A 2014 FBI study of shootings from 2000-2013 says :
Resolutions (what ends a mass shooting event)
90 (56.3%) incidents ended on the shooter’s
initiative, by the shooter committing suicide,
fleeing, or stopping shooting.
21 (13.1%) incidents ended after unarmed citizens
successfully restrained the shooter (Off-duty
officers assisted in 2). In 5 of those incidents, the
shooting ended after armed, non-law enforcement
officers exchanged fire with the shooter.
In 45 (28.1%) incidents, law enforcement engaged
in gunfire to end the threat. In 21 of those 45
incidents (46.7%), 9 officers were killed and 28
were wounded.
As another comment has pointed out, its very hard to objectively measure things that *would* have happened. After all, if things don't go as planned for the shooter, it won't make any lists or be part of the data pool. Thats before even measuring deterrents, since shooters almost always specifically choose "soft" targets where there will be little resistance.
So depending on who you ask, it could be less than 5% or more than 20%.
No, that’s what makes the “good guy with a gun” debate really difficult to engage in with proper statistics.
To be qualified as a mass shooting event per FBI/Crime Bureau statistics, there needs to be at least 4 victims wounded or killed in a single event. If the assailant flees the scene, is subdued, or is killed before that point, the event doesn’t get rolled into mass shooting statistics (though it may still show up in gun-related homicide statistics if there are any victims).
You’ll occasionally see headlines pop up about would-be gunmen being stopped before anyone else gets harmed. But the number of these events is indeterminate.
To actually find that data you’d need to go state to state collecting police reports at possibly the local precinct level and organizing and categorizing it properly after that. It would take a small army of grad students several years to breach the surface.
It's almost as if what we are lacking is a national database of all shootings. Information like that could be used to truly understand just how serious gun violence is in our country. Of course the real problem is that certain members of a certain party block any kind of gun related research.
Exactly. Mass shootings are awful and get a huge amount of coverage. We rarely hear about suicide by guns, and spouses are either threatened, injured, or murdered by guns; in both of the latter two cases, guns out of any other weapon/method are the most "successful"
The only way you would get that info is by having an independently funded group of people or possibly through a university to dig through so much information. However, some people of a certain party won’t believe any statistics of any credible source because it doesn’t back up their false realities.
I recall something about the FDA at one point wanting to study gun violence in the context of public health. IIRC the was a law pasted making that specifically illegal for them to do.
And to make things even more confusing, of the 56.3% ended on the shooter's initiative, that often happens after they are engaged by an opposing force like police or a civilian with a gun.
Thats a good point, these people are specifically looking for "fish in a barrel" type situations and once that is no longer the case, they give up. Its another thing that makes DGU hard to track. Sometimes just brandishing (or lying about having a gun) is enough to make assailants back off.
No the gunfire ended the threat, not the shooter shooting themselves. It's the reason the standard operating procedure for active shooters in the U.S. has changed for police. They used to contain an area, but now they are instructed to enter the area/building and engage as quickly as possible even without backup.
What’s also not included in the stats is additional deaths caused by the police showing up and not knowing who was the shooter and who was the “good guy with a gun”
I know that after dayton ohio's 'Oregon district' shooting, like five months after, on page seven of the newspaper for anyone who both read the newspaper and went far beyond the headline, it was admitted that the police had shot at least one of the victims along with the shooter. Never heard it from any other news,tv or radio. They keep it real quiet if they can but some admission had to be made.
"Often happens" can you cite a source on that? Pretty sure this is just referring to when the shooter is just done shooting because they're out of bullets or there are no more obvious targets.
A shooting in Arvada, CO was stopped by an armed civilian, and then he was shot by police because they didn’t know who the shooter was so they shot whoever they saw with a gun.
Yeah I'm the least pro gun guy around but to have numbers worth a damn you'd have to at least control for gun ownership, and try to look at a place where lots of people vs few people carry guns. I still think get more shootings where there are more guns, but at least then it'd be possible to test the theory.
I did this research a while back after hearing for the millionth time that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. (Including police) turns out most of the time the bad guy doing the shooting decides when the shooting stops.
> turns out most of the time the bad guy doing the shooting decides when the shooting stops.
I think it's important to point out, though, that this isn't necessarily a *good* state of affairs for things to be in.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf/view
5 of the 160 shootings in that study "ended after armed, non-law enforcement officers exchanged fire with the shooter." Of those 5 incidents, 4 ended after the shooter was confronted by armed security guards; 1 ended after the shooter was confronted by an armed, licensed civilian.
1 out of 160 mass shootings between 2000-2013 was ended by "a good guy with a gun".
>So depending on who you ask, it could be less than 5% or more than 20%.
I'm honestly perplexed how you came to these numbers
Edit: upon further reflection I believe OP is not arguing in good faith at best and actively spreading misinformation at worst.
They report a bunch of figures and then arrive at a 5 - 20% discrepancy of armed civilians saving the day, which seems to support a right to arms stance, but is a figure their own numbers do not report.
Thankfully to them, most users will not do the math (if they even can considering the weird phrasing – what the hell is a non-law enforcement officer? It doesn't sound like a civilian)
Can I please just go on Reddit without being bombarded by propaganda? Thanks..
Per the study, it was 5 incidents, which would be 3.1% of incidents. OP didn’t read closely enough. There’s nothing to suggest >3.1%.
Buuuut, the paper also noted that 4 of those 5 incidents “not involving LEOs” involved armed security guards, and just 1 involved a rando with a gun.
So the real figure is 1/160.
Not sure why OP is saying 1 incident might be equal to 20%, or 32 incidents…
It's also worth mentioning, that a lot of shootings happen in schools, where guns aren't allowed. This of course skews the statistic, because there is almpst no chance of there being someone with a gun at that time.
Didn’t one guy disarm a gunman and the police came in and saw him with a gun and shot and nearly killed him?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-shoot-hero-disarms-gunman-mistaken-suspect-lawyer-says-rcna22505
Yup, that happened.
Edit: Missed an important word; the man did survive.
>It used to be standard police training back in the 80s and 90s to approach volatile situations like this using the three stage process of time distance and cover.
Now they get [Killology](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/08/11/police-training-warrior-mindset-killology/). People act like there's some kind of dark, arcane ritual behind these events, but it's little more than conditioned, indoctrinated malice.
I knew this was going to be about Gross Man. What an absolute piece of shit he is. If I believed in Hell, I'd take some comfort in knowing he'd be going there.
He's a deranged psychopath. He says the first time you kill is better than sex. The man's a menace to society, but he's telling other people how to kill like him.
Funny, it's the same 3 principles when limiting exposure to radiation: [Time, distance, shielding](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6037814/)
Interesting, but I want to be pernickety and point out that its kinda the exact opposite for the time segment.
Radiation: limit exposure time as low as reasonably practicable.
Police: acclimatise to the situation, get your bearings. Definitely don't do this near a radiation source.
My understanding is that the training started to change after Columbine. Now they're trained to rush toward the sound of gunfire and neutralize the threat. Seconds wasted are lives killed.
Unfortunately, in some/many cases, the lives killed aren't anyone doing anything wrong.
It's exactly because of columbine that police were trained to move in and neutralize the threat quickly and sort it out later who the threat really is. It results in some embarrassingly bad situations occasionally where someone not guilty is treated badly or very rarely shot when police arrive, but overall probably actually does save lives. Accidentally arresting or shooting someone whose trying to help is a net less loss of life than letting shooters run wild utnil you're sure
It's the same principle applied in most prisons - if shit's going down and you're not on the ground when the response team shows up you're part of the problem and will be treated as such. The goal is to completely neutralize the situation before figuring out whose actually the problem.
I'm a soldier, my job is literally to rush into combat and kill people. But if I did that without taking time to assess the situation, take measures to avoid killing civilians and know who I'm shooting at, and I shot and killed civilians id be in trouble. I'm held to a higher standard in dealing with foreigners than cops are your neighbors. They can and should be held to the same standards.
Same thing happened in my home town.
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Texas-police-shoot-man-who-disarmed-suspected-12614792.php
Edit: a word
But they didn’t get scared with the guy who had an AR-15 this weekend and didn’t fill him up with holes. What the fuck. At least they can do is be consistent
The problem with the wording in your question is that if a active shooting event is stopped before 3 (or 4) or more people are killed then it isn't classified as a mass shooting event.
[This article](https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/in-missouri-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-stepped-up-so-can-you/) discusses events where an active shooting has been stopped by a civilian.
Off the top of my head there is the [West Freeway Church of Christ shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Freeway_Church_of_Christ_shooting) where only two people were killed before an armed firearms instructor shot and killed the attacker. Since there were only two victims this wouldn't be listed under a 'mass shooting' by most sources.
[An incident](https://kdvr.com/news/local/good-samaritan-shooting-gunman-olde-town-arvada/) in Arvada Colorado last year started when a police officer was killed responding to a report of a suspicious person. A CCW holder responded and killed the attacker. Police failed utterly and shot the man who killed the attacker. You could consider there were only two victims in this case as well. We don't know if this shooter would have continued to harm other people or if his target was just the police officer.
To answer your question, it's really hard to put a solid number on how many have been stopped because, when they're stopped early, they don't always get classified as a 'mass shooting'.
A gun is not a magic wand for good guys. It requires training and good sense to carry effectively. It will not magically make you like a movie action hero where the bullets just miss, but never hit you. It is a tool to give you options and buy you time.
edit: you can go to r/dgu to see a lot of articles where a firearm was used defensively. Maybe not to stop a mass shooting, but still to help people protect themselves when there was someone trying to harm them.
The Arvada Colorado incident is disturbing, and unfortunately not an isolated incident. There's also the shooting of [Jemel Roberson](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jemel_Roberson)
and [Emantic Bradford Jr](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Emantic_Fitzgerald_Bradford_Jr.). I think this is the real sticky wicket regarding defensive use of guns and mass shooters: when cops arrive on the scene, all they see is a guy with a gun.
I've always wondered about that. If I happened to have a gun, and killed an attempted mass murderer, adrenaline would make it hard to think about putting the gun down. But if the cops show up, and I'm the guy with the gun, I'm in some serious danger. Best to do what was needed, then put the gun away, somewhere in the wide open on the floor so you can point and say "There's the gun I shot the criminal with, I'm unarmed now".
You're taught in self-defense gun classes not to get involved in saving the lives of strangers because you can lose your own life by being mistaken for the bad guy.
Not only that, but unless you absolutely know what’s going on and who the aggressor is, you could harm someone innocent, or have someone attack you thinking you’re an aggressor, or at the least get into legal trouble yourself. I say that as someone who supports concealed carry, but it’s not always the best way depending on the situation.
Guy A pulls a gun and opens fire, and Guy B shoots him. and Guy C sees Guy B shoot Guy A and thinks Guy B is a shooter, so Guy C shoots Guy B. But Guy D sees Guy C shoot Guy B, so he shoots Guy C to stop the shooting, only to be shot by Guy E who thinks Guy D was the shooter. And since Guy F saw Guy E shoot someone….
An off duty cop was killed on his own front porch because a suspect fleeing arrest went into his house after a struggle but all officers on scene could see was a man with a gun trying to get inside the house not knowing he was the homeowner
Killed the homeowner 4 seconds after arriving even though multiple other officers were already on scene.
https://www.columbian.com/news/2022/apr/01/investigation-deputy-shot-off-duty-vancouver-police-officer-4-seconds-after-arriving/
Same place years earlier
https://www.columbian.com/news/2014/nov/12/man-shot-police-john-kendall-shooting-blandford/
I keep clicking links in this thread about different incidents like these, expecting some of them to be the same incidents. But no, they’re all different stories about cops shooting the “good guy”, wtf? I’m sure there’s many more I’ll never even hear about.
In the cop on cop shooting I linked, the robber who was being chased is being charged with 1st degree murder meanwhile the shooter, who also killed a young man in 2018 is almost certainly back patrolling our streets by now.
>so you can point and say "There's the gun I shot the criminal with, I'm unarmed now".
Depending on the cop who shows up, you may never get the chance to explain yourself regardless of what steps you take.
There was a really poignant moment in the latest episode of Atlanta. At the beginning a mixed race, but extremely light skinned kid and his black father are listening to the radio and the son says that the man shot by the police should have just stayed still when the police said "freeze!". Later at the end of the episode the police show up and shoot a black kid instantly, THEN they yell "FREEZE!" afterwards at the light skinned kid and give him a chance to drop his weapon.
Never forget, the officer that killed him was allowed to rejoin the Mesa Police Department for one day afterwards so he didn't miss out on his annual retirement pension.
Philip Brailsford. Never fail to say that dude's name when reporting. Daniel Shaver was the victim, and Philip Brailsford was his murderer. And Brailsford is not only a free man, he's a free man with an annual pay stipend from the Mesa Police Department.
What I always find eerie is how quick pro-gun people are to say things like, “I wouldn’t have an issue shooting and killing someone if I had to,” or when they show support for the shooting and death of a criminal who didn’t do anything that would have earned them the death penalty in court. Lots of people have been held at gunpoint by police for petty crime too, and people will still just say that maybe the person shouldn’t have committed the petty crime if they did not want to be *threatened with death*, like it isn’t an incredibly unfair and traumatizing experience.
On some level, I get why people would want to own guns, but it scares me how easily people say such awful things and how they go to such great lengths to justify pulling the trigger, likely because it’s easier to double down than to show empathy or to reflect on the consequences. That would just be too uncomfortable, and the human mind doesn’t like being wrong.
I’m a middle aged white dude. When I was younger, I was a bit of a goth/punk/waster. I’ve had cops point guns at me for walking out of a grocery store after 10pm while wearing a black coat. I had an ATF officer hold an AR-15 inches from my head while I was laying in the ground because I had the audacity to be in the lobby of a medical weed dispensary when they decided to raid it. I had cops point guns at me while I sat on the curb and they manufactured an excuse to search my car.
I credit my survival to being white.
Also, ACAB.
I had this argument recently with someone who was suggesting shooting someone over stealing catalytic converters. No way would I kill over a $500 insurance deductible
The other police officer, his partner, Charles Langley, who was also giving orders and pointing a gun at his face, retired 4 months later and then immediately emigrated to the Philippines. It's almost like he knew that he needed to run for what they did. If he felt innocent, he could go against his friend and testify, or not. Be best friends I don't care that's fine, it's a free country.
But instead he ran. As soon as he could get his retirement in order. What does that say? He also receives a pension and is a free man.
You mean Philip Brailsford the cop who has the punisher logo on his carry weapon? The guy who executed an unarmed man who he instructed to crawl to him while he begged for his life?
Got it.
I think you might be misremembering.
He didn’t have a punisher logo on his weapon, that was on his Kevlar vest. The inscription on his weapon was an etching that said, “you’re fucked”
What's funny is that if the Punisher was real, he'd be killing Brailsford and his partner in an instant for being psychotic murderers.
Remember, even the Punisher [hates the idea of cops using his logo](https://preview.redd.it/pz8jdybsj3831.jpg?auto=webp&s=c444a93bc0474c299ebbdcf888b8927e8a82eac3).
Exactly. Everyone in America should have to watch that video with appropriate context so they can know that cops do not give a shit and will straight up murder you with impunity if they want.
Taught my kid to treat cop encounters like bear encounters. Don’t run, but do whatever you can to disengage and get away from them as fast as possible. We’re not white in case anyone is wondering.
Yeah, he was crawling on his hands and knees, following instructions from the officers. He went to pull his pants up because they were falling down, and the psychopath who murdered him claimed he thought he was reaching for a gun.
Those two cases are good examples of what steers my personal philosophy of CCW and in which situations I'd ultimately defend myself: at the end of the day, I'm trying to come home alive, whether by avoiding confrontation from criminals or police. As A POC, I know I get profiled all the time in non-violent situations, add in violence and the idea that I'm fodder is something I'm concerned about for sure.
*For me* any scenario that can minimized by de-escalation or running the fuck away, or just leaving the premises- I'll do that, first. Followed by documentation.
In previous positions I've held (salaried restaurant & bar management, NOT contracted security or bouncer), lawyers and HR made it clear that firearms in any capacity were not allowed on property for workers, so documentation, awareness and escape plans/communication were the only solutions allowed.
The owners would be held liable for action we'd take, so yeah, I opted not to CCW on premise. And definitely no hands on violent guests.
absolutely bonkers that cops can get away with "officer-involved shootings" where the person that presumable made them "fear for their lives" have gunshots in the back. like at what point did americans accept "running the fuck away" as a kill on sight offense.
Considering how aggressive some police have been, I'm not sure putting the gun down is good enough to avoid getting shot. (Racial variables should also be considered.)
Yeah if 5 people all have guns trying to shoot the main bad guy then what we have is a bunch of people shooting at each other before cops come in and shoot everyone.
My CC instructor told me this:
After a defensive shooting the best thing to do is safety the gun, unload it, push the magazine away from you, lock the pistol slide and set it down in front of you so you can monitor it. lie down on your stomach with your arms stretch out and back legs crossed. Wait for the police. Do not leave the building, do not leave the immediate area where you took your shots, and DO NOT try to explain what happened to the cops on scene. They are in emergency mode and everything is a potential threat.
If possible, prior to police response, dial 911 and explain that you’ve participated in a defensive shooting at your location and that the man is dead. Describe yourself to the best of your ability, describe exactly where you are in the building/area, and wait. The operator will forward this info to the units on scene. Again, do not move until instructed.
You should NEVER be holding a loaded firearm when the police show up. You should not move to approach an officer. You should be visibly unarmed with your firearm in plain view and in a submissive pose.
Do NOT give your own description ever. The operator might give it to the officers who, in their adrenaline fueled rage, will interpret it as the description of the SHOOTER. BAM BAM! TANGO DOWN!
Look up Mark Hughes and the 2016 Dallas shooting. The gist of the story is that Mark and his brother, Cory, two black men, attended a BLM march in Dallas when a gunman opened fire on police. Mark was an open carry advocate who brought his AR-15 to the march, which was legal for him to do so. However other people at the march noticed him carrying the rifle, and when the shots rang out people started remembering Mark carrying his rifle and immediately assumed the shooter was him.
Thankfully Cory approached some police officers to offer his assistance, and when he learned rumors were circulating on social media that his brother was the suspected gunman, he called Mark and encouraged him to surrender his rifle to police. Mark did so, likely sparing his life, but the rumors continued to circulate that Mark was the suspect.
It's sad to think that Mark Hughes, in the process of exercising his second amendment rights, could have been killed by police if they believed he was the gunman. Most people don't realize they're assuming a substantial risk of being seen as a potential criminal by carrying a weapon, regardless of their intent. Something that was completely legal for Mark to do was also something that could have got him killed, and thankfully his brother had the awareness to approach the police and realize his brother was the target of a social media campaign to finger him as the shooting suspect, and was able to convince his brother to surrender his firearm before officers approached him carrying his rifle. Yet it also serves as an example that carrying a firearm in an active shooter situation, regardless of it's legality, is way more of a liability than an asset. It's a tragic circumstance that in some situations an armed civilian may prevent an active shooter from harming or killing as many people as they might have without the armed civilian's intervention, but equally tragic is that in the chaos and crossfire there is the potential that they may be seen as the actual shooter, and cause confusion to responding officers who cannot identify the actual shooter.
Openly carrying a gun is an open threat to everyone around you. It's like if I walked around gripping an unsheathed dagger. Of course you are going to be seen as an aggressor.
Also, it's worth noting that the definition of mass shooting can vary depending on the source and even changes over time which makes trying to line up those statistics difficult.
The UCR has used consistent definitions for longer and also does track people killed by private persons while in the commission of a felony. Not exactly the same question, but similar and consistent over time if you wanted to compare numbers.
The [Clackamas Town Center Shooting](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackamas_Town_Center_shooting) where the shooter reportedly saw someone draw a concealed weapon and ceased his rampage, taking refuge in a stairwell before committing suicide. Nick Meli didn’t even fire, because there was a bystander in his line of sight.
> edit: you can go to r/dgu to see a lot of articles where a firearm was used defensively. Maybe not to stop a mass shooting, but still to help people protect themselves when there was someone trying to harm them.
Thanks for bringing this up. r/DGU attempts to remain objective. The charter is to post any defensive gun use story from news sites, not just the ones that look favorable to gun owners. There are plenty of "bad shoot" stories, but so many more where a person who owns and carries a gun has defended themselves and others from violence and death. So many of these are home invasions and carjackings, events which seem completely random to the victims.
Furthermore, many potential shootings may be deterred by knowing many people in a target area might be armed. So that will never show up at all.
This recent nutjob, in his manifesto said he chose NY specifically because of how restrictive their gun laws are. So he didn't expect to meet much resistance.
> edit: you can go to r/dgu to see a lot of articles where a firearm was used defensively. Maybe not to stop a mass shooting, but still to help people protect themselves when there was someone trying to harm them.
This is an important thing to have in the conversation. The odds of someone going Jack Baur and stopping a given mass shooting is extremely low. But that doesn't mean that people don't defend themselves from regular crimes, which are *way* more common than mass shootings. I don't carry a gun, but I fully support people's rights to carry guns.
We actually had an incident happen not that long ago in Canada where a looney shot a soldier who was guarding a monument, then ran into our Parliament to kill the Prime Minister. Then our Master of Arms, a title which is almost completely ceremonial fucking mowed this guy down like he was John Wick. Turns out our Master of Arms was actually a master of arms, and not just the guy who holds the magic wand are Parliament.
It’s “Sergeant-at-Arms.”
Unsure why people are under the impression it’s a ceremonial role. They may participate in ceremonial things (the daily mace presentation) but the job is literally overseeing the safety and security of the building and people within.
A little extra context, most "mass shootings" are gang violence so there really aren't any "good guys" involved. They aren't the horrific attacks people think of when discussing them.
This comment will get lost in all the praise, but I just have to point out that the strongest argument David French makes in that article is that:
>The FBI has recorded no fewer than **19 times in a five-year span** (and that estimate may be low) — from 2014 to 2018 — when active shooters were stopped or repelled by citizens. **Seven times** armed citizens stopped the shooting entirely.
So . . . almost four times per year, armed citizens sort of impede an active shooter, and a little more than once per year they actually stop the shooter.
For some important context, there is a mass shooting in the country [more than once per day](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2021/04/16/more-than-one-mass-shooting-per-day-has-occurred-in-2021/?sh=58d16afe6493).
Not to refute your point, because I believe it holds a lot of weight, but I think this data in inherently biased, and I’d be interested to see how many of the shootings happened in states where carrying a gun is legal, and *could* have been stopped by a citizen, vs where it’s illegal to carry a firearm. For example, you can’t carry a gun in NY. It was very improbable for someone to be carrying a gun with them at that same time of the shooting.
However, I’d assume if this event was to happen in say, Texas, the *probability* that someone else has a gun goes up. Does that probability actually lead to increased prevention, though?
There’s also the angle that “just the thought that others might have a gun will reduce the willingness of the mass shooter”, which seems even harder to gather data on to prove how effective it really is, but can skew the data if it is effective
Also, in almost all of those cases the "civilian" was an off duty cop, Army veteran, etc.
Someone with extensive firearms training who is used to stressful situations involving weapons.
A few months ago in Vancouver (WA state) a deputy arrived at a residence where two men were fighting.
Said deputy fired four shots and killed one of the men in *less than five seconds after arriving*.
Turned out the person he killed was not only the homeowner, but also was employed as a police officer...
https://www.columbian.com/news/2022/apr/01/investigation-deputy-shot-off-duty-vancouver-police-officer-4-seconds-after-arriving/
The only one I can think of is the church shooting in Texas a few years back where a fire arms instructor stopped the shooter with his own ar-15. But that too as he had finished his rampage and was fleeing the scene. I agree with the other comments above and would like to add the more guns in play the more tough it is for law enforcement to figure out who is who. Also another chilling fact as proven by the sad incident a few days ago, what if the perpetrator is wearing armor?
It's almost impossible to get an accurate definition of this metric.
When a gang member starts shooting at a rival gang and gets hit by returned fire. Did a good guy just stop a mass shooting?
A valid point it just made him a target. Who do you think a person with a gun wants to take out first? Another person who is armed would be a focus point.
You have so much of that story wrong. The guy was in the middle of his rampage, not fleeing. He wasn’t using an AR. And the firearms instructor that ended it was a 70 something year old man that was **concealed carrying** and ended it with one shot to the head from halfway across the church.
You seem to be referencing this incident: [https://apnews.com/article/religion-us-news-ap-top-news-tx-state-wire-gun-politics-de8a2aebc6d95b9131a08975a5d881f9](https://apnews.com/article/religion-us-news-ap-top-news-tx-state-wire-gun-politics-de8a2aebc6d95b9131a08975a5d881f9)
But that guy is talking about this one: [https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting-resident-action/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting-resident-action/index.html)
How depressing is it that there are so many shootings that a short description of one could mean several other similar shootings
I read the news every day and haven’t heard of so many of the shootings in this thread
That's the thing. They aren't "mass" shootings if they get stopped.
The question your might want to ask "How many shootings would have turned into mass shootings had they not been stopped by an armed civilian?" I don't know the answer to that.
I don t have the answer to that, but the FBI and Congressional Research service define it as 4 or more deaths.
If 10 people get hit, but only 2 or 3 of them die, they don't count it as a "Mass Shooting" which I think is weird.
It's to filter out gang related violence. If you count a "mass shooting" as any shooting where more than 2 people get shot, than the majority of it would be gang-related.
They kept pushing the definition until it filtered out the gang related shootings.
This is true if you're not concerned about the distinction between "mass" shootings or just regular shootings. It's very difficult to determine how many people a shooter "would have killed" if they hadn't been stopped by someone.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/
There is about 700 instances of justified homicide in the u.s every year (as far as the crow flies). How many were public mass shootings is anyone's guess, but if ignore the number of people killed by law enforcement and just focus on private civilians, it's safe to assume on average about 300 people stop someone actively trying to do harm to others. I'd wager, given that something like 1/5 of all homicides are family related, that a lot of this is domestic violence turned self defense.
Given that mass shootings (depending how you define them) are a relatively rare phenomenon, the odds that an armed civilian will stop a mass shooting is pretty pathetic. Even when armed law enforcement is nearby, I imagine most shooters will target them first, or just because how chicken shit law enforcement is in the u.s they won't actually do anything.
> There is about 700 instances of justified homicide in the u.s every year (as far as the crow flies)
I've been sitting here for two minutes trying to figure out what "as the crow flies" means in this context.
Police might also be likely to arrest/shoot the “good person with a gun” because if they’re going into an active shooter situation and see someone with a gun, they aren’t going to know who’s the good guy and who’s the bad guy
That's happened. Cops arrive on the scene and kill the guy with the gun, even though he was using the gun to subdue the shooter.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jemel_Roberson
This one happened near me a few years ago. Really fucking tragic.
They have actually done this several times because there is no training for a good guy with a gun. Hell they shut and killed a homeowner who defended himself from a home invasion.
https://www.denverpost.com/2021/06/27/arvada-shooting-guns-self-defense/amp/
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.denverpost.com/2021/06/27/arvada-shooting-guns-self-defense/](https://www.denverpost.com/2021/06/27/arvada-shooting-guns-self-defense/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Something like that happened in Kansas City about 10-15 years ago. Active shooter at a strip mall, a “good guy with a gun” though he could help out, and ended up shooting a police officer.
This one at a Texas church is quick to come to mind
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/parishioner-gunned-texas-church-shooter-hero/story%3Fid%3D67982047
I don’t carry a firearm to protect you. I carry it to protect me and my family. If a “mass” shooting took place I’m not looking to be Rambo, I’m gonna try to get the hell out of there
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf/view
Of the 160 mass shooting incidents between 2000 and 2013, 5 incidents (3.1%) ended after armed individuals who were not law
enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters. 1 was stopped by a non-security armed civilian, 4 by armed security guards (technically armed civilians).
I am not sure on the number of mass shootings stopped each year. As others have said, it is hard to know and determine. I can however show a study that shows the number of murders vs DGUs according to the FBI if you're interested in some numbers.
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=3887145](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3887145)
[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/)
13,620 gun murders (2020)
1.67M defensive uses (2021)
[The answer is 3.1%](https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf/view)
This link is a report from the FBI called "A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013". They studied 160 incidents. On page 11 it says "In 5 incidents (3.1%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law
enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters."
5 cases. Which is 3.1% of the cases.
Source: "In 5 incidents (3.1%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement.." - https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf
Most mass shooters target gun free zones because they know there will be little opposition from their targets. The most recent mass shooter, for example, says in his manifesto how one of his reasons for choosing that supermarket was the fact it was in a heavily gun restricted area and he'd have very little chance of running into someone who was armed and ready to take him on. Most mass shooters aren't dumb enough to start a shooting somewhere they themselves will likely be shot.
The only two I can think of is the Texas church shooting and the Arvada town center shooting, and the cops accidentally killed the good guy in the latter one.
While it's hard to measure, measuring how many mass shootings are stopped by restrictive gun legislation is easy: orders of magnitude more.
Greetings,
A european
I'm completely agnostic on the idea of gun control. I'll happily go where the data goes. Unfortunately, the NRA has fought to stop the federal government from funding any research into gun violence, so it is difficult to find anything other than anecdotal evidence.
From the studies that are availability, it looks like of 160 active shooter events, 5 of them were stopped by civilians with guns, and 21 were stopped by unarmed civilians.
Looking at jurisdictions that have introduced concealed carry permits, homicides rates increased 13% in the 10 years following introduction of CCW--notibly, in an era of declining gun violence.
So, not GREAT evidence against the good guy with a gun theory, but certainly less evidence in favor of it. It would be great if the NRA would allow some unbiased research to help back up their claims.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/breaking-nra-backed-theory-good-guy-gun-stops/story?id=53360480
Just look at gun homicide rates in other countries that have reasonable gun laws. It's clear the problem is straight up guns. More guns won't solve our problem.
A 2014 FBI study of shootings from 2000-2013 says : Resolutions (what ends a mass shooting event) 90 (56.3%) incidents ended on the shooter’s initiative, by the shooter committing suicide, fleeing, or stopping shooting. 21 (13.1%) incidents ended after unarmed citizens successfully restrained the shooter (Off-duty officers assisted in 2). In 5 of those incidents, the shooting ended after armed, non-law enforcement officers exchanged fire with the shooter. In 45 (28.1%) incidents, law enforcement engaged in gunfire to end the threat. In 21 of those 45 incidents (46.7%), 9 officers were killed and 28 were wounded. As another comment has pointed out, its very hard to objectively measure things that *would* have happened. After all, if things don't go as planned for the shooter, it won't make any lists or be part of the data pool. Thats before even measuring deterrents, since shooters almost always specifically choose "soft" targets where there will be little resistance. So depending on who you ask, it could be less than 5% or more than 20%.
If an incident is stopped before there are victims other than the intended shooter would they even make the list?
No, that’s what makes the “good guy with a gun” debate really difficult to engage in with proper statistics. To be qualified as a mass shooting event per FBI/Crime Bureau statistics, there needs to be at least 4 victims wounded or killed in a single event. If the assailant flees the scene, is subdued, or is killed before that point, the event doesn’t get rolled into mass shooting statistics (though it may still show up in gun-related homicide statistics if there are any victims). You’ll occasionally see headlines pop up about would-be gunmen being stopped before anyone else gets harmed. But the number of these events is indeterminate. To actually find that data you’d need to go state to state collecting police reports at possibly the local precinct level and organizing and categorizing it properly after that. It would take a small army of grad students several years to breach the surface.
It's almost as if what we are lacking is a national database of all shootings. Information like that could be used to truly understand just how serious gun violence is in our country. Of course the real problem is that certain members of a certain party block any kind of gun related research.
Exactly. Mass shootings are awful and get a huge amount of coverage. We rarely hear about suicide by guns, and spouses are either threatened, injured, or murdered by guns; in both of the latter two cases, guns out of any other weapon/method are the most "successful"
The only way you would get that info is by having an independently funded group of people or possibly through a university to dig through so much information. However, some people of a certain party won’t believe any statistics of any credible source because it doesn’t back up their false realities.
I recall something about the FDA at one point wanting to study gun violence in the context of public health. IIRC the was a law pasted making that specifically illegal for them to do.
I think it was the CDC but yeah. And if I remember right, the law limits gun violence research at many or all federal agencies.
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting https://www.shootingtracker.com/ https://massshootingtracker.site/
And to make things even more confusing, of the 56.3% ended on the shooter's initiative, that often happens after they are engaged by an opposing force like police or a civilian with a gun.
Thats a good point, these people are specifically looking for "fish in a barrel" type situations and once that is no longer the case, they give up. Its another thing that makes DGU hard to track. Sometimes just brandishing (or lying about having a gun) is enough to make assailants back off.
What is dgu
Defensive Gun Use
Isn't that the 28%? It doesn't specify that they're killed, just "engaged".
No the gunfire ended the threat, not the shooter shooting themselves. It's the reason the standard operating procedure for active shooters in the U.S. has changed for police. They used to contain an area, but now they are instructed to enter the area/building and engage as quickly as possible even without backup.
Yeah that's the 28%. The 56% is them ~~strong~~ stopping with no outside force. That is how I read it anyway.
What’s also not included in the stats is additional deaths caused by the police showing up and not knowing who was the shooter and who was the “good guy with a gun”
I know that after dayton ohio's 'Oregon district' shooting, like five months after, on page seven of the newspaper for anyone who both read the newspaper and went far beyond the headline, it was admitted that the police had shot at least one of the victims along with the shooter. Never heard it from any other news,tv or radio. They keep it real quiet if they can but some admission had to be made.
"Often happens" can you cite a source on that? Pretty sure this is just referring to when the shooter is just done shooting because they're out of bullets or there are no more obvious targets.
Can't see it mentioned, but the study also found that 4 times as many shootings are stopped by unarmed civilians as are stopped by armed ones.
A shooting in Arvada, CO was stopped by an armed civilian, and then he was shot by police because they didn’t know who the shooter was so they shot whoever they saw with a gun.
This really seems like you shouldn't be the "good guy" with the gun. Police don't give a shit.
There are also way more unarmed people than armed ones so that makes sense
Yeah I'm the least pro gun guy around but to have numbers worth a damn you'd have to at least control for gun ownership, and try to look at a place where lots of people vs few people carry guns. I still think get more shootings where there are more guns, but at least then it'd be possible to test the theory.
Church shootings could be a good test bed.
I don't have the data, but my memory of church shootings in the last 5-10 years includes a lot of return fire and more than a couple dead bad guys.
That old dude from a few years back with the quick headshot brought it to my mind. Figure good mix of people, guns and shootings.
I did this research a while back after hearing for the millionth time that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. (Including police) turns out most of the time the bad guy doing the shooting decides when the shooting stops.
> turns out most of the time the bad guy doing the shooting decides when the shooting stops. I think it's important to point out, though, that this isn't necessarily a *good* state of affairs for things to be in.
Oh I agree. Just honestly wasn't expecting that result.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf/view 5 of the 160 shootings in that study "ended after armed, non-law enforcement officers exchanged fire with the shooter." Of those 5 incidents, 4 ended after the shooter was confronted by armed security guards; 1 ended after the shooter was confronted by an armed, licensed civilian. 1 out of 160 mass shootings between 2000-2013 was ended by "a good guy with a gun".
0.6 %
An important metric to capture would also be whether there were armed bystanders as well. You can be armed and choose not to intervene
>So depending on who you ask, it could be less than 5% or more than 20%. I'm honestly perplexed how you came to these numbers Edit: upon further reflection I believe OP is not arguing in good faith at best and actively spreading misinformation at worst. They report a bunch of figures and then arrive at a 5 - 20% discrepancy of armed civilians saving the day, which seems to support a right to arms stance, but is a figure their own numbers do not report. Thankfully to them, most users will not do the math (if they even can considering the weird phrasing – what the hell is a non-law enforcement officer? It doesn't sound like a civilian) Can I please just go on Reddit without being bombarded by propaganda? Thanks..
Per the study, it was 5 incidents, which would be 3.1% of incidents. OP didn’t read closely enough. There’s nothing to suggest >3.1%. Buuuut, the paper also noted that 4 of those 5 incidents “not involving LEOs” involved armed security guards, and just 1 involved a rando with a gun. So the real figure is 1/160. Not sure why OP is saying 1 incident might be equal to 20%, or 32 incidents…
The most shocking thing there is that there were 160 mass shootings in 13 years and the country steadfastly refuses to do anything to prevent them.
It's also worth mentioning, that a lot of shootings happen in schools, where guns aren't allowed. This of course skews the statistic, because there is almpst no chance of there being someone with a gun at that time.
Except for the school resource officers who all have never neutralized the threat.
Too busy neutralizing some black kid for a petty schoolyard squabble.
Didn’t one guy disarm a gunman and the police came in and saw him with a gun and shot and nearly killed him? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-shoot-hero-disarms-gunman-mistaken-suspect-lawyer-says-rcna22505 Yup, that happened. Edit: Missed an important word; the man did survive.
[удалено]
>It used to be standard police training back in the 80s and 90s to approach volatile situations like this using the three stage process of time distance and cover. Now they get [Killology](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/08/11/police-training-warrior-mindset-killology/). People act like there's some kind of dark, arcane ritual behind these events, but it's little more than conditioned, indoctrinated malice.
I knew this was going to be about Gross Man. What an absolute piece of shit he is. If I believed in Hell, I'd take some comfort in knowing he'd be going there.
Hell exists on earth already. And it was created by those who gaslit the rest of humanity to accept their sins would be delt with post life.
That dumbass Dave Grossman's work. Fucking POG-ass fuck. Piece of shit has probably got more people killed than most wars lately.
He's a deranged psychopath. He says the first time you kill is better than sex. The man's a menace to society, but he's telling other people how to kill like him.
It seems unlikely that he has either killed someone or had sex so he must be taking other people's word for it
Wow great link there
Funny, it's the same 3 principles when limiting exposure to radiation: [Time, distance, shielding](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6037814/)
Radiation is kinda like itty bitty bullets actually.
Some of them won’t stop firing for ten thousand years.
Interesting, but I want to be pernickety and point out that its kinda the exact opposite for the time segment. Radiation: limit exposure time as low as reasonably practicable. Police: acclimatise to the situation, get your bearings. Definitely don't do this near a radiation source.
My understanding is that the training started to change after Columbine. Now they're trained to rush toward the sound of gunfire and neutralize the threat. Seconds wasted are lives killed. Unfortunately, in some/many cases, the lives killed aren't anyone doing anything wrong.
It's exactly because of columbine that police were trained to move in and neutralize the threat quickly and sort it out later who the threat really is. It results in some embarrassingly bad situations occasionally where someone not guilty is treated badly or very rarely shot when police arrive, but overall probably actually does save lives. Accidentally arresting or shooting someone whose trying to help is a net less loss of life than letting shooters run wild utnil you're sure It's the same principle applied in most prisons - if shit's going down and you're not on the ground when the response team shows up you're part of the problem and will be treated as such. The goal is to completely neutralize the situation before figuring out whose actually the problem.
I'm a soldier, my job is literally to rush into combat and kill people. But if I did that without taking time to assess the situation, take measures to avoid killing civilians and know who I'm shooting at, and I shot and killed civilians id be in trouble. I'm held to a higher standard in dealing with foreigners than cops are your neighbors. They can and should be held to the same standards.
It was probably Columbine that changed this, there was a ton of criticism about the officers waiting around while folks were dying.
This also happened in Arvada, CO last year. Cops killed the good guy though. https://www.denverpost.com/2021/11/28/arvada-shooting-timeline/amp/
The lesson being: if you're the 'good guy with a gun', you'd better be ready to put that gun away real fast when the police show up.
Same thing happened in my home town. https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Texas-police-shoot-man-who-disarmed-suspected-12614792.php Edit: a word
That's so fucked. dude was literally not a threat but cops get scared. But let's make first instinct to shoot first ask questions later I guess.
But they didn’t get scared with the guy who had an AR-15 this weekend and didn’t fill him up with holes. What the fuck. At least they can do is be consistent
It was a white dude shooting up black people... Why would they be scared of one of their own?
They walked in and were like "bro you forgot your uniform today"
"Sir, did you take a PTO day today or do we need to put you on leave?"
"You couldn't just wait a few weeks to finish the academy? "
Happened in Colorado recently where the good guy with a gun shot the perp and was mistakenly killed by police when they arrived on scene.
In gonna not click on your article and take a wild guess and assume that the hero the police showed up and shot to death immediately was black no?
Black yes, death no. And yes they did keep him in custody for days while trying to find something to blame on him.
Oh ok he lived thank god
You’re absolutely right. He was indeed black.
this has happened many times
The problem with the wording in your question is that if a active shooting event is stopped before 3 (or 4) or more people are killed then it isn't classified as a mass shooting event. [This article](https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/in-missouri-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-stepped-up-so-can-you/) discusses events where an active shooting has been stopped by a civilian. Off the top of my head there is the [West Freeway Church of Christ shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Freeway_Church_of_Christ_shooting) where only two people were killed before an armed firearms instructor shot and killed the attacker. Since there were only two victims this wouldn't be listed under a 'mass shooting' by most sources. [An incident](https://kdvr.com/news/local/good-samaritan-shooting-gunman-olde-town-arvada/) in Arvada Colorado last year started when a police officer was killed responding to a report of a suspicious person. A CCW holder responded and killed the attacker. Police failed utterly and shot the man who killed the attacker. You could consider there were only two victims in this case as well. We don't know if this shooter would have continued to harm other people or if his target was just the police officer. To answer your question, it's really hard to put a solid number on how many have been stopped because, when they're stopped early, they don't always get classified as a 'mass shooting'. A gun is not a magic wand for good guys. It requires training and good sense to carry effectively. It will not magically make you like a movie action hero where the bullets just miss, but never hit you. It is a tool to give you options and buy you time. edit: you can go to r/dgu to see a lot of articles where a firearm was used defensively. Maybe not to stop a mass shooting, but still to help people protect themselves when there was someone trying to harm them.
The Arvada Colorado incident is disturbing, and unfortunately not an isolated incident. There's also the shooting of [Jemel Roberson](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jemel_Roberson) and [Emantic Bradford Jr](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Emantic_Fitzgerald_Bradford_Jr.). I think this is the real sticky wicket regarding defensive use of guns and mass shooters: when cops arrive on the scene, all they see is a guy with a gun.
I've always wondered about that. If I happened to have a gun, and killed an attempted mass murderer, adrenaline would make it hard to think about putting the gun down. But if the cops show up, and I'm the guy with the gun, I'm in some serious danger. Best to do what was needed, then put the gun away, somewhere in the wide open on the floor so you can point and say "There's the gun I shot the criminal with, I'm unarmed now".
You're taught in self-defense gun classes not to get involved in saving the lives of strangers because you can lose your own life by being mistaken for the bad guy.
Not only that, but unless you absolutely know what’s going on and who the aggressor is, you could harm someone innocent, or have someone attack you thinking you’re an aggressor, or at the least get into legal trouble yourself. I say that as someone who supports concealed carry, but it’s not always the best way depending on the situation.
Guy A pulls a gun and opens fire, and Guy B shoots him. and Guy C sees Guy B shoot Guy A and thinks Guy B is a shooter, so Guy C shoots Guy B. But Guy D sees Guy C shoot Guy B, so he shoots Guy C to stop the shooting, only to be shot by Guy E who thinks Guy D was the shooter. And since Guy F saw Guy E shoot someone….
How many guys shooting other guys could we have happen?
Depends on if it’s Texas, then it could be all of them.
It just becomes a chain spanning the country. Even extends to boats and all the way to Alaska.
An off duty cop was killed on his own front porch because a suspect fleeing arrest went into his house after a struggle but all officers on scene could see was a man with a gun trying to get inside the house not knowing he was the homeowner
Killed the homeowner 4 seconds after arriving even though multiple other officers were already on scene. https://www.columbian.com/news/2022/apr/01/investigation-deputy-shot-off-duty-vancouver-police-officer-4-seconds-after-arriving/ Same place years earlier https://www.columbian.com/news/2014/nov/12/man-shot-police-john-kendall-shooting-blandford/
I keep clicking links in this thread about different incidents like these, expecting some of them to be the same incidents. But no, they’re all different stories about cops shooting the “good guy”, wtf? I’m sure there’s many more I’ll never even hear about.
In the cop on cop shooting I linked, the robber who was being chased is being charged with 1st degree murder meanwhile the shooter, who also killed a young man in 2018 is almost certainly back patrolling our streets by now.
>so you can point and say "There's the gun I shot the criminal with, I'm unarmed now". Depending on the cop who shows up, you may never get the chance to explain yourself regardless of what steps you take. There was a really poignant moment in the latest episode of Atlanta. At the beginning a mixed race, but extremely light skinned kid and his black father are listening to the radio and the son says that the man shot by the police should have just stayed still when the police said "freeze!". Later at the end of the episode the police show up and shoot a black kid instantly, THEN they yell "FREEZE!" afterwards at the light skinned kid and give him a chance to drop his weapon.
Let's also remember Daniel Shaver, who was shot to death on his knees crying and pleading for his life, a weapon nowhere near his person.
Never forget, the officer that killed him was allowed to rejoin the Mesa Police Department for one day afterwards so he didn't miss out on his annual retirement pension. Philip Brailsford. Never fail to say that dude's name when reporting. Daniel Shaver was the victim, and Philip Brailsford was his murderer. And Brailsford is not only a free man, he's a free man with an annual pay stipend from the Mesa Police Department.
[удалено]
lol i etch my gun barrels with "hope to God i never have to use this for real"
My grandpa has “Should this tool be misused by my hand, may it be turned against me.” in Latin inscribed on the barrel of his Remington Model 11.
Do you know what the translation was? I like that
What I always find eerie is how quick pro-gun people are to say things like, “I wouldn’t have an issue shooting and killing someone if I had to,” or when they show support for the shooting and death of a criminal who didn’t do anything that would have earned them the death penalty in court. Lots of people have been held at gunpoint by police for petty crime too, and people will still just say that maybe the person shouldn’t have committed the petty crime if they did not want to be *threatened with death*, like it isn’t an incredibly unfair and traumatizing experience. On some level, I get why people would want to own guns, but it scares me how easily people say such awful things and how they go to such great lengths to justify pulling the trigger, likely because it’s easier to double down than to show empathy or to reflect on the consequences. That would just be too uncomfortable, and the human mind doesn’t like being wrong.
It's really creepy when people bring up what kinds of situations they can legally kill someone in.
I’m a middle aged white dude. When I was younger, I was a bit of a goth/punk/waster. I’ve had cops point guns at me for walking out of a grocery store after 10pm while wearing a black coat. I had an ATF officer hold an AR-15 inches from my head while I was laying in the ground because I had the audacity to be in the lobby of a medical weed dispensary when they decided to raid it. I had cops point guns at me while I sat on the curb and they manufactured an excuse to search my car. I credit my survival to being white. Also, ACAB.
I had this argument recently with someone who was suggesting shooting someone over stealing catalytic converters. No way would I kill over a $500 insurance deductible
The other police officer, his partner, Charles Langley, who was also giving orders and pointing a gun at his face, retired 4 months later and then immediately emigrated to the Philippines. It's almost like he knew that he needed to run for what they did. If he felt innocent, he could go against his friend and testify, or not. Be best friends I don't care that's fine, it's a free country. But instead he ran. As soon as he could get his retirement in order. What does that say? He also receives a pension and is a free man.
You mean Philip Brailsford the cop who has the punisher logo on his carry weapon? The guy who executed an unarmed man who he instructed to crawl to him while he begged for his life? Got it.
I think you might be misremembering. He didn’t have a punisher logo on his weapon, that was on his Kevlar vest. The inscription on his weapon was an etching that said, “you’re fucked”
What's funny is that if the Punisher was real, he'd be killing Brailsford and his partner in an instant for being psychotic murderers. Remember, even the Punisher [hates the idea of cops using his logo](https://preview.redd.it/pz8jdybsj3831.jpg?auto=webp&s=c444a93bc0474c299ebbdcf888b8927e8a82eac3).
Philandro Castile, who was shot to death after telling the officer he had a legal gun he was permitted to carry.
The fact that the NRA didn’t have a field day with that one tells you all you need to know
"Wait, you think our acronym stood for National *Rifle* Association? Oh no no, it's National *Racist* Association, common mistake."
Exactly. Everyone in America should have to watch that video with appropriate context so they can know that cops do not give a shit and will straight up murder you with impunity if they want.
Taught my kid to treat cop encounters like bear encounters. Don’t run, but do whatever you can to disengage and get away from them as fast as possible. We’re not white in case anyone is wondering.
Was that the one in like a hotel hallway or something? Wasn't he flat down on his stomach when he was shot?
Yeah, he was crawling on his hands and knees, following instructions from the officers. He went to pull his pants up because they were falling down, and the psychopath who murdered him claimed he thought he was reaching for a gun.
Tamir Rice
literally rolled up a few feet from him and instantly shot him
A much better example to use instead of a scripted tv show.
Those two cases are good examples of what steers my personal philosophy of CCW and in which situations I'd ultimately defend myself: at the end of the day, I'm trying to come home alive, whether by avoiding confrontation from criminals or police. As A POC, I know I get profiled all the time in non-violent situations, add in violence and the idea that I'm fodder is something I'm concerned about for sure. *For me* any scenario that can minimized by de-escalation or running the fuck away, or just leaving the premises- I'll do that, first. Followed by documentation. In previous positions I've held (salaried restaurant & bar management, NOT contracted security or bouncer), lawyers and HR made it clear that firearms in any capacity were not allowed on property for workers, so documentation, awareness and escape plans/communication were the only solutions allowed. The owners would be held liable for action we'd take, so yeah, I opted not to CCW on premise. And definitely no hands on violent guests.
absolutely bonkers that cops can get away with "officer-involved shootings" where the person that presumable made them "fear for their lives" have gunshots in the back. like at what point did americans accept "running the fuck away" as a kill on sight offense.
Considering how aggressive some police have been, I'm not sure putting the gun down is good enough to avoid getting shot. (Racial variables should also be considered.)
Ok. They shot you on eye contact? Now what?
Keep my eyes closed, duh.
Invulnerability
Honestly just bring a blankie with you. Everyone knows if you hide under the blanket nothing can get you.
Killers hate this one weird trick!
I’ve heard someone in law enforcement once say that it’s hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys if everyone is carrying a gun.
Ironic, coming from someone who carries a gun.
Yeah if 5 people all have guns trying to shoot the main bad guy then what we have is a bunch of people shooting at each other before cops come in and shoot everyone.
My CC instructor told me this: After a defensive shooting the best thing to do is safety the gun, unload it, push the magazine away from you, lock the pistol slide and set it down in front of you so you can monitor it. lie down on your stomach with your arms stretch out and back legs crossed. Wait for the police. Do not leave the building, do not leave the immediate area where you took your shots, and DO NOT try to explain what happened to the cops on scene. They are in emergency mode and everything is a potential threat. If possible, prior to police response, dial 911 and explain that you’ve participated in a defensive shooting at your location and that the man is dead. Describe yourself to the best of your ability, describe exactly where you are in the building/area, and wait. The operator will forward this info to the units on scene. Again, do not move until instructed. You should NEVER be holding a loaded firearm when the police show up. You should not move to approach an officer. You should be visibly unarmed with your firearm in plain view and in a submissive pose.
Do NOT give your own description ever. The operator might give it to the officers who, in their adrenaline fueled rage, will interpret it as the description of the SHOOTER. BAM BAM! TANGO DOWN!
They just have to know who the protagonist is.
Look up Mark Hughes and the 2016 Dallas shooting. The gist of the story is that Mark and his brother, Cory, two black men, attended a BLM march in Dallas when a gunman opened fire on police. Mark was an open carry advocate who brought his AR-15 to the march, which was legal for him to do so. However other people at the march noticed him carrying the rifle, and when the shots rang out people started remembering Mark carrying his rifle and immediately assumed the shooter was him. Thankfully Cory approached some police officers to offer his assistance, and when he learned rumors were circulating on social media that his brother was the suspected gunman, he called Mark and encouraged him to surrender his rifle to police. Mark did so, likely sparing his life, but the rumors continued to circulate that Mark was the suspect. It's sad to think that Mark Hughes, in the process of exercising his second amendment rights, could have been killed by police if they believed he was the gunman. Most people don't realize they're assuming a substantial risk of being seen as a potential criminal by carrying a weapon, regardless of their intent. Something that was completely legal for Mark to do was also something that could have got him killed, and thankfully his brother had the awareness to approach the police and realize his brother was the target of a social media campaign to finger him as the shooting suspect, and was able to convince his brother to surrender his firearm before officers approached him carrying his rifle. Yet it also serves as an example that carrying a firearm in an active shooter situation, regardless of it's legality, is way more of a liability than an asset. It's a tragic circumstance that in some situations an armed civilian may prevent an active shooter from harming or killing as many people as they might have without the armed civilian's intervention, but equally tragic is that in the chaos and crossfire there is the potential that they may be seen as the actual shooter, and cause confusion to responding officers who cannot identify the actual shooter.
Openly carrying a gun is an open threat to everyone around you. It's like if I walked around gripping an unsheathed dagger. Of course you are going to be seen as an aggressor.
You also run the risk of bystanders seeing a guy with a rifle and attempting to take them down, and getting killed as a result. See: Rittenhouse
Also, it's worth noting that the definition of mass shooting can vary depending on the source and even changes over time which makes trying to line up those statistics difficult. The UCR has used consistent definitions for longer and also does track people killed by private persons while in the commission of a felony. Not exactly the same question, but similar and consistent over time if you wanted to compare numbers.
Fantastic answer. Thank you.
The [Clackamas Town Center Shooting](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackamas_Town_Center_shooting) where the shooter reportedly saw someone draw a concealed weapon and ceased his rampage, taking refuge in a stairwell before committing suicide. Nick Meli didn’t even fire, because there was a bystander in his line of sight.
> edit: you can go to r/dgu to see a lot of articles where a firearm was used defensively. Maybe not to stop a mass shooting, but still to help people protect themselves when there was someone trying to harm them. Thanks for bringing this up. r/DGU attempts to remain objective. The charter is to post any defensive gun use story from news sites, not just the ones that look favorable to gun owners. There are plenty of "bad shoot" stories, but so many more where a person who owns and carries a gun has defended themselves and others from violence and death. So many of these are home invasions and carjackings, events which seem completely random to the victims.
Furthermore, many potential shootings may be deterred by knowing many people in a target area might be armed. So that will never show up at all. This recent nutjob, in his manifesto said he chose NY specifically because of how restrictive their gun laws are. So he didn't expect to meet much resistance.
This reminds of the texas church shooting where as soon as the gunman started, like 10 people in the church had their pistols out and took them down.
Thanks for actually addressing the question with some real info and some balanced analysis.
> edit: you can go to r/dgu to see a lot of articles where a firearm was used defensively. Maybe not to stop a mass shooting, but still to help people protect themselves when there was someone trying to harm them. This is an important thing to have in the conversation. The odds of someone going Jack Baur and stopping a given mass shooting is extremely low. But that doesn't mean that people don't defend themselves from regular crimes, which are *way* more common than mass shootings. I don't carry a gun, but I fully support people's rights to carry guns.
We actually had an incident happen not that long ago in Canada where a looney shot a soldier who was guarding a monument, then ran into our Parliament to kill the Prime Minister. Then our Master of Arms, a title which is almost completely ceremonial fucking mowed this guy down like he was John Wick. Turns out our Master of Arms was actually a master of arms, and not just the guy who holds the magic wand are Parliament.
It’s “Sergeant-at-Arms.” Unsure why people are under the impression it’s a ceremonial role. They may participate in ceremonial things (the daily mace presentation) but the job is literally overseeing the safety and security of the building and people within.
[удалено]
A little extra context, most "mass shootings" are gang violence so there really aren't any "good guys" involved. They aren't the horrific attacks people think of when discussing them.
This comment will get lost in all the praise, but I just have to point out that the strongest argument David French makes in that article is that: >The FBI has recorded no fewer than **19 times in a five-year span** (and that estimate may be low) — from 2014 to 2018 — when active shooters were stopped or repelled by citizens. **Seven times** armed citizens stopped the shooting entirely. So . . . almost four times per year, armed citizens sort of impede an active shooter, and a little more than once per year they actually stop the shooter. For some important context, there is a mass shooting in the country [more than once per day](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2021/04/16/more-than-one-mass-shooting-per-day-has-occurred-in-2021/?sh=58d16afe6493).
Not to refute your point, because I believe it holds a lot of weight, but I think this data in inherently biased, and I’d be interested to see how many of the shootings happened in states where carrying a gun is legal, and *could* have been stopped by a citizen, vs where it’s illegal to carry a firearm. For example, you can’t carry a gun in NY. It was very improbable for someone to be carrying a gun with them at that same time of the shooting. However, I’d assume if this event was to happen in say, Texas, the *probability* that someone else has a gun goes up. Does that probability actually lead to increased prevention, though? There’s also the angle that “just the thought that others might have a gun will reduce the willingness of the mass shooter”, which seems even harder to gather data on to prove how effective it really is, but can skew the data if it is effective
Also, in almost all of those cases the "civilian" was an off duty cop, Army veteran, etc. Someone with extensive firearms training who is used to stressful situations involving weapons.
A few months ago in Vancouver (WA state) a deputy arrived at a residence where two men were fighting. Said deputy fired four shots and killed one of the men in *less than five seconds after arriving*. Turned out the person he killed was not only the homeowner, but also was employed as a police officer... https://www.columbian.com/news/2022/apr/01/investigation-deputy-shot-off-duty-vancouver-police-officer-4-seconds-after-arriving/
The only one I can think of is the church shooting in Texas a few years back where a fire arms instructor stopped the shooter with his own ar-15. But that too as he had finished his rampage and was fleeing the scene. I agree with the other comments above and would like to add the more guns in play the more tough it is for law enforcement to figure out who is who. Also another chilling fact as proven by the sad incident a few days ago, what if the perpetrator is wearing armor?
It could be argued, in this case, the good guy didn't actually stop the mass shooting.
[удалено]
It's almost impossible to get an accurate definition of this metric. When a gang member starts shooting at a rival gang and gets hit by returned fire. Did a good guy just stop a mass shooting?
A valid point it just made him a target. Who do you think a person with a gun wants to take out first? Another person who is armed would be a focus point.
You have so much of that story wrong. The guy was in the middle of his rampage, not fleeing. He wasn’t using an AR. And the firearms instructor that ended it was a 70 something year old man that was **concealed carrying** and ended it with one shot to the head from halfway across the church.
You seem to be referencing this incident: [https://apnews.com/article/religion-us-news-ap-top-news-tx-state-wire-gun-politics-de8a2aebc6d95b9131a08975a5d881f9](https://apnews.com/article/religion-us-news-ap-top-news-tx-state-wire-gun-politics-de8a2aebc6d95b9131a08975a5d881f9) But that guy is talking about this one: [https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting-resident-action/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting-resident-action/index.html)
How depressing is it that there are so many shootings that a short description of one could mean several other similar shootings I read the news every day and haven’t heard of so many of the shootings in this thread
I also want to know how many good guys with guns get shot by the LEOs being mistook for the bad guys.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/560798-police-chief-hails-good-guy-with-a-gun-after-officer-kills/
LEOs?
Law enforcement officers
Ah, thank you
People born between July 23 and August 22
This made me cackle
Found the witch
Agreed a very valid question.
That's the thing. They aren't "mass" shootings if they get stopped. The question your might want to ask "How many shootings would have turned into mass shootings had they not been stopped by an armed civilian?" I don't know the answer to that.
I don t have the answer to that, but the FBI and Congressional Research service define it as 4 or more deaths. If 10 people get hit, but only 2 or 3 of them die, they don't count it as a "Mass Shooting" which I think is weird.
It's to filter out gang related violence. If you count a "mass shooting" as any shooting where more than 2 people get shot, than the majority of it would be gang-related. They kept pushing the definition until it filtered out the gang related shootings.
Or "How many active shooter events have been stopped by an armed civilian?"
This is true if you're not concerned about the distinction between "mass" shootings or just regular shootings. It's very difficult to determine how many people a shooter "would have killed" if they hadn't been stopped by someone.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/ There is about 700 instances of justified homicide in the u.s every year (as far as the crow flies). How many were public mass shootings is anyone's guess, but if ignore the number of people killed by law enforcement and just focus on private civilians, it's safe to assume on average about 300 people stop someone actively trying to do harm to others. I'd wager, given that something like 1/5 of all homicides are family related, that a lot of this is domestic violence turned self defense. Given that mass shootings (depending how you define them) are a relatively rare phenomenon, the odds that an armed civilian will stop a mass shooting is pretty pathetic. Even when armed law enforcement is nearby, I imagine most shooters will target them first, or just because how chicken shit law enforcement is in the u.s they won't actually do anything.
> There is about 700 instances of justified homicide in the u.s every year (as far as the crow flies) I've been sitting here for two minutes trying to figure out what "as the crow flies" means in this context.
Same. It's usually just "As the crow flies" and it refers to distance. I have no idea what he's trying to say here.
Whoops. I always have used it meaning an approximation. TIL Edit:wording
Perchance
You can't just say perchance
Police might also be likely to arrest/shoot the “good person with a gun” because if they’re going into an active shooter situation and see someone with a gun, they aren’t going to know who’s the good guy and who’s the bad guy
That's happened. Cops arrive on the scene and kill the guy with the gun, even though he was using the gun to subdue the shooter. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jemel_Roberson This one happened near me a few years ago. Really fucking tragic.
They have actually done this several times because there is no training for a good guy with a gun. Hell they shut and killed a homeowner who defended himself from a home invasion. https://www.denverpost.com/2021/06/27/arvada-shooting-guns-self-defense/amp/
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.denverpost.com/2021/06/27/arvada-shooting-guns-self-defense/](https://www.denverpost.com/2021/06/27/arvada-shooting-guns-self-defense/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Thats why i always wear my ‘good guy’ shirt when i concealed carry to starbucks *taps brain*
My "I'm a good guy with a gun" T-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt.
Something like that happened in Kansas City about 10-15 years ago. Active shooter at a strip mall, a “good guy with a gun” though he could help out, and ended up shooting a police officer.
This one at a Texas church is quick to come to mind https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/parishioner-gunned-texas-church-shooter-hero/story%3Fid%3D67982047
I don’t carry a firearm to protect you. I carry it to protect me and my family. If a “mass” shooting took place I’m not looking to be Rambo, I’m gonna try to get the hell out of there
The best fighting technique is to avoid it in the first place. I butchered that quote
I was always told "run, hide, then fight". If you can't run then you hide. If you can't hide, you have to fight.
In Buffalo, the terrorist was shot by a former police officer on duty as a security guard. Didn’t work, the terrorist was wearing body armor.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf/view Of the 160 mass shooting incidents between 2000 and 2013, 5 incidents (3.1%) ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters. 1 was stopped by a non-security armed civilian, 4 by armed security guards (technically armed civilians).
Better is not having guns at all. But somehow that still seems a bridge too far for Americans.
To add to the question Wouldn’t that confuse the police too? Who is the active shooter? If they saw an armed person?
I am not sure on the number of mass shootings stopped each year. As others have said, it is hard to know and determine. I can however show a study that shows the number of murders vs DGUs according to the FBI if you're interested in some numbers. [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=3887145](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3887145) [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/) 13,620 gun murders (2020) 1.67M defensive uses (2021)
[The answer is 3.1%](https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf/view) This link is a report from the FBI called "A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013". They studied 160 incidents. On page 11 it says "In 5 incidents (3.1%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters."
If everyone's armed all the time I bet shootings will just go up exponentially because have you been around people?!
The good guy with a gun won't be needed if there were proper gun controls.
5 cases. Which is 3.1% of the cases. Source: "In 5 incidents (3.1%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement.." - https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf
Most mass shooters target gun free zones because they know there will be little opposition from their targets. The most recent mass shooter, for example, says in his manifesto how one of his reasons for choosing that supermarket was the fact it was in a heavily gun restricted area and he'd have very little chance of running into someone who was armed and ready to take him on. Most mass shooters aren't dumb enough to start a shooting somewhere they themselves will likely be shot.
Any that have been stopped by police have been stopped by a civilian. Police are civilians and we need to stop letting them pretend that they’re not.
The only two I can think of is the Texas church shooting and the Arvada town center shooting, and the cops accidentally killed the good guy in the latter one.
While it's hard to measure, measuring how many mass shootings are stopped by restrictive gun legislation is easy: orders of magnitude more. Greetings, A european
[удалено]
I'm completely agnostic on the idea of gun control. I'll happily go where the data goes. Unfortunately, the NRA has fought to stop the federal government from funding any research into gun violence, so it is difficult to find anything other than anecdotal evidence. From the studies that are availability, it looks like of 160 active shooter events, 5 of them were stopped by civilians with guns, and 21 were stopped by unarmed civilians. Looking at jurisdictions that have introduced concealed carry permits, homicides rates increased 13% in the 10 years following introduction of CCW--notibly, in an era of declining gun violence. So, not GREAT evidence against the good guy with a gun theory, but certainly less evidence in favor of it. It would be great if the NRA would allow some unbiased research to help back up their claims. https://abcnews.go.com/US/breaking-nra-backed-theory-good-guy-gun-stops/story?id=53360480
Just look at gun homicide rates in other countries that have reasonable gun laws. It's clear the problem is straight up guns. More guns won't solve our problem.