PSA: Do civilians with guns ever stop mass shootings?

BeoBill · Oct 3, 2015

The Volokh Conspiracy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/

A while back I posted about a few examples, but since then there have been some more, so I thought I’d note them. Naturally, such examples will be rare. Even in states which allow concealed carry, there often aren’t people near a shooting who have a gun on them at the time. Many mass shootings happen in supposedly “gun-free” zones (such as schools, universities or private property posted with a no-guns sign), in which gun carrying isn’t allowed. And there is no central database of such examples, many of which don’t hit the national media, especially if a gunman is stopped before he shoots many victims. Moreover, at least some examples are ambiguous, because it might be unclear — as you’ll see below — whether the shooter had been planning to kill more people when he was stopped.

Anotherpyr · Oct 3, 2015

Wasn't there a doctor that shot an armed attacker who thought the office was a gun free zone?

DC-W · Oct 3, 2015

Anotherpyr said:
Wasn't there a doctor that shot an armed attacker who thought the office was a gun free zone?

That was in Philadelphia a while ago. The hospital banned firearms possession on property, but the doctor ignored that and kept a pistol in his desk. He managed to stop the attacker that came in from inflicting more carnage than he did.

The hospital didn't punish the good doctor :thumbsup:

JMintzer · Oct 3, 2015

"12 times Mass Shootings were stopped by Good Guys with Guns..."

http://controversialtimes.com/issue...hootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

Mark75H · Oct 3, 2015

Exactly, when they are stopped, they aren't mass shootings, duh

fidelity · Oct 3, 2015

And let's not confine ourselves by a gun control lobbyist's frame (not Volokh, of course ... but those that have spun the news media). In most instances, mass killers have been stopped from further killing by good guys with guns. Very often, they have worn law enforcement uniforms and done this in the line of duty. Thus it's indisputable that a good guy/woman with a gun can stop the additional killing. If there were more concealed carriers, there would be greater opportunity to stop mass shootings sooner. Yes, a single concealed carrier without law enforcement training could get killed more easily - but they immediately change the dynamics of the attempted mass killing - putting the killer in immediate risk and preventing the killer from focusing entirely on the unarmed.

press1280 · Oct 3, 2015

DC-W said:
That was in Philadelphia a while ago. The hospital banned firearms possession on property, but the doctor ignored that and kept a pistol in his desk. He managed to stop the attacker that came in from inflicting more carnage than he did.

The hospital didn't punish the good doctor

This made me think of another dynamic in play here. At schools and universities, even if legally there's no law against CCW there, almost everyone there (students, teachers, others employed by the school) have something to lose if caught (fired or expelled). So while it's certainly possible some will still be carrying, most people will think the odds are better that they get caught carrying rather than get caught NOT carrying. I'd venture to say 99% of folks on campus at any time are either students or employees(especially during class time, when these shootings always happen).
Contrast with some other business, or perhaps hospital or church, where people not employed by the business,exc. come in and out all the time, and don't have anything to worry about if they're discovered carrying, other than being asked to leave. Makes a much less target rich environment when there's people around who don't have to worry about losing their jobs.

iH8DemLibz · Oct 3, 2015

Gun Free Zones are here to stay. Regrettably. Because people with guns, in their minds, are lower than whale crap. We're not welcome in their world.

And each side is so entrenched right now that no middle ground will ever be reached and BHO knows it.

We are right. They are right. Stalemate!

There is only one way to break a stalemate.

press1280 · Oct 3, 2015

iH8DemLibz said:
Gun Free Zones are here to stay. Regrettably. Because people with guns, in their minds, are lower than whale crap. We're not welcome in their world.

And each side is so entrenched right now that no middle ground will ever be reached and BHO knows it.

We are right. They are right. Stalemate!

There is only one way to break a stalemate.

Gun free zones should be limited to places that have metal detectors and armed guards. If the place is supposed to be sensitive, then prove it. Private establishments can still make their own rules.

Mr H · Oct 3, 2015

Do civilians with guns ever stop mass shootings?

Bottom line, IMO...

It should happen a lot more... then maybe they'll happen a lot less.

Boxcab · Oct 5, 2015

press1280 said:
Gun free zones should be limited to places that have metal detectors and armed guards. If the place is supposed to be sensitive, then prove it. Private establishments can still make their own rules.

The owners of a gun free zone should be held accountable for any deaths that occur there by a gun. If they have not supplied the requisite protection for disarmed individuals, they are liable.

Why have the victims families and survivors of these tragedies not sued the schools, movie theaters, etc.? FG's parents got a nice piece of change from B'more. They tried to go after the gun manufacturers.

I wonder why?

hodgepodge · Oct 5, 2015

Posted on a lib 'acquiantance's' Facebook page. Sad.

But I need the one line comeback. Maybe that one kid would think twice if everyone had rocks.

Raineman · Oct 5, 2015

Boxcab said:
The owners of a gun free zone should be held accountable for any deaths that occur there by a gun. If they have not supplied the requisite protection for disarmed individuals, they are liable.

This ^^^...X 1,000,000

krucam · Oct 5, 2015

We should collect these stories. Having them scattered about is great, but it would be good to set up a site similar to the anti's, ie Shooting Tracker.

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Main_Page

navycraig · Oct 5, 2015

hodgepodge said:
Posted on a lib 'acquiantance's' Facebook page. Sad.

But I need the one line comeback. Maybe that one kid would think twice if everyone had rocks.

View attachment 160853

My reply would be that if kid #1 knew or thought that kids 2-246 all had rocks, kid #1 would have never risked throwing his.

krucam · Oct 5, 2015

navycraig said:
My reply would be that if The Bad kid knew or thought that The Goodkids all had rocks, The Bad kid would have never risked throwing his.

Fixed for more clarity.

Calguns had another good one, I'm paraphrasing. If one in every 20 ducks could shoot back, nobody would go hunting.

Brooklyn · Oct 10, 2015

iH8DemLibz said:
Gun Free Zones are here to stay. Regrettably. Because people with guns, in their minds, are lower than whale crap. We're not welcome in their world.

And each side is so entrenched right now that no middle ground will ever be reached and BHO knows it.

We are right. They are right. Stalemate!

There is only one way to break a stalemate.

Hardly not nationwide.

Personsally I think GFZ are magnets for nut Jobs..and also liberals..but maybe I repeat myself.

In any case odds of a nut job offing a liberal are significantly higher than a nut job offing a moderate or conservative.. So frankly I am optimist long term.

Here's a few

I keep forgetting where they should go...

Arcamm · Oct 10, 2015

Boxcab said:
The owners of a gun free zone should be held accountable for any deaths that occur there by a gun. If they have not supplied the requisite protection for disarmed individuals, they are liable.

Why have the victims families and survivors of these tragedies not sued the schools, movie theaters, etc.? FG's parents got a nice piece of change from B'more. They tried to go after the gun manufacturers.

I wonder why?

So we should insist that owners of "gun free zones" carry massacre insurance. :party29:

ohen cepel · Oct 10, 2015

hodgepodge said:
Posted on a lib 'acquiantance's' Facebook page. Sad.

But I need the one line comeback. Maybe that one kid would think twice if everyone had rocks.

View attachment 160853

Leave it to the libs to see everyone as a child, except for their elitist selves of course.

Hard to say how many others were stopped simply by the guy seeing he didn't have the upper hand and then going home to not bother any one else again. It's hard to say. Also, mass murders are rather rare so it's going to be hard to line everything up at the same time for one to be stopped.

Brooklyn · Oct 10, 2015

Arcamm said:
So we should insist that owners of "gun free zones" carry massacre insurance.

Now your thinking..and yes a civil litigation front should be considered.

Damn fine idea.

PSA: Do civilians with guns ever stop mass shootings?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Crank in the Third Row

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Hoarding Douche Waffle

MD Wear&Carry Instructor

piled higher and deeper

Ultimate Member

When All Else Fails.

Ultimate Member

Banana'd

MSI EM

Senior Member (Gold)

On the 3rd box

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

I stand with John Locke.

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

I stand with John Locke.

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics