Armed citizens stopping mass shootings - Who to believe?

[ryoder 1,590]

While perusing my usual news sites this morning, I found these two articles:

"9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally Owned Firearm":
(events 1997-2102)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit


"...we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.":

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

I don't think those reports are inconsistent. In the buzzfeed report, the incidents were stopped before the death toll reached the level of a mass killing, so they would not have been considered in the motherjones report.

One quibble about the buzzfeed report, is it legitimate to count off-duty police officers (who were actually working security in one of the cases) as if they were the same as civilians who happened to be carrying and intervened?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 23]

School shooting
gun free zones, target rich
The CO theater shooting
Not the closest one to the shooter
The ONLY one that had a no guns sign
Target rich gun free zone
The college shooting
Gun free zone
the two base shootings
gun free zones

I see a pattern

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[beowulf 1]

I think the major pattern that is showing in the latest shootings is the mental illness and drugs used by the shooters.

[rushmc 23]

beowulf

I think the major pattern that is showing in the latest shootings is the mental illness and drugs used by the shooters.

That too
But they all these shooters know where to go to inflict the most carnage (with the least resistance) it seems

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skypuppy 1]

GeorgiaDon

I don't think those reports are inconsistent. In the buzzfeed report, the incidents were stopped before the death toll reached the level of a mass killing, so they would not have been considered in the motherjones report.

One quibble about the buzzfeed report, is it legitimate to count off-duty police officers (who were actually working security in one of the cases) as if they were the same as civilians who happened to be carrying and intervened?

Don

since when is killing 5 not a mass killing

Feb. 12, 2007
Sulejman Talović killed five people and wounded four others in 2007 when he began firing in a public square in Salt Lake City, Utah. He carried a shotgun and a backpack of ammunition. He was eventually stopped in a shoot-out involving Salt Lake City Police Department SWAT that took place in a Pottery Barn Kids. He was cornered, however, by off-duty police officer Kenneth Hammond, who held him in position before authorities could arrive.

Hammond ran on scene after hearing gunshots fire out while having an early Valentine’s Day dinner with his pregnant wife at a local restaurant

or killing 3 and wounding 3

Jan. 16, 2002
A 43-year-old Nigerian former student named Peter Odighizuwa arrived on campus with a handgun. There are different variations of the story, but according to eyewitness accounts, law students Tracy Bridges, a county sheriff’s deputy, and Mikael Gross, a police officer, ran to their cars after hearing gunshots and grabbed personally owned firearms. They approached Odighizuwa, ordering him to drop his firearm; he did and was subdued by unarmed students.

Three people were killed and three others were wounded.

or killing 3 and wounding 7

Oct. 1, 1997
Luke Woodham fatally stabbed and bludgeoned his mother and went on to kill two students and injure seven others at his high school. Woodham was stopped by Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, a U.S. Army Reserve commander, who detained Woodham by using a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol he kept in his truck, until authorities could show up.

Myrick stopped Woodham from going across the street to the middle school

And it is indeed legitimate to count off-duty police officers as civilians. They are civilians, and they were carrying.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[Boomerdog 0]

And in those 62 cases, consider the location/principality and determine if concealed carry permits were authorized or the facility in which the slayings took place prohibited firearms on the premises.

Every month, the NRA does publish incidents where criminals were either deterred, wounded, or killed by a private citizen with a firearm acting in self defense.

Understanding of course that the NRA data set should only be considered in the totality of other facts on hand with respect to a particular incident.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

If you actually bothered to read the motherjones report, you would have seen that they used the FBI definition of a mass murder, which is a minimum of four killed in a single incident at a single location. So ONE of your examples would qualify. If we are to count every incident in which three or more people die as a mass murder, there would be multiple mass murders in the US every day.

Further, the implication of the buzzfeed article is that such incidents are frequently derailed by joe average citizen types. The rhetorical question posed in the article title, "Can law-abiding citizens with guns combat mass shootings?", clearly suggests that arming "law-abiding citizens" would prevent such incidents. Yet, of their nine examples four involve police officers who happened to be off duty, in one case actually working as a security guard, and one more involved a retired police officer. As these people are trained to deal with situations of this nature, I question how legitimate it is to compare them to concealed-carry licensees in general. In Georgia, for example, one needs only to pass a background check to get a carry permit; no demonstration of any type of training, proficiency, or even familiarity with relevant law is required. How are we supposed to compare such people with trained law enforcement officers? I'm sure some of them do at least go to the range from time to time, but how many train regularly on how to take down an active shooter in a public place with lots of people around?

As some have commented here in SC before, carrying means you can at least try to defend yourself if you are given no other choice. No dispute from me on that point. But, simply carrying does not prepare average citizens to put themselves in harms way to intentionally confront an active shooter, especially in a situation where you are likely to hit bystanders.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[skypuppy 1]

GeorgiaDon

If you actually bothered to read the motherjones report, you would have seen that they used the FBI definition of a mass murder, which is a minimum of four killed in a single incident at a single location. So ONE of your examples would qualify. If we are to count every incident in which three or more people die as a mass murder, there would be multiple mass murders in the US every day.

Further, the implication of the buzzfeed article is that such incidents are frequently derailed by joe average citizen types. The rhetorical question posed in the article title, "Can law-abiding citizens with guns combat mass shootings?", clearly suggests that arming "law-abiding citizens" would prevent such incidents. Yet, of their nine examples four involve police officers who happened to be off duty, in one case actually working as a security guard, and one more involved a retired police officer. As these people are trained to deal with situations of this nature, I question how legitimate it is to compare them to concealed-carry licensees in general. In Georgia, for example, one needs only to pass a background check to get a carry permit; no demonstration of any type of training, proficiency, or even familiarity with relevant law is required. How are we supposed to compare such people with trained law enforcement officers? I'm sure some of them do at least go to the range from time to time, but how many train regularly on how to take down an active shooter in a public place with lots of people around?

As some have commented here in SC before, carrying means you can at least try to defend yourself if you are given no other choice. No dispute from me on that point. But, simply carrying does not prepare average citizens to put themselves in harms way to intentionally confront an active shooter, especially in a situation where you are likely to hit bystanders.

Don

One example is all it takes to disprove the article. As to your second point, how many concealed carry users are ex-armed forces, trained to shoot in combat situations? There are a lot more civilians that can have an impact than just off-duty cops. And an off-duty cop is still a civilian.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[kelpdiver 2]

GeorgiaDon

I don't think those reports are inconsistent. In the buzzfeed report, the incidents were stopped before the death toll reached the level of a mass killing, so they would not have been considered in the motherjones report.

Which starts to border on tautology. If armed citizens are present to stop a mass shooting, it doesn't qualify as a mass shooting. If they're not present, nothing stops the shooter until the police arrive or he's out of ammo/victims.

I recall that a number of school shootings were in fact stopped by civilians, though tended to be underreported. Those didn't make the 4+ or 5+ standard either.

[ryoder 1,590]

kelpdiver

Which starts to border on tautology. If armed citizens are present to stop a mass shooting, it doesn't qualify as a mass shooting. If they're not present, nothing stops the shooter until the police arrive or he's out of ammo/victims.

Exactly what I was thinking!

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

Which starts to border on tautology.

Sure. Which was my point.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Tink1717 2]

NO winners here. I can't see an upside to gunfights in the streets, schools and public places. Nor is there any solution that either the NRA or the SCOTUS will accept. It seems to me that we're just going to have to accept mass killings as a way of life here.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[kelpdiver 2]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

Which starts to border on tautology.

Sure. Which was my point.

Don

was it? seemed to be deflection - half of the time it was cops, there's a differences between defensive posture and stopping the situation, and counting 3 would mean many more incidents in the denominator.

OTOH, MotherJones definitely thinks it knows best.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

kelpdiver

***

Quote

Which starts to border on tautology.

Sure. Which was my point.

Don

was it? seemed to be deflection - half of the time it was cops, there's a differences between defensive posture and stopping the situation, and counting 3 would mean many more incidents in the denominator.

OTOH, MotherJones definitely thinks it knows best.

In the first paragraph I said:
"In the buzzfeed report, the incidents were stopped before the death toll reached the level of a mass killing, so they would not have been considered in the motherjones report."

In the second paragraph I raised the issue of the off-duty cops vs "average citizen". Not deflection, a legitimate question. Does a cop forget their training when off duty, or when working security? Do average citizens somehow acquire the knowledge of how to deal with such a situation simply by receiving a concealed carry permit in the mail, without ever having to spend a single minute training, ever having to demonstrate any proficiency with any type of firearm, and without having to demonstrate any understanding of relevant law?

One theme per paragraph. I'm sure a lawyer will be familiar with such a concept. Are we not allowed to make more than one point per post?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[skypuppy 1]

GeorgiaDon

******

Quote

Which starts to border on tautology.

Sure. Which was my point.

Don

was it? seemed to be deflection - half of the time it was cops, there's a differences between defensive posture and stopping the situation, and counting 3 would mean many more incidents in the denominator.

OTOH, MotherJones definitely thinks it knows best.

In the first paragraph I said:
"In the buzzfeed report, the incidents were stopped before the death toll reached the level of a mass killing, so they would not have been considered in the motherjones report."

In the second paragraph I raised the issue of the off-duty cops vs "average citizen". Not deflection, a legitimate question. Does a cop forget their training when off duty, or when working security? Do average citizens somehow acquire the knowledge of how to deal with such a situation simply by receiving a concealed carry permit in the mail, without ever having to spend a single minute training, ever having to demonstrate any proficiency with any type of firearm, and without having to demonstrate any understanding of relevant law?

One theme per paragraph. I'm sure a lawyer will be familiar with such a concept. Are we not allowed to make more than one point per post?

Don

you haven't proven the point that the 'average' citizen who receives a concealed carry permit has no training. Just because in some cases it doesn't need to be proven to get the permit, doesn't mean that the 'average' person who applied for it didn't have training, either formal (as in armed forces, hunting courses, nra courses, etc.) or informal (as in from family members or friends who are knowledgeable about guns).

At the moment that's just a theory that you seem to keep spouting. And many of the incidents we do read about, involve law enforcement officers who mishandled or improperly stored their firearms -- these presumably are the highly-trained professionals you agree should be allowed to keep their guns...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[D22369 0]

Quote

Do average citizens somehow acquire the knowledge of how to deal with such a situation simply by receiving a concealed carry permit in the mail, without ever having to spend a single minute training, ever having to demonstrate any proficiency with any type of firearm, and without having to demonstrate any understanding of relevant law?

The average citizen with half a working brain researches the law and understands when they can and cant use a gun.

unfortunately there are those who don't try to know the law.
there are also those that don't seem to understand that shooting a box of ammo 10 years ago doesn't qualify as being proficient with that firearm.

some people seem to view carrying a firearm concealed as a substitution for common sense...

I am 48 years old, ex marine, competitive shooter for over 20 years - I have been in two shoot/don't shoot situations in my life - both times my gun stayed holstered as the situations did not meet the criteria for justified shooting

Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[tkhayes 348]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/11/guns-child-deaths-more-than-cancer/2073259/

And pretty much every year, far more are shot and killed unintentionally that would have EVER been killed in any mass shooting.

You are trading poison for poison.

[rhaig 0]

accidental shootings aren't mass shootings. On one side of the equation you limit based on the mass shooting category, on the other, you don't. Not a valid comparison.



How about a comparison between general defensive gun uses stopping murder and firearms murders?

The CDC says “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

So in the context of 2012 UCR, the right to use firearms for self defense prevented between 6100 and 36000 murders, between 34000 and 208000 rapes, between 145000 and 875000 robberies and between 313000 and 1.8M aggravated assaults. This in the context of about 8800 firearms murders in the US in 2012.

So even if you ignore the survey that said 3M defensive gun uses, and go with the 500K to 1.2M numbers, that's still a median of 850000 DGU across surveys, leading to an estimated 10,375 murders prevented by defensive firearms uses.

--
Rob

[kallend 2,027]

rhaig

accidental shootings aren't mass shootings. On one side of the equation you limit based on the mass shooting category, on the other, you don't. Not a valid comparison.



How about a comparison between general defensive gun uses stopping murder and firearms murders?

The CDC says “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

So in the context of 2012 UCR, the right to use firearms for self defense prevented between 6100 and 36000 murders, between 34000 and 208000 rapes, between 145000 and 875000 robberies and between 313000 and 1.8M aggravated assaults. This in the context of about 8800 firearms murders in the US in 2012.

So even if you ignore the survey that said 3M defensive gun uses, and go with the 500K to 1.2M numbers, that's still a median of 850000 DGU across surveys, leading to an estimated 10,375 murders prevented by defensive firearms uses.

Selective quoting (aka cherry picking) there, chief.

The report also states:

Quote

“the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”

and

Quote

Estimates of gun use for self-defense vary widely, in part due to definitional differences for self-defensive gun use, different data sources, and questions about accuracy of data, particularly when self-reported. The NCVS has estimated 60,000 to 120,000 defensive uses of guns per year. Based on data from l992 and l994, the NCVS found 116,000 incidents (McDowall et al., 1998). Another body of research estimated annual gun use for self-defense to be much higher, up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent (Kleck and Gertz, 1995). Some studies on the association between self-defensive gun use and injury or loss to the victim have found less loss and injury when a firearm is used (Kleck, 2001b).

And Kleck served on the committee, so he was somewhat self-serving in quoting his own data, whcih has been shown to have had serious methodological problems. Harvard Injury Control Research Center Director David Hemenway has labeled Kleck's result "an enormous overestimate" and pointed out that the results require one to believe, for instance, that "burglary victims use their guns in self-defense more than 100% of the time."

National Crime Victimization survey produced by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics suggests that there are roughly 100,000 instances of defensive gun use per year.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rhaig 0]

which is one reason I discoutned the 3M number. Also (speaking of selective quoting) the study stated that the some studies reported DGU's as low as 100,000 but those numbers seemed suspect. (who's cherry picking now?)

The Kleck numbers are the high end ones. Discard those. Fine... I did. Look at other DGU numbers (the 500K to 1.2M I mentioned).

Next time you want to accuse me of cherry picking, look at the part of the post that you quoted that discards the data you're attacking. Then read the part of the CDC study that says the 100K DGU numbers are low because of the way the questions were asked.

--
Rob

[kallend 2,027]

rhaig

which is one reason I discoutned the 3M number. Also (speaking of selective quoting) the study stated that the some studies reported DGU's as low as 100,000 but those numbers seemed suspect. (who's cherry picking now?)

The Kleck numbers are the high end ones. Discard those. Fine... I did. Look at other DGU numbers (the 500K to 1.2M I mentioned).

Next time you want to accuse me of cherry picking, look at the part of the post that you quoted that discards the data you're attacking. Then read the part of the CDC study that says the 100K DGU numbers are low because of the way the questions were asked.

Everyone discards the 3M number except extreme gun-nuts. As previously reported, the methodology is extremely suspect.

Discarding clearly BAD data would bring your median down.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

500K to 1.2M

where in there do you see 3M? No, really. Where?

Either you're not actually reading anything I'm posting, you're reading it, but not retaining ANY of it, or you're trolling (again).

There is a reason many people here ignore you. I once thought you were (as a man of science) worth having a rational discussion with. But now I see I am wrong.

--
Rob

[kelpdiver 2]

rhaig

which is one reason I discoutned the 3M number. Also (speaking of selective quoting) the study stated that the some studies reported DGU's as low as 100,000 but those numbers seemed suspect. (who's cherry picking now?)

The 100k figure would (nearly certainly) be the one based on actual reported incidents to authorities. We know that this is a substantial undercount - people don't report all crime, people who are in places where guns (previously) had been illegal certainly won't report, nor will people who aren't supposed to have guns.

(interesting ethical question - when a excon uses a gun for a case of legitimate self defense, should it be a crime?)

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

NO winners here. I can't see an upside to gunfights in the streets, schools and public places

The old tired "blood in the streets" claim.... Never mind that it never happens.