Whelp, a criminal asshole went on a rampage again and the bodies aren’t even cold before certain elements are screaming for gun control–when they aren’t blaming the current president for the event.
Yes, that’s right. The president who moved our embassy to Jerusalem, who’s son-in-law is Jewish, whose daughter has accepted Judaism, who has actually deported a wanted Nazi war criminal to be tried for his crimes is somehow responsible for a madman shooting up a Synagogue.
Let me be clear about this. The person responsible is the shooter, pure and simple. May he freeze in the coldest corner of Nifelhel when his time comes. (He surrendered, so the police took him alive.)
Still, once again the Left is looking to make political points out of this (and scream at folk like, well, me–if they notice; I have no illusions about how much reach I have–to not “politicize” the tragedy when I dare to respond).
Once again a mass shooting happens at a gun-free venue. He is able to keep shooting until armed response actually shows up.
Folks, that’s a hint.
And, it would seem, FBI data would appear to bear that out. The FBI has published three reports on “active shooter events” (your basic spree killer). One covers 2000-2013, one 2014-15, and the most recet from 2016-17.
The results have been compiled at concealedcarry.com. Yes, it’s a biased source if you want to challenge that, but the data comes from the FBI’a reports and is available to anyone who wants to check it.
The FBI reports excluded several things:
- A firearm must be used by the attacker. This then means they have not included incidents like the armed citizen who saved a woman outside the GM building in Detroit from a stabber or the man who was stopped by a CCWer in a Smiths Grocery store in Salt Lake City when he was stabbing shoppers at random.
- Domestic incidents are not included. The FBI feels that an Active Shooter event has to be one in which the attacker is endangering strangers not only their own family members.
- Gang-related violence is excluded also.
- For the FBI to define an incident as an Active Shooter incident both law enforcement personnel and citizens have to have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses to the situation.
This basically left spree killers using guns, what most people think of when they hear the term “mass shooting”.
From this data we learned several things. The first I want to bring up is that it’s relatively rare for an armed citizen to be present at the event. This is no surprise since most of them occur at places where private citizens are not permitted to be armed for the defense of themselves or others. (There’s never been a mass shooting at a gun range.) Specifically, out of 282 events from 2000 through 2017 only in 33 was an armed citizen present and available.
Of those where one or more armed citizens were present, in 75% of them (25 of the 33 incidents) the armed citizen totally stopped the attack. In an additional 20% (6 incidents) the armed citizens were able to reduce the loss of life, generally by complicating the attacker’s problem, forcing him to think about something other than simply killing people. Only in five percent (2 events) did having armed citizens not help.
Let me reiterate: 95 percent of the time, 31 out of 33 incidents, armed citizens were able to help the situation reducing the loss of life.
Armed. Citizens. Save. Lives.
Now, this is the point (if not earlier) where some folk will bring up the idea of a “gunfight” making things worse (than a massacre?) and it’s better to wait for the professionals rather than have people “caught in the crossfire.” Basically, the idea of an armed citizen returning fire is considered a greater threat because they’ll lead to more people being killed.
So the question is, how many people were “killed in the crossfire,” shot by armed citizens at these spree killings. That’s an important number. How many people were killed by the armed citizens at the events where an armed citizen was present. 33 events. How many innocents did those armed citizens kill?
You ready for the answer?
Zero.
95% of the time when armed citizens are present they are able to at least alleviate the problem. In none of those cases have they killed an innocent.
You don’t get a more clear cut case than that.
Gun free zones kill. Allowing citizens to be armed for defense of self and others saves lives.
It really is that simple.
The Writer in Black 
Regarding the “let the professionals handle it” thing, given the generally abysmal accuracy of police, whose officers rarely fire their weapon beyond the bare minimum to meet annual training requirements, I think I’ll take my chances with “crossfire” from armed civilians, thanks. 😛
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think we’ve seen that in the results. 33 incidents where armed citizens were present. zero innocents killed by “stray fire” from the armed citizens. Compared to at least one shooting incident where the only innocents hurt were hurt by police gunfire.
Yeah. I’ll take my chances.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…seems I am 2nd to note the following:
And then there were the Active Shooter incidents where the Authorities shot up a lot of the Scenery *except* the perp(s) [cough* Los Angeles *cough] …
As if. . . their Training was Insufficient, or their nerve was washed away by the Adrenaline…
Seems to be No Substitute for regular training and practice!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Freedom Is Just Another Word….
LikeLike
Semi-automatic weapons should be banned. Nobody needs that type of weapon.
LikeLike
1) It’s a “Bill of Rights” not a “Bill of Needs.”
2) As I discuss elsewhere ( https://thewriterinblack.com/2017/06/21/blast-from-the-past-home-defense-firearms/ ) the very features that get gun grabbers like Swalwell’s panties in a twist are the very features that make them most useful for things like home defense.
3) If “nobody needs” why does just about every police department in the nation issue them.
Particularly since 3a) there are essentially no situations the police face that ordinary folk don’t face first. And the ordinary folk don’t have the luxury of waiting until they’re ready, until backup has arrived, to face the situation. They only have what they have ready to hand.
Finally, 4) Who the hell are you to tell me what I, or anyone else for that matter, need?
LikeLike
The best guns for home defense are 12 guage lump shotguns and revolvers. According to gun experts.
That restriction would fully comply with second amendment.
LikeLike
Saying it doesn’t make it so. Didn’t read the article, did you?
Define what makes “best”. Why is a revolver better than, say, a CZ75B? What makes that 12 gauge pump superior to an AR pattern rifle?
Let’s see how much, or more likely, how little you actually know about the subject.
Citation needed. Biden is not a gun expert. So, who exactly are these “gun experts” and what are their qualifications? Why should you
If 12 gauge pump shotguns and revolvers are the “best” for a person who only has what he or she has ready to hand, then why are they not best for those who have time to prepare, can choose when to come into the situation, and have backup on call?
Hogwash. “Shall not be infringed.”
Infringe: “act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.”
“limit” “encroach on”
Some people (you would appear to be one of them) think it’s okay so long as some sufficiently harmless “arms” are permitted. It’s not. You’re “infringing” when you first start limiting. That’s what “infringe” means. Just like someone “trespasses” from the moment they cross your property line. You don’t have to wait until they’re raiding your ‘fridge.
LikeLike
Calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit. Shotguns are often restricted in capacity (2 rounds for O/U or SxS, 2-3 rounds for hunting pumps, you’ll have to find a “tactical” with a full-length magazine,) revolvers are limited to only six rounds (YOU try reloading when you’re under physical and mental stress, and tell me how it goes. I’d be happy to induce the stress, I do it for people all the time,) and it’s none of your damned business what people decide to use to defend themselves and their homes, unless YOU are taking stray rounds in your living room (or, worse, in your body.)
Considering most “regular folk” who use firearms to defend themselves tend to practice much more than most cops, and thereby develop a useful “muscle memory” to help when the adrenaline overrides fine motor control, I see no reason to restrict them in what they can carry. Considering the shot records of most PDs, I think that /they/ should be limited to revolvers and short shotguns – fewer rounds to go awry and hurt someone…
LikeLike