Red Dot Arms Forum

Interesting on how it states that it is not because schools are gun free zone. It was because they had been students.

My question, how many of those "students" would have went to "their" school if they knew some armed guard was waiting for them. Any/all Stats can be manipulated.

After years of listening to Wayne LaPierre croon away about how "only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," we finally have some real data to test whether this rationale for arming civilians (and selling more guns) is really true.

Good start to this article!

Most of the media coverage of this report will no doubt focus on the FBI's claim that the number of incidents and victims totals of these shootings has of late been going up, with the annual number of incidents averaging 7.5 between 2000 and 2006, and jumping to an annual average of 16.3 between 2007 and 2013.

As more and more people are put on mind altering prescription drugs...

The increase in casualties each year is even more dramatic, with the totals (not including the shooters) going from 247 between 2000 and 2006 up to just under 800 over the following seven years. It should be noted, incidentally, that the FBI defines an "active shooting" as an incident during which "both law enforcement personnel and citizens [my italics] have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses." Which is exactly what Wayne-o claims his gun-toting compatriots are all about.

We are civilians protecting ourselves, not teams of delta rangers springing to action whenever one of these idiots strike. Also, being that they mostly occur in gun free zones, as stated later in this article, how could an armed civilian be expected to help?

Here's how these incidents ended. More than half (56 percent) were terminated by the shooter who either took his or her own life, simply stopped shooting or fled the scene.

-Took their own lives,stopped shooting, or fled when armed opposition arrives. It does not always take the good guys to fire to end an altercation. How many of those victims would be alive if they had the opportunity to protect themselves?

Another 26 percent ended in the traditional Hollywood-like fashion with the shooter and law enforcement personnel exchanging gunfire and in nearly all of those situations the shooter ended up either wounded or dead.

-Pesky good guys with guns

In 13 percent of the shooting situations, the shooter was successfully disarmed and restrained by unarmed civilians,

After how many additional people were injured or killed? Or did the perp run out of ammo?

and in 3 percent of the incidents the shooter was confronted by armed civilians, of whom four were on-duty security guards and one person was just your average "good guy" who happened to be carrying a gun.

The fact that 21 of these shooting situations were terminated by unarmed civilians as opposed to a single incident that ended because a good guy had a gun might come as a big surprise to the NRA, but for those of us who try to engage in the gun debate by issuing statements based on facts, this finding is consistent with other evidence that the pro-gun community chooses to ignore.

21 instances. Twenty one. That is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of times that firearms are used for personal defense.

For example, in 2005 Gary Kleck published a study funded by the Department of Justice which showed that persons who resisted assaults by running away or calling the police had a better chance of escaping injury than if they resisted the assault with a gun.

There are a lot of raped and murdered folks in the world who would disagree with this. It simply defies logic to think that you should remain defenseless and try to run away. Call the police? Yes! Call the good guys with guns who will be there in 5-15 minutes.

The FBI report not only debunks the "good guy stops the bad guy" nonsense, but also gives us some important data to judge the validity of another NRA mantra, namely, whether "bad guys" are drawn to commit shootings in gun-free zones. This bromide was all over the media after the Aurora theater shooting when it was pointed out by John Lott that the Cinemark was chosen by James Homes because it was the only theater showing the movie Batman that had a policy against allowing patrons to carry guns.

Oh boy... here we go

According to the FBI, of the 160 active shootings, 39 or roughly 25 percent took place in educational facilities and the shooters were overwhelmingly students who either attended or had attended the particular school. In most of these cases the connection of the shooter to the school was the motivating issue, not the fact that the schools were gun-free zones. More than two-thirds of all the active shooting incidents between 2000 and 2013 took place in locations which were not readily understood to be gun-free zones.

Does not change the fact that they WERE GUN FREE ZONES. Victims were still unable to lawfully defend themselves because of this. It does not matter why the murderer chose that location, it matters that everyone inside is a sitting duck. They know this.

But why let facts stand in the way of an opinion or, better yet, a good marketing scheme?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FACT is that it is my god given right to defend myself. If you choose to be a victim, you are free to do so. What this article does is take the FBI statistics on active shooting and tries to apply it as a blanket argument for the entire nation. When was the last time you were caught in a western shootout or mass shooting? I'll venture a safe guess that it was NEVER. How about the author compare the likelihood of an active shooting incident to the likelihood of home invasion, armed robbery, rape, car jacking, or any other violent crimes which occur DAILY.

As I said before, most incidents don't even require the victim to fire a shot to end the confrontation.

Sheeple on man.

Piecelesspeace, my question to you is, how would you/do you defend yourself? Do you call the police? (good guys with guns).

We prefer to cut out the middle man and defend ourselves. It is our responsibility to do so. The police are not obligated to come to your rescue (as determined by the SCOTUS).

From my read through, I think your comments are pretty much spot on. It's troublesome knowing many are just reading it and agreeing with what they're seeing at face value, without looking into it and what information is actually being used and what's being said.

This entire article is a giant contradiction.

One of the key points missing is something police and law enforcement have known for years. Visible uniformed ARMED security is a deterrence to crime.

Why is that? Do unarmed guards stop robberies? Do unarmed people stop them? Your chances of being a victim are far greater than if you are armed. What stopped the recent beheading? Was it the police that arrives minutes later? Was it because unarmed good guys confronted the single knife wielder? Or was it because the CFO was carrying and shot the terrorist? How different may have 9/11 been if the pilots had been armed? The simple FACT is that firearms are tools. They can be used by bad guys or governments to control or terminate life. They can be used by criminals to rob the defenseless. Firearms can also be used to resist bad guys and tyrannical governments. Guns are just tools. They are not inherently good or evil. Like all inanimate objects, they don't harm on their own.

What is sad is that there are people who gobble this crap up. People who do not think critically. I love this one - "those of us who try to engage in the gun debate by issuing statements based on facts". Too rich.

Peace, you don't gain much credibility posting from the Huffington post.

These are the people who thought ear plugs were rubber bullets.

First, good guy stopping bad guy primarily refers to individual self defense, not mass shootings. The author, as is custom for HP writers, is clueless about the subject matter.

Second, Dr. John Lott, (Economist, Scientist, and author, former professor at Yale, University of Chicago, et. al.) is coming out with his analysis of the FBI report soon. You should wait for this (as well as read his other reports and books on the subject) if you wish an accurate and scholarly analysis.

Until then, the comic strip known as the Huffington Post will suffice for entertainment.