Friday, May 29, 2015

Where’s The Coverage Of Heroes Who Stop Mass Killings?

Ammoland by John Lott

Heroic citizens stopping someone from killing a large number of people don’t seem to be considered news worthy.

Don’t people want to read about a brave soul risking his life by running towards the sound of gunfire while others run away?  Yet, such stories never get national news coverage by the national mainstream media.

While accidental gunshots get national coverage, few people have any idea how often concealed handgun permit holders stopping mass killings.

The lack of news coverage allows left wing media outlets, such as Mother Jones which should know better, to falsely claim: “In not a single case was [a mass public shooting] stopped by a civilian using a gun.”

The truth is that the more successful these heroes are in preventing people from getting killed, the less media coverage they receive, but the lack of fatalities doesn’t explain the lack of news coverage.  And if the heroes hadn’t been there, the attacks would have been successful and the national mainstream media would have been talking about the attack for days.

It's thoroughly dishonest, as we've come to expect, for John Lott to pretend the lack of coverage of stopped mass killings is because of media bias. It's simply and obviously because there's no proof that something which hasn't happened yet, would have happened.

Having said that, it's also unfair for Mother Jones to imply that no mass shooting has ever been thwarted.

It seems to me that the handful of anecdotal cases cited in the article are just that, a handful of anecdotal cases. The numbers would not add up to much - but of course, no one knows.

5 comments:

  1. "It's simply and obviously because there's no proof that something which hasn't happened yet, would have happened."

    So let me see if I'm understanding this right. If a person is stopped before reaching whatever number defines a mass shooting, there is no way to prove that a mass shooting was thwarted? So these events don't count


    http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/08/doctor-shoots-armed-patient-in-philly.html

    "But Yeadon Police Chief Donald Molineux said that "without a doubt, I believe the doctor saved lives."
    "Without that firearm, this guy (the patient) could have went out in the hallway and just walked down the offices until he ran out of ammunition," the chief said."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/24/pennsylvania-hospital-shooting_n_5618672.html

    An FBI study of mass shootings showed that about 16 percent of the events were stopped by citizens both armed and unarmed.

    "■■ In 21 incidents (13.1%), the situation ended after unarmed citizens safely and successfully
    restrained the shooter. In 2 of those incidents,24 3 off-duty law enforcement
    officers were present and assisted.
    ■■ Of note, 11 of the incidents involved unarmed principals, teachers, other school
    staff and students who confronted shooters to end the threat (9 of those shooters
    were students).
    ■■ In 5 incidents (3.1%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law
    enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters. In these incidents, 3 shooters
    were killed, 1 was wounded, and 1 committed suicide.
    ■■ The individuals involved in these shootings included a citizen with a valid firearms
    permit and armed security guards at a church, an airline counter, a federally
    managed museum, and a school board meeting."

    http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

    In fact, citizens stopping mass shooters were a bit over half of the number of times police actually engaged a mass shooter with gunfire.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're getting a little sarcastic there, huh?

      When a possible or potential mass shooter is stopped, we cannot know what would have happened had he not been stopped. Is that not obvious? Some of them certainly would have been that, but we're only guessing as to how many.

      When you guys count DGUs you do the same thing.

      Delete
    2. When a possible or potential mass shooter is stopped, we cannot know what would have happened had he not been stopped.

      And when one is not stopped, and we're told that the shooting "proves" the need for whatever the "gun control" law du jour is, we can't know that such laws would have changed the outcome at all. In fact, when gun ban zealots do things like pointing to Virginia Tech and Tucson as "proof" of the need for universal background checks, when the shooter had passed just such checks (or Sandy Hook, where the purchaser had), that's dancing in the blood of the innocent to push an agenda that would do nothing to stop the same thing from happening again.

      Delete
    3. Indeed, we cannot know what would have happened in any specific case, but we can be sure that strong restrictions would prevent some of the tragedies - at least if we're honest and not lying gun rights fanatics.

      Delete
    4. . . . but we can be sure that strong restrictions would prevent some of the tragedies . . .

      No more than we can be sure that a less restricted and better armed populace would prevent some of the tragedies - at least if we're honest and not lying gun ban zealots.

      Delete