2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,334
- 52,581
- 2,290
A recent studyYeah it works out really well.Imagine all the friendly fire.The school had over 3,200 students plus staff and 12 buildings on campus....normal, law abiding people were not allowed to carry their legal guns with them, as they can in so many other places.....because it was against the law...had there been armed citizens there, the chances of them keeping the kid away to begin with would have been pretty good...and had they been in the area? Armed citizens have 94% success rate at stopping mass shooters and/or limiting the injuries and death.......
Tasers won't do that....
Friendly Fire Killed Sheriff's Sergeant At Thousand Oaks, Calif., Shooting Scene
Yes.....that is why you need an armed civilian....
Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]
Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.
Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.
In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.
We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.
Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.
If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.
If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general
=====
One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.
As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.
Man Killed by Police at Alabama Mall Was a ‘Good Guy With a Gun,’ Family’s Lawyer Says
Yep...this is why you need armed citizens, they shoot fewer innocent people than police...
As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.
John Donohue, a law professor at Stanford University, was a co-author of a National Bureau of Economic Research study that examined how gun violence coincides with the ability for individuals to carry concealed weapons, known as Right To Carry (RTC) laws. The NBER study discredited the idea of the “good guy with a gun” as a possible solution to gun violence.
Donohue told ABC News that the research “concluded that allowing citizens to carry handguns seems to increase violent crime 13 to 15 percent by the 10th year” of the laws being enacted in the state.
Another takeaway from the NBER report is that the presence of the gun could turn a would-be good guy into an intentional or unintentional bad guy.
Reports cast doubt on 'good guy with a gun' theory in mass shootings
Yes...donohue is a hack......
2014 rebuttal to donahue update of 2005 study.....not by lott, but still a rebuttal
by moody, and marvel
by Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell
The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws: A Critique of the 2014 Version of Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang · Econ Journal Watch : Panel regressions, right-to-carry, shall-issue
Abstract
In 2005 the National Research Council (nrc) analyzed right-to-carry (rtc) laws, which relax the requirements necessary to acquire a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The nrc essentially concluded that the data were not sufficient to determine whether rtc laws increased or decreased crime. However, a recent working paper from Abhay Aneja, John J. Donohue, and Alexandria Zhang re-evaluates the nrc analysis and purports to find evidence that rtc laws increase murder, rape, robbery, and assault.
They make a number of choices that generate those results, but we find those choices are often unjustifiable.
Most importantly, we note that they use only part of the available data, claiming that a regime change renders decades of data unusable—yet they did not test for the existence of a regime change, and our examination here finds little evidence that such a regime change occurred.
Additionally, we note that they compare states that newly adopted laws with states that already had laws, that their standard errors are biased downward, that they exclude highly significant individual state trends, that they run multiple tests without adjusting significance levels, and that they fail to report significance tests on pre- and post-law dummy coefficients.