Quantcast
  1. THR Just moved.  See problems?  Make sure you're logged in and come to this thread and tell us about it!

    Dismiss Notice

New FBI data Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2016 and 2017

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by hso, May 19, 2018.

  1. SKILCZ

    SKILCZ Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    417
    1) Mass shootings in "gun-free zones," by definition, are not likely to be stopped by a civilian with a firearm as civilians (i.e. victims) are disarmed by law.

    2) The FBI states that there were 50 "active shooter incidents" in two years. Contrast that to the outrageously high numbers of "school shootings" and "mass shootings" routinely given by anti-gun groups based on arbitrary definitions created by a blogger and others to skew the numbers in favor of their argument to repeal the 2A.
    1. Of note, seven (7) "active shooter incidents" occurred in "education environments" in two years. Contrast that with the number of "school shootings" claimed by anti-gun groups over those two years.

    It would be interesting to see how these data compare to the mass murder/mass killing numbers using the original definition (4 or more people killed, not counting the shooter) vs. the lowered threshold of the Obama 2013 definition (3 or more people killed, counting the shooter).

    Key points from the the publication:
    • It sounds as though even if not one person was shot, it could still count as an "active shooter incident."
    • These are often included in anti-gun statistics. Kudos to the FBI for excluding them.
    • Guns were banned at the latter two, and guns would have been useless at the former, regardless of whether they were banned from a large concert venue. The casualty numbers from Vegas also presume to be all from gunshot wounds and do not specify trampling, etc. The latter event (Sutherland Springs) was effectively stopped by an armed civilian neighbor.
    • That's an 80% success rate for people trying to stop these scum bags. Virtually everyone would rather have a gun in trying to stop them rather than being unarmed.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
    JeffG likes this.
  2. Double Naught Spy

    Double Naught Spy Sus Venator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,930
    Location:
    Forestburg, Texas
    What about in the cases where people were armed and present but didn't act? No numbers on that.
    Of course there was the Dallas Protest shooting where the gunman opened fire on COPS. They were all armed. Gunman was stopped with a BOMB, not with guns.
    In Houston, the CCW was shot through the legs and crippled while trying to stop the gunman. The CCW failed. He never fired a shot. The gunman was later stopped by dozens of cops.
     
  3. MedWheeler

    MedWheeler Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2008
    Messages:
    6,337
    Location:
    SouthEastern FL
    Double Naught Spy writes:

    Actually, I believe he was stopped some time before the bomb was delivered. After the shootings, he fled and took cover (because COPS returned fire, which constitutes "acting", and at least one of them hit the gunman) and a standoff ensued. Extended negotiations began to deteriorate, and it was then that the decision was made that he had to be disabled before he could resume being a threat. That's when the bomb was delivered. The gunman reportedly fired on the robot bearing it, and the bomb went off as intended, killing him.

    So, the gunman was actually stopped twice while firing his weapon, once by return fire, and then again by the bomb's blast.
     
  4. SKILCZ

    SKILCZ Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    417
    CCW holders are not required to use their firearms in a shooting. It is a right to be carrying and to have the option to respond with a firearm, but if they choose to get their families safely out of there while armed and not engage the shooter, that is an alternate option. For that matter, police have no obligation to protect any individual (Warren v. D.C.). That a CCW holder is present during a shooting and does not draw his/her gun or fails to successfully stop a shooter is irrelevant to the 2A RKBA; it is a right, not an obligation.
     
    Sistema1927 likes this.
  5. Double Naught Spy

    Double Naught Spy Sus Venator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,930
    Location:
    Forestburg, Texas
    My understanding was that he continued fighting up to and including when he barricaded. Saying he was stopped twice is a bit silly. Obviously, he wasn't stopped the first time because he continued to fight and he killed officers while fighting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers

    That is all well and good, but if you look closely, I was addressing the issue of the use of statistics and made no proclamations about obligations or rights one way or the other.
     
    alsaqr likes this.
  6. MedWheeler

    MedWheeler Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2008
    Messages:
    6,337
    Location:
    SouthEastern FL
    Double Naught Spy, I wasn't being "silly"; I was just being "technical."

    There is nothing in the source provided (which happens to be the same source I used) that says Johnson continued shooting during the extended negotiations described below, which began after all officers who were shot had been so. So, it is technically true that, while barricaded and "negotiating", he had stopped firing.

    He started again, according to the source we both used, on the robot bearing the explosive device. I think it's safe to say that he was stopped by the device's detonation.

    From the source:

    At any rate, I was addressing the implication that the cops' presence and their having been armed had no effect on the death/injury toll; that it took a bomb to save lives (at that point, it did, as it was too risky to send a human to approach.) I disagree, as I believe had none of the cops been armed when they were targeted, the outcome would have been vastly different. Remember the Charles Whitman incident; even though the citizens returning fire could not hit him from where they were, they were able to keep him pinned down, reducing his ability to strike more targets.
     
  7. fastbolt

    fastbolt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,810
    Location:
    Within the lightning
    I'd be cautious in trying to read too much into statistical compilations of shooting incidents, even if "active shooters".

    There are some lessons to be learned, obviously, but not all of them are necessarily, or exclusively, tactics and equipment driven.

    While we can't know the particular motivations of such people (active shooters) until usually after the incidents (even if then), at the time of the on-view event it's still someone with a gun trying to kill numbers of people, which is what we must address at the time its occurring.

    One of the things I usually take from official reports of this nature is that all of the time I've invested in developing my observation/awareness, and developing and refining my shooting skills and knowledge of tactics, hopefully hasn't been wasted. The better prepared and trained someone is in reacting to such an incident, and the more knowledgeable and able to make good decisions under stress, the better prepared they may hopefully be if ever required to utilize that training and preparation.

    Possessing good "gun handling skills" arguably may not offset or diminish the severity of making all the wrong decisions under the stress of an active event. The Rule of the Seven P's and TANSTAAFL still bears some careful consideration.
     
  8. labnoti

    labnoti Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2018
    Messages:
    294
    The way I see it, 92% were stopped by gunfire or captured under the threat of gunfire.
     
    Stevie-Ray likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice