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.
"It's simply and obviously because there's no proof that something which hasn't happened yet, would have happened."
ReplyDeleteSo 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.
You're getting a little sarcastic there, huh?
DeleteWhen 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.
When a possible or potential mass shooter is stopped, we cannot know what would have happened had he not been stopped.
DeleteAnd 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.
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. . . but we can be sure that strong restrictions would prevent some of the tragedies . . .
DeleteNo 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.