegrist went on a shooting spree at a mall where it could be said she had some unpleasant experiences (kicked out of one store), but she didn't seem to be after anyone in particular. She was mentally incompetent (or whatever the correct terminology is for someone who can't fully understand what they are doing).

John Hinkley is another bizarre example. He definitely went to shoot at a location where he expected there to be armed people and managed to shoot 4 including Reagan before being taken down by folks who were armed, but not by their weapons. And of course, he was insane and his target choice wasn't Reagen specifically, but the President. This is a mass shooting often not noted as a mass shooting.

Gun shops? Well first of all, it would be hard to commit mass shootings or murders in many gun shops because they simply don't have that many people in them. However, that does not stop them from being robbed with some regularity where shootings do occur and people are killed on both sides of the counter.

 

[Girodin]

should have said "Potential Mass Shooting/Mass Shooting"

Why he said stop, not prevent.

There was an incident in SLC, UT where I guy just started randomly attacking people in a grocery store parking lot with a knife. He stabbed multiple people. A CCW holder stopped that incident. No he did not prevent it, but he did stop it.

http://fox13now.com/2012/04/26/two-stabbed-in-downtown-slc-parking-lot/

 

[hso]

Most cases not from a nonpolice use, but there have been a couple.

 

[wow6599]

I haven't read the whole thread, but here's my philosophy -

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

 

[Warp]

Yes, they have, as mentioned in this thread.

Unfortunately a great deal of these large scale public shootings happen in states or specific locations where the law abiding/rule abiding are not allowed to have guns on them.

 

[Browning]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/08/daniel-zimmerman/one-year-later-vic-stacy-and-the-peach-house-shootout/

 

[leadcounsel]

Sure it is. The OP asked about citizens stopping mass shootings.



LOL, the off duty cop becomes a responding officer once he responds.



Okay, you are confusing terminology. The discussion was about mass shootings. Mass murder is nothing but a more successful mass shooting, but is different because of the number of people killed.

People certainly try.
Detroit, MI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc0UGhPXmD0
Chantilly, VA police station attack in 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/08/AR2006050800968.html
New Jersey http://www.myfoxphilly.com/story/20438718/shots-fired-inside-gloucester-township-police-station
New Jersey (domestic event) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/16/nyregion/16jersey.html?_r=0
McKinney, TX http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/08/17/texas-gunman-launches-assault-on-police-station/
Moscow, ID http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18766089/#.VLFul3urFN0

There are some others, but the links no longer work from a previous THR thread. So getting at your issue of 'mass murder' at police stations, the police also have the benefit of wearing body armor which increases their chances for survival. So even if there were successful mass shootings at police stations, there would still be much less chance for mass murder because of the benefit of body armor.

None at gun ranges. Sure, that may be true, no mass shootings. Then again there aren't that many gun ranges and gun ranges are often located in more remote areas. There are several individual shootings, murder-suicide, and way too many suicides, but no mass shooting/murders that I can find. I highly doubt it is because people are fearful of the response. Most of us would have to go well out of our way to find gun ranges to shoot, LOL.

It is a bit of a myth that people conduct mass shootings where they don't expect to encounter armed resistence. Generally, there are two types of PUBLIC mass shootings. There are those where the shooting returns to a location where there has been a problem (often their workplace, school, or place where they have had bad experiences) or somewhat random/unrelated locations. At work place and school shootings where there is known armed resistance, the shooter sometimes starts by trying to go after the armed resistence.

For workplaces, it doesn't matter if the workplace has a policy or not against guns, that is where the problem is and where the shooter expects to take revenge. As it turns out, a tremendous number of businesses have no-guns policies, but the shooter doesn't pick the business location for the shooting because of the policy, but because it is the location where everyone s/he dislikes is located together. The latter seems to be a matter more of convenience and doesn't seem to correlate one way or another with expected resistance.

So when you have a guy that gets fired from the post office, does he drive to a gun unfriendly state and go onto a college campus and start shooting people because he chances for killing more area greater in a gun unfriendly state and at a gun free location with a lot of people? By and large, no, this is not what is done. Pissed off people tend to go back to get retribution from those that have made their lives less than wonderful. For most of these shooters, their goal isn't to kill a lot of people as much as it is to kill a lot of people that caused their problems. This seems more of the norm. It is especially true for the more domestic mass shootings.

There are exceptions, of course. Charlie Whitman killed strangers, but also family first. Silvia Seegrist went on a shooting spree at a mall where it could be said she had some unpleasant experiences (kicked out of one store), but she didn't seem to be after anyone in particular. She was mentally incompetent (or whatever the correct terminology is for someone who can't fully understand what they are doing).

John Hinkley is another bizarre example. He definitely went to shoot at a location where he expected there to be armed people and managed to shoot 4 including Reagan before being taken down by folks who were armed, but not by their weapons. And of course, he was insane and his target choice wasn't Reagen specifically, but the President. This is a mass shooting often not noted as a mass shooting.

Gun shops? Well first of all, it would be hard to commit mass shootings or murders in many gun shops because they simply don't have that many people in them. However, that does not stop them from being robbed with some regularity where shootings do occur and people are killed on both sides of the counter.

Sorry but this is total nonsense.

It's obvious from the stats and a direct correlation that incidents of mass shootings increase in death/injury where people are unable to shoot back.

Sure shootings occur at random in areas with and without guns. But the one variable in determining if it's 3 victims or 30 victims is the presence or absence of a good guy to shoot back. Whether that's an off-duty cop who is by coincidence there with a gun, or a CCW holder, is irrelevant.

People bent on killing pick locations due to either personal grievance, robbery, or simply at random. But it's no coincidence these locations aren't typically areas where armed resistance would be expected. I cited the 25 worst from CNN in 2013 but here it is again.

32 dead at VT where guns were prohibited. Shooter stopped only when faced with armed resistance. Presumably if he were presented with successful armed resistance after the shot the first person, up to 30+ people would be alive.

27 dead at Sandy Hook. Guns prohibited. Shooter stopped only when faced with armed resistance. Presumably if he were presented with successful armed resistance after the shot the first person, up to 25+ people would be alive.

23 killed in Killeen Texas at Luby restaurant. Gun laws prohibited conceal carry. A survivor, Ms. Hubb, had her pistol in her car and would have carried it that day if the law allowed it. Her testimony helped advance concealed carry laws. If she had her gun with her, it's likely she could have saved 20+ lives.

21 killed at McDonalds in California. California prohibits concealed carry. Victims were defenseless. Stopped by a police sniper.

16 killed, dozens wounded, Texas belltower sniper. Armed citizens and police were able to suppress his fire while 3 cops and 1 civilian stormed the belltower and killed him. Perfect example of armed response slowing and stopping the attacker.

14 killed, post office, gun free zone. Postal employee brings gun to post office and kills co-workers in 10 minutes. Clearly an armed person could have saved lives.

13 killed by Maj Hassan on an Army base - a gun free zone. Stopped only when presented with armed response which detained him. Clearly a Soldier with a concealed carry could have saved up to 13 lives.

13 killed in NY at an immigration center where guns and concealed carry prohibited. Clearly a armed civilian could have saved lives.

13 killed at Columbine highschool - a gun free zone. A teacher with a concealed carry could have saved lives.

12 killed in Washington DC Naval yard - a gun free zone. Murderer could have been stopped by a sailor with a gun.

12 killed in Aurora "gun free" movie theater. A citizen with a gun could have saved lives.

And on, and on, and on. Among the 25 deadliest shootings, the overwhelming number are in "gun free" zones or states where carry was illegal.

Notice that the public shootings where someone can immediately shoot back results in generally numbers that don't make the "worst" list, like 3 dead, or 4 dead, etc.

Gunshops - heck I've been in gunshops which have been relatively full of 20-30 people before. But for the presence of guns, they'd be great targets because they have one entrance/exit and bars on the windows to prevent escape. But expect for the very rare robbery (one just occurred in Kansas where the robbers came in shooting and the owner went down shooting, injuring the criminals) nobody goes into a gunshop expecting to execute people.

Concealed handguns (off duty cop and civilians) do make a difference in both DETERRING and STOPPING threats.

If "gun free" zones actually worked, then why hasn't the military simply stopped using guns in combat zones? Get rid of armed gate guards too. The obvious reason is that it doesn't work and gun free is just a control mechanism.

 

[sequins]

Browning, that article is excellent and the legend of the snake guns continues. I consider myself accurate but a 67 yard shot is quite impressive and I doubt I could match the feat. All the more reason to go back to the range soon and try.

I think it's a bit of a purposefully obtuse move to say that off-duty cops and ex-military don't count, as the only reason it's off-duty LEO so often is because off-duty LEO probably carry concealed weapons far more often than the general public. A regular citizen, had he been carrying and engaged in the same manner, would have have had the same results as the off duty LEO in any of these cases I'd reckon. It's just a reason that more of us ought to be carrying and that we should educate our friends and family.

Also considering how badly mass shootings tend to go when no one intervenes or the response is 20 minutes later (as in the infamous tower shooting, or Virginia Tech shooting) it's absolutely fair and I think a reasonable person could assume that when a rapid response leads to little or no loss of innocent life that that is in fact proof positive that armed intervention is extremely effective.

I know I'd rather have a citizen come to my aid rather than wait for sirens and cross my fingers, that's for sure.

 

[Browning]

Yeah, Vic Stacey did awesome.

I'm not sure if I'm good enough to make a first rd hit like that. I've done it at 50 yards and it was more like first rd was to range and the subsequent rds hit on the target after judging distance.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Sorry but this is total nonsense.

It's obvious from the stats and a direct correlation that incidents of mass shootings increase in death/injury where people are unable to shoot back.

Sure shootings occur at random in areas with and without guns. But the one variable in determining if it's 3 victims or 30 victims is the presence or absence of a good guy to shoot back. Whether that's an off-duty cop who is by coincidence there with a gun, or a CCW holder, is irrelevant.

Okay, if you are going to continue to confuse terminology, then the discussion is pointless.

 

[leadcounsel]

Okay, if you are going to continue to confuse terminology, then the discussion is pointless.

Terminology is often pointless rabble. Bomb or missile - still a big explosion that destroys/kills. Clip or magazine. Same idea. Holds a stack of ammo. Bullet/cartridge - we all know what we're talking about. Handgun/pistol/revolver, same idea.

Let me ask - if you were unarmed as a victim in a mass shooting, would it matter if the good guy with a gun was an off duty cop who happened to be there, or a carry permit holder who stood up? No. Hence why I view them as the same for the sake of this discussion - a person who was not summoned but instead carrying a gun concealed for the same general reasons. Self defense. Off duty cop may also have/feel some obligation to thwart crime... but neither are called/summoned. They are just there..

 

[sawdeanz]

Okay, if you are going to continue to confuse terminology, then the discussion is pointless.

To say that the discussion is pointless is a bit harsh especially when that seems like something the op should determine. I dont think anyone is disagreeing with your grmmatical evaluation, but rather trying to suggest that the kind of examples the op request need not exclude off duty cops etc. While I agree it is important to discuss things with the facts on the table, I think in this case the foocus on semantics is hampering the discussion.

 

[sequins]

Double Ought, I think we are looking at the same evidence and coming to different conclusions.

Armed resistance that happens to be on hand stops active shooters. If you only define mass shootings as situations where no one stops the shooter until it gets bad enough then by your own definition it is literally impossible for a CCW holder to stop a mass shooting before it happens. You're just going to say "we never know what might have been". I mean come on! Should people let four hit the floor so the FBI counts it before they shoot back, just so guys like you have less forum ammunition? I think not and you are letting what you want to see cloud the reality of the situation, which is that any armed response ends the threat immediately in many of these cases.

LEO, CCW, ex-military... They all have one thing in common and that's having a gun and being there. What difference does it make whether the guy normally has a uniform on? He is just a guy with a gun doing his shopping, like anyone else, when he stops a mall shooter.

 

[tark]

If a gun saves lives or prevents violence, it will never make the news unless blood is shed, at which point they can't really ignore it.

 

[vito]

The key is that unarmed individuals are very unlikely to be able to stop a mass shooting, or to limit the extent of the casualties, while armed individuals at least have a possibility of stopping/limiting the shooting. No amount of real life cases will likely influence the hard core anti-gun crowd and the pro-gun crowd doesn't need any new data to continue to support being armed.

Knowing that the media are generally anti-gun, we know that situations where an armed citizen (legally) has caused death or injury or had a negligent discharge which killed or injured others (or themselves) will be highly publicized. The reality that very few such incidents occur should be enough to demonstrate that legal concealed carry does not cause public mayhem, i.e., "wild west" situations. But since attitudes about guns seem to be emotional rather than logical it might not matter what facts we can come up with if we think we can change people's minds.

My own grown daughter truly believes that the likelihood of her family becoming the victim of violent crime is minuscule, but that the likelihood of an accident related to the gun that I carry is high (despite my never having had a single problem related to my concealed carry), and therefore she prefers that I NOT carry when with her children. No amount of facts seems to matter. She does recognize that the choice to carry is mine to make, not hers, and fortunately does not demand that I not carry when I am with my grandchildren. Maybe deep down she understands that if there were to be a deranged or criminal shooter in the vicinity of her children, they just might be a bit safer if with grandpa when he is armed and ready to defend their lives.

 

[we are not amused]

Whenever this subject comes up, the usual suspect(s) always chimes in to denounce the idea that individuals, carrying guns, can have a positive effect.

There is no point in debating the point with people like Double Naught Spy, as he is clearly against the idea that people being armed in self defense or the defense of others, is a good idea.

As a matter of Fact, armed Civilians, (meaning people who are not Law Enforcement) have stopped mass murderers, and more importantly, people who would have gone on to be mass murderers.

Case closed.

 

[Crisisbill]

Clearly if the situation was prevented, thwarted or stopped it didn't happen in the eyes of the media, so it will go unreported. It doesn't fit their agender to report that a gun owner stopped a possible tragedy, it's not as sensational to write "Gun Owner stops mental patient"

 

[herrwalther]

I saw a study/article some time ago that compared the number of causalities (killed/injured) when the shooter was stopped by police, killed self, or stopped by a citizen. The number of causalities when stopped by a citizen is much lower than when stopped by police. The "duh" factor is because the citizen is already at the scene and can stop the shooting before it gets worse.

 

[Dr.Rob]

There was one in Colorado where a guy showed up at a grocery store to shoot his estranged wife, he had a bunch of guns including a .50 cal of some sort, that he ambushed a responding cop with. A bystander, some kind of IRS agent if I recall, stopped the carnage with a pistol.

 

[leadcounsel]

Whenever this subject comes up, the usual suspect(s) always chimes in to denounce the idea that individuals, carrying guns, can have a positive effect.

There is no point in debating the point with people like Double Naught Spy, as he is clearly against the idea that people being armed in self defense or the defense of others, is a good idea.

As a matter of Fact, armed Civilians, (meaning people who are not Law Enforcement) have stopped mass murderers, and more importantly, people who would have gone on to be mass murderers.

Case closed.

I don't think ANYONE here is against being armed when that person has positive control of the arms. But like the woman killed by her child who discharged her purse gun recently, when you don't have positive control of your gun in public, disaster can and often does happen.

Think of it this way. There are nearly 300 million vehicles registered in the US. According to the FBI around 720,000 vehicles were stolen in 2012 and 700,000 in 2013 (a slow but steady decline annually). I don't have the figures available, but it's fair to say that simple vehicle burglarly is easily 3-fold that figure (given it's faster, easier, and more spontaneous), and the FBI states that about $1 billion of property was stolen from automobiles in 2013. Also, most murders involve a firearm and a large percent of robberies and assaults involve a gun.

Firearms were used in 69 percent of the nation’s murders, 40 percent of robberies, and 21.6 percent of aggravated assaults (weapons data is not collected on rape incidents).
There were an estimated 79,770 rapes (legacy definition) reported to law enforcement.
Victims of burglary offenses suffered an estimated $4.5 billion in property losses, and burglaries of residential properties accounted for 74 percent of the total reported.

So that means that 26 percent of burglaries were vehicles, amounting to over $1,000,000,000 in property losses.

Certainly a fair number guns, certainly more than a few, handguns, rifles and shotguns were stolen last year from car thefts and burglaries. Even if 1 in 1000 of those victims kept a dedicated truck gun, you're talking about THOUSANDS of guns turned over to criminals. Those guns enter the illegal stream and foreseeable are used in crimes later.

Conversely, in several pages, nobody has presented a REAL LIFE scenario in modern times where a person went back to his vehicle to get his truck gun to then stop a terrorist attack, or even a mass shooting. There are anecdotal or rare historical examples... but I'm simply asking for a modern, real world example... Heck I'd even settle for someone painting a realistic scenario where this could happen... where you are in a location or establishment, shots by armed attackers fired, and you run out to your car and get your SKS and come back in guns blazing to save the day...

I totally, 100% support your RIGHT to keep your truck gun. I've carried them in the past, and would still do under certain circumstances going on a long distance trip or into the wilderness/rural areas. But with rights comes responsibilities... and it's more RESPONSIBLE to make the decision to keep the rifle at home when you're running into the city for an afternoon... because it's MUCH MUCH more likely to get stolen and end up in the hands of a gang banger than be called into legitimate duty.

 

[raubvogel]

Here is a question: is an off-duty LEO considered a first responder if he does not have a gun? If not, why him carrying the gun, and not being a LEO, makes him a first responder? And, what should we call him if he does not have a gun during an incident?